I agree with Nina Funnell. Women still have a long way to go with equality. The mere sight of girls on stage in these beauty parades is enough to show that women still only have to show their bodies and they will earn million. I cring watching the watching girls answer the questions that are asked. Several years ago feminists tried to stop these beauty contests but the big money won the day. Whilst ever women are prepared to make a career with their bodies women will not have equality. All women are expected to look like these contestants, even though these beauty contestants have spent years preparing their bodies for these shows with little thought of any thing else. Is it any wonder that women in the real workforce have to still fight so hard for equality alongside men.

Nina said:"young girls are still being taught that women have achieved equality, that the fight is over, and that feminism is like fluoride: you don’t need to worry about it because it’s already in the water."

LOL. Women HAVE achieved equality in Australia, except in the minds of a few women who see an advantage for themselves in claiming to be victims of systemic discrimination.

If you are concerned about the plight of women in other places, may I humbly suggest you go there to complain about it, instead of trying to conflate their situation with that of the pampered women of Australia?

Seriously, Nina, you're better than this piece. You're quite able to produce a good polemic that bears a casual inspection, which is as it should be at this stage of your career as a feminist, but this is something a first-year Women's Studies major might turn out after a hard night out with the grrrls.

Mareelorraine:"women still only have to show their bodies and they will earn million"
"Whilst ever women are prepared to make a career with their bodies women will not have equality."

Here's a news flash honey, people of both genders make "millions" showing off their bodies. The fact that you don't have a body as good looking as those hard-working models or athletes or actors doesn't make their career choice invalid. Nor does it do anything to undermine gender equality that some women have great bodies and some don't, since the same thing applies to men.

If Antiseptic thinks that women have achieved gender equality in this country, he/she might like to come with me. I will introduce him to a few thousand women, all in their late sixties, seventies, eighties and even a few in their nineties. They spend their days, months and years caring for their middle aged disabled sons and daughters with seldom any time off and no hope this side of the grave of doing anything else. They do this because there exists no place in the lucky country for their people to go. If these carers were male, it is my belief that we would have fixed this problem a long time ago and taken responsibility for our own disabled citizens. As it is, women's lives are perceived as less valuable than men's and those of the disabled as less valuable still.

About 10 years ago, I edited a SOSE textbook that had a brilliant chapter on the history of the women's movement. Unfortunately, the feedback from teachers who used the book said that this particular chapter received an overwhelming number of complaints from parents angry that their children were being educated to 'hate men'. Sadly, but predictably, the publisher caved in to pressure and the chapter was dropped from the second edition.

Contrary to prevailing beliefs, the history of the women's movement has not simply been 'forgotten'. It has been aggressively expunged from the mainstream narrative by conservative social forces, for whom any acknowledgement of feminism's contribution to history represents a dangerous subversion. Also, the proliferation of anti-feminist mythology over the last 20 years can only continue to thrive on ignorance - which requires that children never formally learn what feminism really stands for.

As a country girl/woman I spent the first 20 years obedient to my father's requests. I spent the next 25 years trying to be obedient to my husband's requests, while demanding equal respect. It didn't work. He divorced me when I was 45 and had reared our 5 children. He left me for a 'tart' that he didn't need to respect, but who was willing to please him.
I have fought for equal rights, like the right of women to drink in bars. Yet, now as a 69 year old gray haired woman, it is the young girls of society, who insult me. Like the receptionist, when I registered to see a doctor and gave my occupation as farmer. She joked, "Will I put you down as farmeress?"
I snapped, "Only if I'm to see the Doctoress?"
Yes, the hard won rights of women are vulnerable - the young women of today should be warned.

The Nina Funnells of the world are fighting a losing battle.

Women will never earn as much as men, and they'll always do more housework on average. Thats what happens when you have children and your career stalls, and you spend more time at home. And of course, the majority of women do choose to have children and this will always be the case because it's natural for them to want kids.

And abortion? This is an issue because people believe that the right to life (life which starts before birth) trumps the parents right to decide to end that life on a whim. Gender equality essentially has nothing to do with it.

It's not just the religions who are forever agitating for access to schools to reprogram young minds is it?

Career or work-centered feminism has its limitations, one being that its ideologues like the author cannot get their heads around the simple fact and reality that many women do not see a career with the materialism and conspicuous consumption that goes with it as the most meaningful, satisfying thing they could do with their lives.

Dr Catherine Hakim, Work-Lifestyle Choices in the 21st Century (OUP, 2001) demonstrated that 'women are not a homogeneous group but rather are choosing three different work/family lifestyles. Only a minority of women (between 10 and 30 per cent) are work-centred, giving priority to employment; a similar proportion are home-centred, with their priorities centred on their children and preferring not to work. This leaves between 40 and 80 per cent in what Hakim calls the "adaptive" group, who structure work around their family responsibilities.'

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/06/1044498913240.html

forgive me but who, ever, said that feminism was only about work? how about violence against women in the home, for example, what has that got to do with your ridiculous statistics, which simply state the obvious? and of course they may be a major revelation to you, but they are simply a big yawn and a complete furphy to anyone with a remote grasp of the issues....i advise talking to some more women, you never know you may actually learn something.

WTF?

I can still remember how confused I was when at the tender age of 17 I heard a speech by a feminist at uni.

I was confused because the goals she was seeking for all women already existed in my world.

Even though my father was the person who earned money and my mother was the person with most of the domestic duties theirs was a relationship of equality.

My spouse, however, was raised in a family where her father called the shots. She describes herself as a feminist. In her female dominated work field it is the females who cause her the most angst and erode equitable work practices. These women describe themselves as feminists.

Fortunately, all of our adult children believe they were raised in a relationship of equality.

While I would definitely agree with those who argue that women have not yet achieved equality in Australia, I actually believe that what Nina considers to be the problem, is actually the solution.

Once we have "a generation of young girls who think that their rights are innate and inalienable", as long as this is matched by a similar view amongst boys, the battle will have been won.

As a comparison, look at the attitudes of young people to homosexuality. For the vast majority of them it is just not an issue. Why would anyone wish to discriminate against someone because of their sexuality? Therefore they don't.

Once we get to the stage where those making the decisions can't see a reason to discriminate against someone because of their gender, that's when we will have equality.

"think that their rights are innate and inalienable"...i hazard that what nina actually means is that these young women have a really low awareness that their rights are easily erroded by right wing cultural idealogues and fundamentalist governments...and just because young people think that homosexuality is OK does not make for equality. gay marriage does not exist..there is a very long way to go yet....

WTF?

In her article Nina Funnell claims, “After all, we can hardly claim that women have achieved equality - in the corporate world or anywhere else - when their bodies are still being policed and their freedom is still being suppressed.”

In her article on 28 February this year she states, “A number of my friends take pole dancing classes. Another two have had boob jobs. And many of my friends enjoy big nights out on the booze. They also swear, smoke and have sex… these women are highly successful, motivated, intelligent individuals. They would take great offence at the suggestion that they have been unthinkingly duped or coerced into their current lifestyles.”

They used to call this “having a dollar each way”.

We as a society, have a long way to go before gender issues are discussed in a mature fashion. Currently, anyone who questions a narrowly defined version of feminism is marginalised and will usually find themselves accused of wanting to return women conditions of the 1950s. In an earlier article entitled 'don't patronise ladies who raunch", Nina was scathing of another feminist named Ariel Levy, who dared to critique the feminist orthodoxy about sex. We should hear from people with a wider diversity of opinions, including, but not limited to differing types of feminists.

Here on OLO, we can have intelligent discussions about a wide variety of issues. Gender related threads are frequently amongst the longest, but many posts are full of vitriol with little attempt to understand either the issues or the opinions of others.

N.B. I acknowledge that there is a systemic problem
My concern here is that the whole issue and argument are based on False premises (ill considered)consequently the current methodology for a solution Creates more problems than it solves.

Consider this, am I equal in opportunity/power to Obama or his (female ) children?
Because of my being a male was I ever equal in power/ opportunity to Ms A'court , Gina Reinhardt ?

Consider the reality, for every woman who hits 'the glass ceiling' of prejudice and self interest. One can therefore deduce that there are many reasons that preclude individuals from equal/fair opportunities. Gender bias is but one. Remove that bias and the other 'unfair' exclusions will still exist precluding women.

I would suggest that 'equality' doesn't exist in reality. It's nothing more than a philosophic notion . Put simply there are a multitude of factors and bias/prejudices that determine an individual's opportunities and power.

The real issue is one of “unfairness and equitable opportunity” all things being similar.

I would then contend that simply defining the issue as a gender one is both myopic reasoning (sloganeering) and ultimately counter productive.

I further argue that by mislabelling it as a gender issue what is actually happening is
Entrenching the victim notion engendering unwarranted prejudice/ resentment the other way.
Making the issue divisive.
Forming a separate exclusionary power structure.
Potentially imposing one one power structure on over another (two wrongs don't make a right) just complicate it.

The practical consequence of is that it create a new class of victim (powerless males and lessor equipped females).

The net result TODAY is that gender biased laws act as a wider counter productive effects. Real abuses of corrective laws to promote the more ruthless or less appropriate individuals. One could include employment opportunities lost, corporate fear to hire females.
The solution....treat the issue for what it is an issue of fairness and inequitable circumstances. Translation such inequities, biases, prejudices are most straight forwardly issues of HUMAN RIGHTS and treated as such

Well said Examinator.

I understand and agree with the points you have made. Our current hierarchal system continues to benefit only the ruthless and cunning.
I (and others) have made the point on numerous occasions that men have more to fear from other men, than they do women.

However, there are still huge divides in the manner in which men and women relate. You only have to read the posts on Nina's other article to know that there is a subset of men who blame women and feminism for pretty much everything. These are no doubt the 'powerless' men to whom you made reference.

No we are not equal; some people have great artistic ability, others mathematical genuis, there are astounding athletes and altruistic people Col would never begin to understand :)

We are all (the powerful, the ordinary, the mundane) entitled to equality of opportunity and the responsibilities that parallel such rights.

Yes, it is a matter of HUMAN RIGHTS and this world, both in developed and underdeveloped countries have a long way to go.

However I am not about to give up giving a female perspective on OLO just because a few men can't deal with it.

Give Britain and Europe another 30 years and Nina will be able to have experience first hand women's rights under Sharia law. Instead of moaning about having to take just a little responsibility now she will look back and see just how well women have faired in the West. Unfortunately for Nina she can not equate the difference between being treated fair and being treated equal. Murdering the unborn is not an equal right it is clearly an equal wrong. Try giving the child the same right as the woman. Nina needs to accept the simple fact that women are designed differently to men. Men can't breastfeed and don't have dramatic mood swings each month. Enjoy the freedom you have now Nina because without populating more you will be looking forward to those cultures who are more than happy to do so. I would suggest woman now have to many rights in that many don't accept responsibility for their actions.

Back to the old subject of equality and fairness. We are not all born equal, nor will we ever have exactly the same opportunities. Being the right person in the right place at the right time often has more influence on success than a lot of things. We are born with different attributes, qualities and skills and it is up to everyone to use those to achieve what they think is best for them. If someone is born with a beautiful body and there is a market for it, why not use it. If someone is born an athlete or with musical talent or an analytical and scientific brain, there is always a market whether male or female.

Let's face it, men and women ARE very different with different hormones, different desires, different attitudes, different physical bodies. If women can take advantage of some of these differences, as men do, good luck to them. They probably make better sex workers, nurses, certainly advertising models, TV presenters and in many cases teachers and they can compete with men as airline pilots, scientists or astronauts. However they were designed by nature to be the carers and baby carriers. This in itself sets them apart and nothing much will change that. As they say, sometimes life is a bitch (and I don't say that as a sexist remark)

E.Sykes,

I agree with you about Nina's meaning and also that homosexuals are not equal yet. The point I am trying to make is that when the new generation is the one in power, they will see no reason to discriminate. Right-wing ideologues will get no traction (not in these areas anyway); business leaders will consider women every bit as capable as men; workplaces will become more female friendly etc. And, with gay marriage, everyone will wonder what all the fuss was about.

The biggest changes in society come about because people change their perceptions of what is normal. For the young generation it is perfectly normal to expect women to be able to achieve everything that men can (which is probably why they can't see the difficulties us oldies sometimes experience).

Another example would be the attitude towards Catholics. It used to be the case that Catholics were seen as the scary face of society and they were discriminated against. Now we can't even begin to imagine that happening.

It is very hard to change the entrenched attitudes of older generations, but once they lose their power, the old discriminations fade away.

The definition what equality is, is so rubbery that it is impossible to measure.

If one only looks at statistical data that shows men earn more than women, it is possible to come to the conclusion that men are paid more than women, but if one breaks down the data, men spend more hours working than women, like for example, men work 50 hours per week, and women 40 hours a week in paid employment.

It is also my understanding some women prefer more flexible working so this influence their working decisions. It is likely this may change in the future.

Another example is with doctors, because female doctors work fewer hours, we need to have more doctors to make up the short fall.

Nina relies on the tactic of fear mongering in her article, whilst history can be interesting, if certian events are ignore in order to support a hypothesis, then history become little more than a propaganda tool.

If we want to look at women, getting the vote, we also need to look at how history treated men as well. This is a holistic approach.

To appraoch this subject in any other way than holistically, is only going to raise another generation of angry women.

A very popular book the Secret, said that if you only look at the negative, then that is all you will see and get. Because any thing that is positive in your life is ignored, because it does not match what your belief system is.

Many early feminist promoted the idea that marriage was a patriarchial construct, to keep women oppressed. Rather than looking at marriage as something positive for both men and women.
http://www.profam.org/pub/fia/fia.2202.htm

A good article. The gender equality debate is too easily hijacked by extremists: man-hating lesbians on one side, and on the other, weak men who use feminism as scapegoat for their own failures [hi, Antiseptic!].

Women are not yet equal and feminism is not redundant. The androgynous ideal, however, is false. For example, women are allowed to place a higher emphasis on personal beauty than men do - it's not necessarily oppression. That's different from a society in which looks and sex are the only currency available to women.

There's a way to go yet before the sexes are equal, but cries of "oppression!" are hyperbolic and easily recognised as such.

And snake, why do you think women make better nurses than men?

Funny joke this one. A white male, a black male, and a white woman are interviewed for a job position. The black male is told that he isn't the right fit for the job and he subsquently claims racism for which he receives a compensation payout. The white woman also is told that she isn't the right fit for the job and she subsequently claims gender discrimination for which she receives a compensation payout. The white male also is told that he isn't the right fit for the job so he... ummm.... yeah, well anyway moving on, the job goes to the black female friend of one of the departmental managers who was always going to get the job, they just interviewed the other people so the process would look fair.

Hi Sancho,

I don't necessarily think that women make better nurses than men, but simply due to the number of women that outnumber men in that profession, the probability exists that women may have a better aptitude and their caring nature more suitable for that sort of work.

An excellent article by Nina that is overdue.
We are producing a generation of women who may well overturn whatever progress was made by the last lot of feminists. Young women live in a "Brat" culture where the pressure to accessorise and be vacuous is irresistible. I pine for the whiff and texture of a hairy pussy that bespoke a woman with the confidence of a bloke! We're breeding a generation of gaudily painted porcelain dolls. Sorry for being vulgar, but lets up the anti! Do we really want another era of patriarchy that this time the women are complicit in?

Squeers

Never fear, that photo of the starkers and very hirsute Germaine Greer is still on the net somewhere. However that is already too much information :(

No wonder so many young women run screaming from the feminists.

Cornflower hits the nail on the head. There's no "one size fits all" for any sector of humanity but here are 2 facts. In Australia women enjoy the same rights in law. Women and men are different in their biological processes.

I always believed feminism was about creating equal rights in law and opportunities outside what once was a very narrow field of educational, occupational and social choices for women.

By the same token I also believe that years of feminism have created a lot more choices for men. We have become much more 'individual' rather than 'gender' focused over the past 3 or 4 decades.

Ultimately what we do with our lives depends on myriad factors, many of which can be far more influential than our sex.

Domestic violence on the other hand is a blight on society not dealt with adequately by our legal system. Men, though occasionally on the receiving end are usually the perpetrators. This is predominately about CONTROL. Look at the animal world and we see many instances of controlling male behaviors. Take away the testicles and this becomes a rarity. Unfortunately some of our brothers have not evolved past this level nor has their socialization helped. What does upset me is that many of these bully boys have to kill or grieviously damage their victims before they face legal consequences. Then plead 'manslaughter' on grounds of provocation and recieve a ridiculously short incarceration. It is high time the judiciary took breaches of AVOs seriously.

Then again human relationships are complex and often incomprehensible. Partners of abusive people often stay in the relationship despite the abuse - and not always for fear of worse treatment if they leave.

All in all there's nought so queer as folks and always will be. Personally I enjoyed reading the Author as she is young and still idealistic - interesting how she (and probably a significant slice of her demographic) views the world of male and female today.

PS - Bet she's glad to be an AUSTRALIAN woman. Afghanistan anyone? Pakistan? No .....?

"think that their rights are innate and inalienable"...i hazard that what nina actually means is that these young women have a really low awareness that their rights are easily erroded by right wing cultural idealogues and fundamentalist governments...and just because young people think that homosexuality is OK does not make for equality. gay marriage does not exist..there is a very long way to go yet...."

E Sykes

Well said, that is what I meant though you captured it much more eloquently.

Runner: Your views seem to be very similar to some of the dribble heard in the RU486 debate about "Muslims over running our country bc we are aborting ourselves out of existence". This is poppy cok (not to mention ridiculously racist.

And for the record there are a lot of women who would take offense at the suggestion that our primary role and function is to be a baby factory- the almighty incubator of the almighty foetus. Some of us take pleasure from other pursuits, and men are just as capable of taking pleasure in child rearing as women are

The facts show that there are a multitude of women who absolutaly
thrive in Australia and achieve whatever dreams they have.

Lack of gender equality is a great excuse for those females who
simply don't have what it takes, but refuse to accept that they
just might be the problem and not the system.

But hey, that is a common human foible and it's not just females
making excuses about failures in their lives.

Nina, I have to challenge one thing that you have said:

"What I didn’t know was that Australian women had only relatively recently achieved the right to serve on a jury."

In NSW at least women received the right to serve on a jury in the same year that property qualifications were abolished for men, that is 1947. Prior to that year many men did not have the right to serve on juries either.

Women did not have the obligation to be listed on the jury role in NSW in 1968 but could be excused by simple notification to the Sheriff's Office.

My source is

http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/lrc.nsf/pages/R42CHP2

There are some, both men and women, who would claim that the obligation to serve on a jury is not a right at all, but something that the state should not have the right to impose. These people forget about obligations going hand in hand with rights: that is the binary to the right to a fair trial is the obligation to perform jury service, to the extent that the number of people who do not wish to do jury service is a threat to our system of justice.

All this shows that all our 'rights' are transitory, not necessarily threatened by the power of government, but can be eroded by the action or inaction of the people whose rights are being protected.

This is not just applicable to young women.

And in the area of justice I will believe that women's rights and men's rights are the same when there is no difference in the rate of conviction and imprisonment of men and women for the same crimes. At the moment women are more likely to get off lightly than men. All you have to do is compare the lesser punishment that women teachers who have sex with their students get in comparison to males who do the same.

Perhaps women should be arguing for the same 'rights' of equal gaol time to equal convictions?

Equality cuts both ways.

Nina Funnell states <I didnt know that Australian women had only relatively recently acheived the right to serve on a jury>

This was more do with practicality than barring women from serving on juries. It is only in relatively recent times that women didn't have full time care of their children. There being no child-care centres. A lot of women still work part time, meaning that they do not wish to place their childrn in the care of others for more time than is necessary.

It is not possible to sit on a jury for three weeks or a month all day long with tired,fidgeting toddlers and hungry screaming babies in tow. I suspect that most women with children do not really want this equality that women's liberation thought they should have and in my experience most of them would prefer not to be called for jury service and try to find reasons to be excused.

Why does women's liberation think it is so liberating to serve on the front lines with men in warzones. Bad enough for children if their fathers are blown to pieces let alone their mothers. Explain to me the advantage in this girls. What were you thinking when you liberated us for this duty.

Don't get me wrong I see great merit in women having their own income because without money of your own in this society you have no power whatsoever. Available childcare is something else that is necessary to allow women the freedom to have some money of their own and so keep their independence and make their own independant choices and it also forces society as a whole to take some responsibilty for the raising of the next generation. However, liberating us to serve in the front lines and be blown to pieces is something that makes me question the intelligence of the womens liberation movement.

Nina, why do you post an article on a site that is intended to promote discussion if you are going to dismiss the arguments of those who disagree with you as 'dribble' and 'poppy cok'? To quote Monty Python, 'This isn't an argument . . . it's just contradiction!' Rather than simply dismissing an argument, it would be helpful to offer some sort of rebuttal.

Similarly, E.Sykes, you dismiss Cornflower's statistics as 'ridiculous' without explaining why. If you wish to present an argument, then you should focus on that argument rather than on insulting your opponents. Cornflower addressed one of the pieces of evidence for inequality - the difference in income. He presented an argument and, as yet, nobody has actually refuted it.

What I would like to know is this: which rights currently available to women are at risk of erosion at the hands of our government?

Finally, Miss Universe Australia's name is Rachael Finch, not Rachel Finch. And in the third paragraph of the article, it's 'every one of us', not 'everyone of us'.

An interesting piece of research has just been published in the media. Research that I think is extremely reflective of societies view and attitude towards men.

Father's Day ranks last when it comes to spending on gifts.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25983740-5005961,00.html

<What I would like to know is this: which rights currently available to women are at risk of erosion at the hands of our government?
Posted by Otokonoko,>

Good question Otokonoko, I believe this is part of the scare tactics used without any justification, to create a culture of fear and resentment.

Maybe it is just paranoia from reading too many feminist texts.

I guess in Ninas world, women talk and men must only listen and do what the women want. Men must not be allowed to express ideas or opinions that conflict with a womans ideas or opinions, otherwise that is inequality.

In regards to womens' rights being eroded, in Tasmania as in other places there are moves to restrict on demand abortions. The Howard years set women back a couple of decades and the Catholic church continues to put up road blocks making it difficult/ discouraging women from accessing sexual health care.

Perhaps a better example other than the jury example is the fact that gender segregation existed in pubs until the 1970's. Really, Australia? Banning women from the main parts of pubs until then? You can't exactly say women have had equality for all that long- if at all.

"
I guess in Ninas world, women talk and men must only listen and do what the women want. Men must not be allowed to express ideas or opinions that conflict with a womans ideas or opinions, otherwise that is inequality."

As for this, this is ludicrous. Point to a single place where I have said women's voices are MORE important than men's, or for that matter a single place where i have argued for men's rights to be supresed.

And finally, if you want to talk fear mongering- check out Runners comments about Aus transforming into a land of Sharia law bc anglo women are aborting ourselves out of existence, and refusing to pony up and spit out nice white little aussie battlers

ninaf:"gender segregation existed "

and it doesn't exist now.

ninaf:"in Tasmania as in other places there are moves to restrict on demand abortions"

Grasping at straws, nina. Given the child support laws, abortion on demand serves the potential father just as much as the potential mother. It's hardly a gender issue: she has to carry it for 9 months or so, but he faces punitive child support obligations for the next 18 years or so, just as she does. Making abortions more difficult to get has the potential to hurt both of them.

ninaf:"check out Runners comments"

Do I have to? Runner is not in a position to influence anyone, but you are striving mightily to achieve that sort of position for yourself. That means that you have a greater responsibility to measure your words than poor old runner does.

Set yourself a high benchmark, don't settle for the third-rate easy path that so many of your contemporaries are trying to make for themselves.

Otokonoko: “which rights currently available to women are at risk of erosion at the hands of our government?”

All of them.

Cazza: “It is very hard to change the entrenched attitudes of older generations, but once they lose their power, the old discriminations fade away.”

Nice idea Cazza, do you have any evidence for this whatsoever as a properly researched and observable phenomenon? Because by now the planet should be heaven by your reckoning, certainly instances of war and poverty would have diminished world-wide eh? Rape and incest figures should be dropping everywhere and hardly any homosexuals or black people should be being beaten to death as we speak.

Seems to me that a generation of young people who have only lived in & known the bigotry now acceptable in mainstream (Howards’) Australia are nowhere near as open to any kind of change as previous generations were. Hugh Mackay’s observations about the search for the perfect bathroom tile would seem to bear me out in this ;-)

A group of undergraduates last year led a formal delegation to me on the basis that having a homosexual tutor in one subject and an indigenous tutor in another meant that the teaching standards were therefore “naturally going to be lower “ than courses with “proper Australian” tutors; that they were being “discriminated against” simply by being in those tutorials - these students were in an Arts Faculty. Thankfully and with a good deal of effort I eventually won the argument but not before having to systematically challenge all their acquired culture – their parents, their secondary schools, their churches – nobody had ever questioned their learned sexist and racist attitudes logically before. And many young undergraduate women were surprised that anyone would ever question their so called “equality”..until they discovered stuff like date rape and needed the help of professional counselling from other women, provided on campus and fought for thru generation after generation of women concerned about health and welfare...then they started to realise that feminism wasn’t all about wage levels ...

Abortion doesn't have anything to do with gender inequality. There are many reasons for this; I pointed one out earlier (which Nina has either missed or ignored) and now antiseptic has pointed out another reason.

This is a major issue for Nina obviously as she's written about it in her article and now mentioned it again, but the fact that it's unrelated to her central contention makes me question the coherence of her overall argument and wonder whether she even understands the battle she's fighting and the issues she's talking about.

*the Catholic church continues to put up road blocks making it difficult/ discouraging women from accessing sexual health care.*

They certainly do, much of it behind the scenes, globally, for the
Catholic Church has one talent and that is clever lobbying. Few
are aware just how good!

But that is a religious issue.

I am male and I have spent an awfull many posts on OLO arguing with
female Catholic lobbyists, who preach the pope's mantra.

ninaf, "gender segregation existed in pubs until the 1970's."

Public bars enabled the dress code to be relaxed so that those who laboured in physical work and finished the day a mess of dried out sweat, dirt, sawdust and grease could have a drink on the way home. Only men did work like that.

Apart from (hopefully) quick service of beer there were no concessions for the comfort or entertainment of drinkers, the only seating being a few stools, the toilets were primitive and drinkers emptied their own ashtrays into a smoldering, stinking tray at the base of the bar. They drank from behind bat-wing doors and screens because they and drinking were judged by more genteel society to be unsightly

It was all about profit for the pubs, not for the exclusive, segregated comfort of men as you might have it. That was no example of gender inequality, in fact the working men who were required to drink in the public bar ought to have screamed discrimination. However as uneducated, honest and usually poorly-paid workers they never developed the same sense of entitlement as you (and they abhor dishonest spin).

The Regatta Hotel in 1965 where Merle Thornton and another chained themselves to the bar was hardly a working man's pub. It was and remains the watering hole of students from the very large University of Queensland. Had there been metrosexuals around at the time they would have felt very comfortable in the public bar of the 'Regat'.

But was it a victory for feminism? As preparation for the eventual arrival of ladettes most definitely! After all, it is infinitely better that ladettes grub up public bars with their language and behaviour rather than invade lounge bars and clubs. Fortunately the dress standards (remember them) and the few extra cents for drinks (applied back in the 60's too) still see to that. Segregation rules OK.

Wow cool responses,

I like....

'this particular chapter received an overwhelming number of complaints from parents angry that their children were being educated to 'hate men'.'

Cool! Go parents! I'm sure they had very good reason. Did it make you think about what was written and how it was written? Didn't think so.

'And abortion? This is an issue because people believe that the right to life (life which starts before birth) trumps the parents right to decide to end that life on a whim. Gender equality essentially has nothing to do with it.'

So true. I hate the stupid assertion that it's a gender issue.

'Only a minority of women (between 10 and 30 per cent) are work-centred, giving priority to employment; a similar proportion are home-centred'

Sounds well plausible to me. Now where's CJ?

'Even though my father was the person who earned money and my mother was the person with most of the domestic duties theirs was a relationship of equality.'

I hear ya!

'Once we have "a generation of young girls who think that their rights are innate and inalienable", as long as this is matched by a similar view amongst boys, the battle will have been won.'
Yep.

'it's not necessarily oppression. That's different from a society in which looks and sex are the only currency available to women.
There's a way to go yet before the sexes are equal, but cries of "oppression!" are hyperbolic and easily recognised as such.'

Take a bow Sancho!

'pine for the whiff and texture of a hairy pussy'
Wow, don't we all!

'2 facts. In Australia women enjoy the same rights in law. Women and men are different in their biological processes. '
Ding! What more needs to be said.

I hate...

'not about to give up giving a female perspective on OLO just because a few men can't deal with it.'

Fraccy never dissappoints. You off your meds again?

'If these carers were male, it is my belief that we would have fixed this problem a long time ago and taken responsibility for our own disabled citizens.'

Yeah and if all the world leaders were women there would be no war. What are you 12 years old.

'the majority of women do choose to have children and this will always be the case because it's natural for them to want kids. '

What rot. Men love kids too. Why cant we find a solution rather than accepting women will be disadvantaged financially if not part of a couple.

'the almighty incubator of the almighty foetus'
Ha. That's well worn when arguing for special privileges for women, but somehow not valid otherwise nina? Cant have it both ways.

'However, liberating us to serve in the front lines and be blown to pieces is something that makes me question the intelligence of the womens liberation movement.'

Silly yes, but honourable for it's consistency. I don't hear feminists fighting too hard for that one really, if I did I'd give them more credit.

'Father's Day ranks last when it comes to spending on gifts.'
Waah! Get a life. Maybe it's cause they cant find half of them.

'(Howards’) Australia'
Bwaa ha ha ha! Get over yourself, he's gone. Nobody to hate now? The guy was a dick, but how did he single-handedly shape the attitudes of the whole populace? Get... your... hand.... off... .it.

'then they started to realise that feminism wasn’t all about wage levels ...'
It's actually all about housework! Seriously. The feminist movement would never have happened if a few older generation guys cleaned up after themselves a bit more. Women would have been happy in their carer role, and society would have had kids brought up by mothers rather than child care centres. Women were only lured to the working world as they didn't feel respected.

ninaf

You obviously have not been written your drivel in Holland of late. I also doubt whether you have the common sense to add up the number of Muslims being born in British and European countries compared to home grown Europeans. You also obviously don't realise that Islam is not a race (to call me racist shows your ignorance). You have obviously shown you are more interested in your own feminist version of permissiveness with little to no responsibility than you are the good of society..

BY the NInaf, there are many decent women have careers, live a moral life and mother children. Thankfully they don't all think like you.

Sancho

‘There's a way to go yet before the sexes are equal, but cries of "oppression!" are hyperbolic and easily recognised as such.’

Groan! This is a sad reminder of what Nina’s article was on about – that the current generation needs some gender perspective on what went before.

The word ‘oppression’ was used frequently in feminist rhetoric in the 60s and 70s. However, it appeared a lot less in the 80s, and almost never in the 90s or 00s – and with good reason.

Oppression commonly refers to the discrimination built into political and legislative systems via laws and Acts. Until the 80s, feminist use of the term ‘oppression’ was accurate and justifiable because there was a lot of legislation that overtly discriminated against women – unequal pay, draconian rape laws, employment bans on married women, ineligibility of women to obtain finance, the criminal status of abortion, the absence of an official female generic title, the overt exclusion of women from social venues and educational institutions etc.

Although women still face a lot of social and cultural inequality, virtually all the legal and political discriminations against women have been lifted, so the term ‘oppression’ is no longer a part of feminist rhetoric. It’s anti-feminist ventriloquists that keep putting this word in feminist mouths.

Houllebecq

I’m so glad that you’re so sure of something you never even read. For the record, the chapter on the women’s movement that I referred to also contained an analysis of the traditional and changing roles of men and boys, and an analysis of the anti-feminist backlash. Oh, yes, … and it was written by a man.

What I should also have included in my previous post was that many parents openly praised and supported the chapter, as did the students. However, as is often the case, it’s the conservative cogs that squeak the loudest

Having grown up on a diet of Germaine Greer, Naomi Wolf, Anne Summers, Susan Mitchell I find I am in a strange world with my daughters and their friends who have been fed on a very different diet.

I know I go on a bit about sexualisation of children but when you see it pervade every area of your children's domain it can be scary and I think there are many more issues facing us than worrying about gender-equality in the workforce.

I know Nina wasn't focussing on this employment aspect in her article but some posters have developed this point.

There is a lot more choice in the workforce for women now than there was in the 70s and even the 80s. We generally get paid the same for equal work other than at the very highest levels of executive management or the very lowest end of the spectrum where pressures of low income affect both genders.

What do we mean by equality? What are we hoping to achieve? Women cannot be equal until men are equal. When men have the choice of staying at home or going to work as well we might be nearing equality. Currently we don't live in an economy that facilitates the sharing of the work burden.

It is just a fact that the woman has the womb and breasts for feeding. It is not a negative and the possession of one doesn't mean that is 'all' we are. Just as a man is not just a sperm bank.

While there are some areas of gender inequity remaining in relation to sexuality, despite the women's movement, I think there are many more important issues to face which have far greater impact and affect us all as humans first.

In this respect, the influence of feminism and humanism has been overridden by the interests of commercialisation and consumerism.

Pelican gets the gold star again for making the most sense. Men are not the oppressors they once were. It's now more a matter of corporate patronage. I have three young daughters (and three sons) including a teenager, and they're smart kids, but they're no match for the market. It is consumer culture now that makes females as vacuous as they were (appear to have been) in the fifties (before my time, happily). In a brilliant coup, the corporate paedophiles have managed to groom their charges with the notion that they "are" empowered--and the poor things strut their wares with such innocent conviction! It really is hard to believe that women did such a turn about face.
I became a widower btw when my then four kids were 1, 3, 5 and 6. And sorry ladies, but it was a breeze looking after them, and studying full-time, compared to the long hours I worked previously.
The sexes are much more equal these days--because gender is trumped by consumerism

SJF: “Although women still face a lot of social and cultural inequality, virtually all the legal and political discriminations against women have been lifted, so the term ‘oppression’ is no longer a part of feminist rhetoric.”

Nina: “After all, we can hardly claim that women have achieved equality - in the corporate world or anywhere else - when their bodies are still being policed and their freedom is still being suppressed.”

I don’t know, but suppression of freedom sounds more than a little oppressive to me. So much for the “anti-feminist ventriloquists … putting this word in feminist mouths”.

Maybe we’re really talking about other countries with which we should obviously be at war as we speak. Can’t imagine anyone in Australia suppressing Nina from showing off her booty in a swimsuit, and neither can I imagine it for the three quarters of Aussie womanhood, that really shouldn’t. Doubt it would feature highly on an obstacle list prepared by Gail Kelly or Julia Gillard.

So what are the feminists doing while the likes of Gail and Julia strut their stuff – fretting over contestant responses to feminist questions at a miss universe beauty pageant.

Pathetic!

Ah cries of "racism" in response to suggestion of "Moslems over-running our country."
Racism, one term that has been overused, abused, misused, and misconstrued - as does Nina in her little outburst. Honey - "Moslem" is used to describe a follower of the Islamic faith or aspects of that religion. "Moslem" is not a race.

Like it or not ONE primary role of both sexes of the human species is to reproduce. It is a primal urge felt by most of us at some stage. Note "most of us". One size does not fit all. Feminism is about choices - and women making their own. If some choose to be breeders and homemakers that's fine. If some choose to be career oriented - that's fine. And every woman in between is OK too, provided she is content with her choices

Equality? Basically a word that means different things to different people.

SJF: “Although women still face a lot of social and cultural inequality,

I strongly believe that even if people like SJF, had everything they wanted, they would still beleive that life was full of inequality for women.

Because looking through the belief filter, of inequality, inequality will only be seen.

Research show that around 30% of mothers engage in what is know as maternal gatekeeping and that they inhibit father involvement with the children,

<most don't even realize their actions may be placing obstacles in the way. They, themselves, may be limiting the amount of their husbands' involvement,">

<Some women discourage their husbands' involvement by redoing tasks, criticizing, creating unbending standards or demeaning their efforts to protect authority in the home>

Any talk about equality needs to include the examination of female behaviour. To only look at and examining male behaviour, distorts the whole thing.

Our society functions because rules and regulations set boundaries on the excesses of human behaviour.

There has been talk about women, drinking in previous male bars, yet right now we have gyms that are female only, very similar to female only areas in radical muslim countries. A gay club recently won the right to exclude men.

so where is the equality in the above actions?

The CEO of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission supporting the legalising of discrimination against white men would take the cake.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_licence_to_despise/

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2008/12/herald-sun-columnist-time-to-get-rid-of.htmlhttp://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2008/12/herald-sun-columnist-time-to-get-rid-of.html

If white men are are numerous, influential and dangerous as believed by feminists, how can the CEO Dr Helen Szoke Equal Opportunity Commission get away with that?

Some patriarchy, they cannot even defend themselves into an organised protest.

pelican,

'Having grown up on a diet of Germaine Greer, Naomi Wolf, Anne Summers, Susan Mitchell I find I am in a strange world'

No doubt! That must have given you indigestion. I think you need a more balanced diet;-)

BTW: I can never get one of you femme fatales to answer about what you think of Germaine's book of naked little boys. Or even just her quote when promoting her book; 'A woman of taste is a pederast — boys rather than men.' :-)

Seeing as you grew up on a diet consisting of a woman who is a self professed pederast, how does it fit in with your distaste at the sexualisation of children?

Houlley
I can't comment as I have not read the book nor seen it. It would not probably be my cup of tea, I prefer men. My reading tastes are eclectic to say the least but I haven't read Germaine for a while. Her biography by Christine Wallace was interesting.

Greer, The Boy:

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/07/09/1057430278896.html

http://www.amazon.com/Germaine-Greer-Beautiful-Boy/dp/0847825868#reader

Cornflower:- Thanks for the interesting web sites, I added a couple of them to my favourites

Paying lip service to gender equality is extremely pertinent when the education standard for boys is examined.
http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=19&Itemid=84

There appears to be a huge level of resistance on the part of authorities about introducing programs for boys, just in case this might just disadvantage girls.

The preachers do not pratice what they preach!

Nina raises a durable thesis but if myth is the topic, as a supporter of equal rights, may I venture my own?

One must factor in democracy itself. Democratic leaps occur constantly. I've zero doubt the day before Obama was elected many said "no black will ever be president... rights can only overcome so much resistance".

However, the emancipation of women was the greatest shot in the arm for the male dominated 'Temperance' movements ability to shape legislative design to suit men, and "godfearing" women.

Consider "Sisters..." duet. A famous feminist anthem. Yet the lyrics themselves peddle a myth. "They used to say behind every great man there had to be a great woman... but in these times of change... it's no longer true... we're comin out of the kitchen..", etc. What is more accurate is "without promoting male values, women would never be recognised... and some women still wish to hold onto that security... gosh girls this doesn't even rhyme!".

Nina's flaw in logic is omitting the religious suppression of womens rights: Theocratic misogyny. The bible formed the basis for Western culture and we kid ourselves to go "retro-secular". Also, we must take care to not mesh autonomous choices with heteronomous assumption. We must also be careful to not be fooled that heteronomy is actually autonomy.

The question is, just what was "a great man"? Pro-feminism, tolerant of other races, sexual orientation and religions? Doubt it. Great Men are a product of their time. Women fought discrimination because other "delicate, ladylike" women ensured the ignorance, bigotry, stupid blinkered morality and quaint notions such as "the church community", god as "He" or "the parish" was what life was for.

It's one thing for Danny Nalliah - and dozens of other "pastors" to claim Victoria burned because god wanted us to suffer following decriminalisation of abortion. It is another thing entirely when female "sporting legends" exploit their profile to push biblical zealotry via support. Or his "visits" from god claiming we must return to medieval ways - backed by Margaret Court and a veritable army of women hating bible loving women.

'Temperance movement' [US Religious Right] thus doubled their ability to force legislation. Consider: The Harrison tax act on opioid medication was drawn up in 1914. It failed. MDs were jailed until 1919 when the Supreme Court in Webb vs USA held up what we now know is an abuse of the international right to health and tacked together a new gig; Prohibition of opioid medication.

Then there was the prohibition of alcohol. Why? The bible warned clearly what decadence and evil must surely follow the "demon drink". Sounds bizarre, until one considers this claim [Sodom/Gomorrah] is the fate of Australia because we allow kids to buy condoms, access clean syringes, take sex ed classes. In Australia this was submitted as "evidence" into an Inquiry into illicit drugs and... Family!! Accepted without question by the Chair - Bronwyn Bishop.

Women are never far away when we add up the abuse of minorities - including other women. Who ensured the exorcisms continued at Mercy Ministries? Women - only women - & Gloria Jeans Coffee shops- who still refuse to reveal why they used your tips to fund this abuse of ill women.

Women make it hard to argue for equal rights, when women themselves insist equality is "sinful" or "unnatural".

Today, one of the single greatest forces behind homophobia, the myth that being gay is a 'curable' disease, lack of a father figure leads to deviance/dysfunctionality... is the great women behind their holier-than-thou hubbies.

Visit Focus on the Family, Fatherhood Foundation, Women who want to be women, Above Rubies, Drug Free Australia, DrugBeat, etc, etc. Women telling big fibs to push more women into line according to their private choice of religion.

Who are primary peddlers of New Age rubbish? Magic auras, energy crystals, anti-vaccination, homeopathy, unworkable diet plans? More so, this "holistic" woo-woo is polluting community health. Suddenly bored women can get a certificate IV in [insert easy money job] and have control over the lives of in need, at risk human beings. We have a problem with mental health AND the culture of "Nurture Knows Best" undermining genuine science.

Gender related threads on OLO always seem to produce a high number of posts. Therefore, I take it that there is broad agreement to the key idea of Nina's article, that there should be more discussion of feminism's role in Australian society. The key omission from Nina's article was exactly what information people should be given.

I'm happy for Nina to have her say, as long as counter-arguments are always presented. The 'do whatever you like and play the victim if that doesn't work out' stream of feminism seems to have completely taken over much of the media, because it is easier to tell your audience what they want to hear. It would be nice to hear from other feminists who have dissenting ideas, such as refusing to play the victim. It would also be nice to hear from the men's movement more often. Much of the media rarely presents the full picture on issues like domestic violence or the pay gap.

Have your say Nina.... just learn to accept the views of others with good grace.

Firesnake

I had a lot of trouble trying to follow your rambling style. However, I assume you are saying that women are often the biggest impediment to women’s equality. If so, then I couldn’t agree more. This fact is only a surprise to those who invest in the false paradigm that feminism is all about – and only about – women versus men.

Cornflower

‘If white men are are numerous, influential and dangerous as believed by feminists…’

It’s an endless source of fascination to a feminist like me to read the weird and wonderful things that anti-feminists insist are believed by feminists.

They remind me of an old comedy sketch called ‘Frontier Psychiatrist’, in which an Austrian-accented psychiatrist of the Wild West keeps asking a cowboy why he hates his horse. The cowboy’s continued insistence that he doesn’t hate his horse is, or course, futile. The psychiatrist simply has his own agenda – which has nothing to do with either cowboys or horses.

Houllebecq

If Germaine Greer’s ‘The Boy’ is just a book about naked little boys, then the world’s art galleries are just buildings full of naked women.

Benk

‘It would be nice to hear from other feminists who have dissenting ideas, such as refusing to play the victim.’

Lovely little piece of paternalistic, good feminist/bad feminist pontificating there. And tell me – oh, Objective One, who gets to define what a ‘dissenting feminist idea’ is?

Well for blokes there is always an option, as this poor bloke
in China finally decided :)

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25912783-5013016,00.html

.

I'm concerned that this thread seems to be dominated by men's men or female fence sitters. Feminism appears to be a spent force, or worse; rather than the sexes retreating to their neutral corners we've reverted to the old power structure--patriarchy propped up by "independents" (female traitors). This is merely apparent, however; men have been castrated of real power (we're not talking about the corporate gods here); the bravado is merely the dying echo of male supremacy. On the women's side, though, it's a crushing defeat that will leave the fairer sex languishing until a political obverse can once again be found (not in neutered men). But that's just playing the game, making the system stronger. The real challenge for emancipation that Women are now faced with is overcoming capitalism, of transcending a system that patronises and demeans for no other reason than the fundamentalism of growth. Rather than seeking equality, women should rise up and overthrow the whole rotten system--and liberate men in the process!
But first they have to break the addiction.....

SJF

Irrelevant as ever, but at least you are consistent in that.

You mentioned horses and here is a free gift for you courtesy of the Navajo Indians:

"The rider, upon discovering his (her) horse is dead, should immediately dismount."

Your half-baked 'take' of Eighties radical feminism sees you continually flogging a dead horse. However much that old victim feminism suits your personality it is time to move on. Many before have tried to give you that hint.

Rather than indulge yourself with yet another undergraduate femrad rant out of the Eighties, what about drafting some comment on the meanings of 'equal', 'discrimination' and 'stereotyping'? You might like to use the example given previously along with the linked articles concerning the proposed positive discrimination against 'white men'. Here it is again for you:

"The CEO of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission supporting the legalising of discrimination against white men would take the cake."

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_licence_to_despise/

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2008/12/herald-sun-columnist-time-to-get-rid-of.htmlhttp://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2008/12/herald-sun-columnist-time-to-get-rid-of.html

SJF

My point is that much of the media only promotes a particular stream of feminism that focusses on choice/independence and self confidence/self esteem. "Dissenting feminists" are those feminists who think outside this particular box.

I believe that this model of feminism was chosen because it is so convenient. Choice means do whatever you like and don't care about the rest of us. Self esteem is boosted by telling others what they want to hear.

In addition, once a line of argument is labelled 'feminist', many people see any deviation from it as an attack on everything that feminism has ever achieved. I would like to see more acceptance that there are different ideas about the issues that feminism deals with.

As for paternalism, positioning women as victims is paternalism. Treating women as if they are unable to take responsibility for their actions is paternalism. Treating women as though they have fragile little egos made of ticky-tacky that might shatter if they hear any message that they dislike is very, very paternalistic.

Benk

‘My point is that much of the media only promotes a particular stream of feminism that focusses on choice/independence and self confidence/self esteem. "Dissenting feminists" are those feminists who think outside this particular box.’

Well, on that particular basis I must be a ‘dissenting feminist’ then, because I couldn’t give a flying fig about choice, independence, self confidence or self esteem. But somehow I doubt if you will agree with that as you seem to have a very narrow definition of what constitutes both feminism and feminist dissent.

There will always be those who believe that any form of critical analysis that focuses on unequal power distribution across genders, classes and races etc is all about victimhood, and will resist all attempts to convince them otherwise.

Cornflower

Perhaps you're the one who should get off that dead horse. I already had a quick scan of those links you put up on the supposed legalised discrimination against white males (Andrew Bolt? Oz Conservative? Yuk!) and found them to be full of the same old victimhood rhetoric that you are so fond of projecting onto feminism.

And BTW, please try to stop responding to any post I write about how feminism has moved on from the 80s by telling me that I need to move on from the feminism of the 80s. Have you ever thought of getting your eyes tested?

SJF

Those links should have made it easier for you to apply your own 'take' of feminism to the definition of 'equal', 'discrimination' and 'stereotyping'.

This would be most illuminating and instructive for 'white' male students who are struggling with their studies and are assured they will face discrimination in recruitment, certainly for government positions federally where it has been that way for decades and now for all employment in Victoria.

Don't you think these young hopefuls are entitled to know how they will be selected for discrimination and why? What would you use as the HR manager of (say) the Equal Opportunity Commission, Victoria to determine who is 'white' and 'advantaged' and as a result the CV should be put to the bottom of the pile or more likely, in the round filing cabinet at the foot of the desk?

Bolt is right, it is a licence to despise.

'Rather than indulge yourself with yet another undergraduate femrad rant out of the Eighties,'

Haha! C'mon that's when she's most entertaining.

SJF,

Are you also 'a woman of taste' like Germaine?

Do you not find any hypocrisy in promoting a book of naked male adolescents as objects of desire for 'pederast' 'women of taste' and campaigning against the exploitation of young women?

Houlley
I admire Germaine on some fronts, she does not tolerate fools and is very honest and straightfoward 'what you see is what you get' - see her dish it out on First Tuesday Bookclub?

In my own opinion, the problem was she approached feminism, as many others did, from the viewpoint of the male position within society and sought to match that. Instead of seeking to raise the profile of "woman" and feminine traits she sought to make women more like men to be able to compete with men. To be fair maybe this was the only way to achieve any sense of equality in seeking those first basic rights like equal pay.

Regarding the book - I am not sure if Germaine was trying to make a particular point but if it was a man writing a book about naked girls there would probably be a Royal Commission. I have not seen the book, so I don't know how old the 'boys' were or if they were consenting adults.

I would prefer feminism had emphasised some of traditional female 'traits' as being positive. What used to annoy me as a stay-at-home mum was the idea that somehow we were betraying feminism and I have even heard some top women make comments like "who would want to choose to stay at home raising kids" or "if you had a brain...".

We give a lot more lip service now to the rights of children but in reality children are very low down in priority. You only have to look at the poor wages of those who we pay to care for our children while we are at work.

Back to the workplace - perhaps purely through exposure there has been some postive female influences which have been absorbed. There are a plethora of management courses which teach people to be more consultative and how to negotiate within the workplace. This might have been the result of more women in management or maybe just a consequence of the continuing maturity of civilisation. I am not sure.

SJF

Now that you have provided us with plenty of examples of what you don't believe in, would you be so kind as to tell the rest of us what you do believe in? What are some examples of this 'unequal power distributions' thingy?

SJF,

'who gets to define what a ‘dissenting feminist idea’ is?'

It's like in any politics, someone who is brave enough not to just reflexively quote the party line on any issue. Like how you quote your gender studies texts as a religious leader quotes the bible.

Dissenting feminist idea’s are actually pretty common in the real world, something you've been pretty sheltered from by your indoctrination to the religious order.

pelican,

I think you're one of robert's 'good' feminists. SJF probably hates you! You're too keen to please the patriarchal oppressor she would say. She goes on about defining 'dissenting feminist idea’s', but she never ever has said anything derogative about any aspect of feminism, which kinda gives you 2 zillion more points for credibility. Reading something negative about feminism by SJF is about as likely as reading something positive about women from antiseptic.

I am merely fishing anyway as you no doubt know.

But, I really like your points. (on most threads actually)

'if it was a man writing a book about naked girls there would probably be a Royal Commission.'
Exactly! And I wager many a feminist gender studies student has used examples of David Hamilton, Henson et al to demonstrate many many things, but these many many things would of course not apply to 'The Boy' by some bizarre justification. TO maintain credibility, the constitutional feminist like SJF, is caught between denouncing something Germaine did (not possible) or denouncing some of their theories about male sexual exploitation of women (also not possible).

'perhaps purely through exposure there has been some postive female influences which have been absorbed.'
Definately! As there have been many advances in the home by men who have argued 'does it really matter if our 2 year old doesn't have matching socks on'.

BTW: I agreed muchly with Germaine's opinion of Steve Irwin, and the timing of her comments. When the world was crying a river of tears for someone they had never met, she had the ovaries to say she thought he was a tosser who tormented animals.

Houellebecq, I don't recall casting the debate into good feminist's vs bad feminist's although that may be semantics (or poor memory). Sometimes it may get that way in practice but amongst the OLO contributers few who stick around are quite that one-dimensional.

As for comments about SJF's posts, try a couple of posts which I recalled http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2968#68581

"The Family Law Acts of the 1970s only really introduced no-fault divorce, while leaving the mother-dominant child custody laws intact. On this basis, I believe the more recent introduction of 50-50 child residency legislation in some countries is a progressive move.

Ironically, feminism, which has brought so many positive benefits to the family is lagging behind in accepting the 50-50 laws – mainly because of the old pressure on women to be primary childcarers. But I do notice feminist attitudes are softening on this."

You could try several post's down in the same thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2968#68583
"Women are no more or less progressive, racist or democratic than men. As for being more sensitive, that’s more a matter of female conditioning to fulfill the caring role – rather than any inbuilt biological imperative.

I know you mean well, but women are no better or worse than men as people. It's just that they are valued less than men in socio-political terms."

R0bert

R0bert(quoting SJF):"women are no better or worse than men as people. It's just that they are valued less than men in socio-political terms.""

And that neatly sums up why I reject SJF's arguments. Women are not "valued less than men" in australia or any other Western country. they are certainly valued for different qualities, but it is only the career feminists who see those things as less valuable than the things men are valued for. The question is then: why?

They are happy to link women with their children when it suits, such as post-divorce and they're happy to push for massive social spending on matters that disproportionately affect women and they even recognise that most women can't have their cake and eat it in terms of career/children without massive social support, preferably provided by the State. However, they then turn around, after dmanding all of this special treatment and say "the State doesn't really value women's contribution".

If we look at the amount of money spent by the State on specifically female issues, from health care to legal assistance it is vastly greater than that spent on men. If we look at the Anti-discrimination Act, it is almost solely intended to advantage women while ignoring men in similar situations. If we look at Parliaments, every one has a Minister for Women who does bugger all other than being female and handing out money to other women to form associations that exclude men.

Our Universities are dominated by women students 3 to 2, our professions are now primarily women, our schools have policies specifically designed to assist girls, but nothing for boys except ritalin. in Victoria it is soon going to be policy to encourage employers to specifically discriminate against male job applicants for no reason other than their gender. Guess what gender the Minister who suggested that was?

All in all, the only thing missing from the feminist parade is a band at the head of it, playing an appropriate dirge for the sackcloth and ashes girls to work themselves into a frenzy over.

Nina Funnell: ”… it’s worth noting that violence against women and children costs this country an estimated $13.6 billion a year. These are sobering facts that all women should be aware of.”

The only sobering facts that I am aware of in relation to official figures on violence against women is the shabby practices used to arrive at such figures. Access Economics in its 2004 study in its calculations of what domestic violence costs the nation (reckoned $8.1billion p.a.), it had to estimate the number of AVOs issued across all jurisdictions since jurisdictions do not disclose meaningful information despite the incessant noise and vast government outlays propping up the domestic violence industry.

Excerpts from report on DV

“In the short time that was available to the jurisdictions to respond to the data request, some indicated that the data may be available, while others indicated that this data was not public, nor able to be released.”

“In a similar manner to the incarceration and police call out estimates, the national figure for the number of AVOs was constructed to give an estimate of 56,262.”

http://www.accesseconomics.com.au/publicationsreports/showreport.php?id=23&searchfor=2004&searchby

No estimate was made of how many of the estimated 56,262 AVO’s were founded on lies and exaggerations.

The fact that there is no honest attempt at proper national data collection on domestic violence, is something that should be very sobering.

Robert,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9364#149646

That's more her usual form.

In a Far, Far, Away Galaxy on the planet Autofemta, the prime directive for a population of Fem+ computers is to REPRODUCE, to make little computers and nurture them to full size and capacity.

A crisis has just emerged. There are more computers now than potential future resources can sustain. As a result, the Fem+ breeder computers are more selective as they know the Computer WAR is nigh and want the best offspring to fight it for THEIR survival. The Male-> computers are in an uproar and quite naturally abuse the Fem+ computers for this new aloofness and self importance.

The governing computers see the problem not as 'computer overcrowding' but as Male-> computer violence against the fair and lovely Fem+ and seek to empower Fem+ computers in the belief that this will allow them to defend themselves, feel better, stop the violence, have fewer baby computers, stop the overcrowding, provide better governance with their fair nature, stimulate compUeconomic growth with their bigger carbon footprint & their voracious buying power and thus provide better living standards for every elite computer on Autofemta.

But alas, in the still of night, despite all the changes, a quickening! The Fem+ machines awaken in a sweat and on their cold blue monitors appears:

"PRIME DIRECTIVE ... MAKE LITTLE COMPUTERS, NURTURE THEM, MAKE THEM STRONGER & FASTER FOR THE WARS THEY MUST FIGHT"

~ TIME WARP 200 years:

What news from Autofemta?

The cockroaches report that they are at last developing a business in acquired tastes for the mounds of dead computers ..... and business is good.

They inform us they have a new name for their planet ...

.... ROACHFEMTA

On & on & on & on

Across the Universe.

Nothins gonna change the Thermodynamics... except KAEP

pelican

'Regarding the book - I am not sure if Germaine was trying to make a particular point but if it was a man writing a book about naked girls there would probably be a Royal Commission.I have not seen the book, so I don't know how old the 'boys' were or if they were consenting adults.'

I strongly advise you to have a look at the book. You're taking Hooley's ignorant comments as truth. It's not at all a book 'about naked boys'. There are hardly any naked boys in it, and the ones that are have a reason for being there. (In fact, I can't recall any total naked shots but it's a while since I read it).

It's a book that discusses the iconographic history of 'the boy' (pubescent to early adulthood) in mainly Western culture. It looks at how film-makers, writers and artists have approached the 'boy' in symbolic, metaphorical and philosophical terms, covering works such as 'Death in Venice', Michelangelo’s 'David', and historical issues such as the use of young boys to play women’s roles before women were allowed to perform on stage.

She also makes the important ‘male gaze’ point that for centuries the culture has celebrated the beauty of the young female form but the celebration of the beauty of the young male form (by both men and women) has been condemned as a perversity. After all, admiration for the male form was prized in Greek, Roman and other pre-Christian cultures, but was discouraged under Christianity and after the Reformation, the female form became the main object of our cultural gaze.

I don’t always agree with Germaine – especially her nasty bigotry to transgendered women – but she has a stunning and powerful intellect. Also, she is first and foremost a literary academic – and ‘The Boy’ is really a literary analysis, not a dirty book for feminists, as Hooley would like us to believe.

R0bert

In my last post I meant to acknowledge your previous supportive comments about not writing me off as one-dimensional. I appreciate them.

pelican

I also meant to say in my last post that, as far as I can recall, none of the visuals in 'The Boy' were posed for the book. They were all drawn from existing cultural sources - i.e. films, paintings etc.

Hooley

If you want to put up mischievous links to my 'usual form', would you also mind tracking down your own link to the post in which you addressed me as 'Ms I want a penis' - or something to that effect. In the interests of balance and all that.

Ta ...

Thanks for providing more information about the book SJF. I will have a look at the book when I get a chance.

You are dead right - it is difficult and unfair to comment in too much detail about something which you have not seen based purely on secondhand information.

I wonder if Houlley has actually read the book?

Ah SJF,

'would you also mind tracking down your own link to the post in which you addressed me as 'Ms I want a penis''

Why would/should I do research to prove your allegations? How Bizarre. I never said anything of the sort. If you're going to twist the context of something at least take the effort to find the quote and pick it out of it's context properly.

pelican,

Of course I haven't read the book. I'm not interested in pictures of young boys. You lot can use all the red herrings you like, the point is about the quote, not the book.

It's instructive that you think, 'well, she must have been making a point'. I'm sure any guy who makes books on the subject of young girls, saying 'a man of taste is a pederast, girls rather than women', wouldn't be given such credit.

Eva Cox would be on the phone to the Telegraph in no time! There'd be articles by Tankard Reist on OLO all about the sexualisation of young women. But when Germaine does it, oh, she must have a good reason.

Houllebecq

‘How Bizarre. I never said anything of the sort.’

This was the actual comment. You were having a bit of fun putting words in my mouth. Admittedly my memory recall was not exact word for word, but the gist is almost identical …

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9136&page=0#146520

‘I'm sure any guy who makes books on the subject of young girls, saying 'a man of taste is a pederast, girls rather than women', wouldn't be given such credit./ Eva Cox would be on the phone to the Telegraph in no time! There'd be articles by Tankard Reist on OLO all about the sexualisation of young women...’

Yes, indeed there would, but your attempt at moral equivalence does not stack up. Here’s why…

Men are overwhelmingly the perpetrators of sexual violence against women, children and men. You can go on and on about how all men are not rapists, but that's an inescapable fact.

In this social context, a woman making a claim that ‘a woman of taste is a pederast, boys rather than men’ is outrageous, indeed offensive, but not a cause for alarm.

However, in that same context, a man simply cannot get away with saying ‘a man of taste is a pederast, girls rather than women’, because it’s too real to be merely outrageous or offensive. Such a statement will rightly be construed as threatening and dangerous.

It’s not fair to men, and I don’t like double standards either. But on some issues, they DO apply.

SJF,

'You were having a bit of fun '
Exactly. And note in the whole post I was having fun at the anti-feminists at the same time. Balance you were saying...

It's a far cry from the vicious spray I highlighted, which contained zero balance.

'not a cause for alarm. '

Yeah it's not alarming when a 40yo woman has sex with her 15yo student. Lucky guy huh? Regardless of how common the desire is acted out, actively promoting the desire for under-age boys is still alarming. There's just no voice of disapproval because society doesn't really see this to be as bad as the reverse situation, and I'm sure crime sentences reflect that.

I've often argued why don't we just be honest about it, and let the age for consent for boys be 13 years old, and 18 years old for girls. I'm sure the only reason it isn't is because what if the 13yo was gay, shock horror. It's not the prevalence of these situations that's the issue, it's the core attitudes to men's and women's sexuality. The older woman with the teen boy is the teacher, the nurturer, giving him something, but the older man with the younger girl is the lecherous abuser, stealing something, even if she chased him relentlessly. Young girls have an 'innocence' to be stolen, young boys are guilty from birth it seems.

'It’s not fair to men, and I don’t like double standards either. But on some issues, they DO apply.'

If an aboriginal is under suspicion for crime, that's offensive. If a Muslim is under suspicion for being a terrorist, that's offensive. If a man is under suspicion for being a rapist, that's sensible and understandable.

On the issue of gender equality, i see many radical feminists demanding equality in numbers of women in government and managerial positions but i never see them demanding that equal numbers of women spend 12 hrs shovelling dross down at the local smelter or any of the many dangerous or filthy jobs many men have to do to support their families. I see them demanding that men do more housework but never demand that women spend more time underneath the car breaking fingernails doing repairs or getting filthy doing an oil change or grease up, or climbing over the roof cleaning out the gutters etc etc etc. I see them demanding more rights and resources for single mothers and the repeal of the 50/50 shared parenting laws brought in by the previous government while at the same time saying most dads are deadbeats and don't do enough for their children and belittling the institution of motherhood and the many decent women who are happy just being mothers and being part of a FAMILY. These people are a cancer in our society and like a cancer will only stop when they have destroyed it. I would strongly suggest that if they genuinely want to do something about the sad plight of women that they go to some of the moslem countries where women are forced to wear burkhas and are stoned to death, sometimes for the slightest infraction, see how they are treated there and then see how well off they really are here. Modern day or third wave feminists are not interested in giving women more rights, they are only interested in stripping men of theirs, little wonder that they are often referred to as feminazis. This post is not aimed at moderate womens rights people who are interested in GENUINE equality.

"At the start of her Sydney University orientation, Sasha Uher checked out the political clubs. She found the Socialist Alternative, the Greens, the Marxists, the anti-war party, the Labor Left, the Labor Right. ''I knew university would be more left-leaning but the extreme nature of some of these clubs really concerned me.''

She wondered why the choice was between soft left, mid-left, hard left, far left, lunar left."

http://www.smh.com.au/national/loneliness-of-the-university-liberal-20090911-fkqc.html

''Unfortunately the only acceptable view within the mainstream of university politics is that of the left,''

Now notice in this article that if someone is a Liberal, they get labelled as "a heartless extremist", "racist", "sexist", "homphobic".

I wonder who that sounds like on OLO?

No prizes for guessing correctly.

JamesH
I'm afraid you'll find that leftism of some degree prevails among any intelligentsia, because conservativism is antithetical to intellectualism, indeed the terms are mutually exclusive. Look at the feeble conservatism mounted on Radio National in the form of Media Watch. The best thing about the show is that it frequently sends itself up, not via its procession of moronic conservatives, but by the occasional leftist in denial, who slips through the screening process.
In my opinion, apart from being oxymoronic, the "conservative intelligentsia" has nothing intelligent to say; they stand for stasis, and yes, too often for the isms you cite above.
On the other hand the Left today, even feminism, is mostly conservative. Most of the views expressed in this thread, indeed most threads on OLO, are broadly right wing in their inability to find radical fault with the system they toady too (even though it stinks to high heaven), proffering instead all sorts of petty, partisan reforms that only make our scripted lives more entrenched--though suffused with a comforting air of liberalism.

Squeers, leftist thinking is a natural for younger people, who are extending their experience of living in a benignly authoritarian environment, the home.

It is only to be expected that they want to have the same sense of certainty and protection offered by the state. Most people tend to moderate that view as they get older and gain confidence in their own capacity to deal with problems and in their turn provide that cossetting environment for their own children.

I do take issue with your claim that an intelligentsia is necessarily leftist, though. A genuinely intellectual thinker will approach problems from first principles as much as possible and such an approach does not automatically yield a leftist outcome. Nor is the only alternative a conservative one; that is an artificial "us and them" divide that lazy thinkers use to avoid having to work too hard reconciling differences.

It's in the reconciliation of those differences that the really interesting problems emerge. Equity within gender, racial, economic and even religious relationships cannot be sensiblyand productively thought about if your view is informed principally by ideology, whether leftist or "conservative". As the old saying goes, "if all you've got is a hammer, everything gets treated like a nail".

My principle reason for contributing to these gender threads is to provide a countervailing view to that provided by the knee-jerk victim feminists. As a group, they have somehow managed to avoid growing into that sense of self-determination that I mentioned earlier, remaining locked in an extended adolescence, where the State plays the role of Mummy. Personally, I reckon that's contemptible and it's the main factor such women are not selected for genuinely difficult jobs, despite all their agitating to be handed them on a platter.

Intelligentsia? Don't make me laugh.

All very reasonable and urbane, Antiseptic, but your formative development thesis is a symptom of the conservative malaise of modern living, rather than a diagnosis of intemperate youth. Rather than evidence of a maturing process, the typical gradual shift from left to right is a capitulation of ideals, literally paid-off by capital and kudos. The true die hard radicals are eccentric, dysfunctional, or living on the streets; a motley marginalia for whom the palliative of material gain, and its concomitant hubris, has been either withheld or scorned. Human’s have an infinite capacity for personal conceit, rationalised as something noble and measured according to the size of one’s petty empire. Men are archetypal empire builders; dictatorial, complacent or merely bombastic according to their holdings; almost all (not all, one hopes) potential tyrants. Capitalism reduces the scale, allows men to puff themselves up in their bourgeois fantasies and rationalise the manifest evils that plainly entail as all to the good!
But something’s amiss, I see; 80% of annual suicides are male. Could it be that they are disillusioned with it all?
I agree with your penultimate paragraph, but my point above was that there is no true left; even the feminist left has been coopted; reduced to contending for their share of bumptiousness and booty, rather than tearing down patriarchy—which is still entrenched, and bolstered by both sexes.
All views are informed by ideology (rather than ethics), and the vastly dominant ideology is conservative, reflecting human nature.
Modern feminism is indeed knee-jerk—and reactionary—but what “I” find contemptible is that they have capitulated according to the formula above.

Squeers:"your formative development thesis is a symptom of the conservative malaise of modern living, rather than a diagnosis of intemperate youth"

The growth of genuine self-confidence out of the brashness of youth is one of the great story arcs that has been with us probably since the earliest days of humanity.

What the modern Western world has brought to it is a longer timeframe and more complexity to the skill set. When one can expect to live only a few years, the maturation process must needs be rapid, while the development of useful skills must be more rapid still.

Squeers:"a capitulation of ideals"

Yet to hold to ideals that are not useful or that have been proven to have flaws is not admirable, but foolish. Furthermore, the nature of maturation in humanity (and all mammals, for that matter)is that one moves from being less able to care for oneself to being more competent. Barring unfortunate incidents of illness or accident, mature humans should be able to take care of their own needs without intervention from others. I'd go so far as to say that's definitional of maturity and that any adult who depends on the largesse of others to prosper is either not fully mature or has been artificially prevented from doing so. That is not to say that collective activities are immature, merely that they should imply a quid pro quo rather than some form of gratuity.

Examples of the first group are those people in families where both partners work, yet they cannot pay all their bills without the additional handouts that the Government provides. Part of being mature is using your resources wisely. Think of the ant and the grasshopper, as told by Aesop.

Examples of the second include nursing mothers and people with some forms of disability or injury/illness.

Squeers:"80% of annual suicides are male. Could it be that they are disillusioned with it all?"

Our culture of handouts makes us all into adolescents. In many social mammals, adolescent males are the lowest of the low, getting what's left after everyone else has got their share.

Antiseptic,
We’re off on a bit of a tangent—but what the hell, there are no fair dinkum feminists in this thread.
“The growth of genuine self-confidence out of the brashness of youth is one of the great story arcs that has been with us probably since the earliest days of humanity.”

I am trying to think outside the square (why is it always “square”, I wonder; why not rhombus, for instance?), Antiseptic, whereas you choose to view this “development” as something natural, time-honoured and formative. Youth is more than mere brashness; it is a naive but at its best honest reaction to the state of affairs encountered. Unfortunately, it is met with the cynicism of experience and gradually worn down. It is conservatism that dismisses the radicalism of youth, that smiles benignly on its innocent extravagance, never stopping to ponder its smugness—distilled from disillusionment.
“What the modern Western world has brought to it [the maturing process] is a longer timeframe and more complexity to the skill set. When one can expect to live only a few years, the maturation process must needs be rapid, while the development of useful skills must be more rapid still”.
This is what we are reduced to? There is nothing to contribute, nothing to redress? The formative years are mere process, a leavening of the dough?
Your utilitarianism demeans humanity’s potential!
We are like “all mammals, for that matter”.
Are we? Do we not have the capacity to think and act outside our biology, or our culture?
What should we do with that gift (however dormant)? Dismiss it as an innocent effusion of youth—a genital stage before we get with the programme—which is what? Quid pro quo?
You are an eloquent fellow, Antiseptic, but your prejudices are in control.
Your last sentence I at least partly agree with (depending on interpretation).
.........I suspect you’re an anthropologist?

squeers:"It is conservatism that dismisses the radicalism of youth, that smiles benignly on its innocent extravagance, never stopping to ponder its smugness—distilled from disillusionment."

Certainly the wisdom of age includes the knowledge of what has failed to work in the past. That is useful data. One may choose to view the process of acquiring it as disillusioning or informative, but the data remains.

Likewise, one may view the confidence of maturity as conservative smugness, but would be foolish to ignore the knowledge that has been learned.

As you said, youth is naive. That is not an admirable condition in a mature adult, since it implies a lack of knowledge and of the wisdom to apply it usefully. In youth, it should, at its best, allow flights of fancy, dreams of possibility that lead on to the realisation of some other possibility. At its worst, it leads to gullibility and an ovine inability to make useful decisions ("he's easily lead"). The maturation process replaces naivete and a reliance on received wisdom with, at best, a genuine ability to analyse situations in the light of experience. At worst, the received wisdom of youth becomes the certitudes of age, leading to stultification and "smugness".

I suspect it is that latter condition you find most offensive, as I do. It is equally as common among old lefties as among old tories.

squeers:"The formative years are mere process, a leavening of the dough?"

Of course. What else can they be? All the enthusiasm in the world can achieve nothing without the knowledge to direct it. The formative years provide the chance to acquire that knowledge.

squeers:"Do we not have the capacity to think and act outside our biology, or our culture? "

Oh, certainly, but you can never be a chimpanzee or a dog, even though you may well learn a great deal about interacting with them.

squeers:"I suspect you’re an anthropologist?"

Wash your mouth out!

Antiseptic.
“Certainly the wisdom of age includes the knowledge of what has failed to work in the past. That is useful data. One may choose to view the process of acquiring it as disillusioning or informative, but the data remains.”
This Panglossian view implies that the “data” is or was inevitable; that the state of affairs we find ourselves in is the best of all possible worlds. My contention is that our utterly scripted lives under capitalism are impoverished of aspirational spirit—within the individual and en masse. The human search for meaning (which includes the option of elaborating one’s own philosophy) has been reduced to just another range of commodities. But ideals of a better world are not given up easily; they’re gradually deferred in favour of the baubles of consumer culture, and compensated for with the hubris I mention above, until they blossom in maturity (generally) as full-blown, blind cynicism (what you call “wisdom”), or disillusionment. And not only does the overwhelming patronage of commodity culture degrade the human spirit, it also spreads corporeally as a virulent cancer (also based on exponential growth) rapacious of the whole biological sphere. None of this is hyperbole, but indisputable fact. Human culture is headed over one or another of several steep cliffs, and its wretched denizens have no choice but to partake of the action of the whole.
This is why so many turn to religion, I believe, because the alternative is despair; they give up on this world in favour of the next.
I’m saying that we have to reaffirm youthful ideals, and imagine a better world—cynicism makes this sound fantastic. But if we can't imagine a better world, if we can't even contradict this one! then we may as well turn to God.

Mankind as a whole has no more intelligence than the lemming.

squeers:"full-blown, blind cynicism (what you call “wisdom”),"

Not at all. My wisdom, such as it is, is not cynical at all, but it does encompass all of the things that I've learnt. As it happens, I've learnt broadly and have a decent layman's knowledge of several fields and much better than that in a couple. This society and culture, for all its faults, has given me a great deal of freedom to move into different fields when I got bored, which I've probably done much too frequently for most people's comfort.

The data are not inevitable, except in the sense that they are inevitably gathered through living life. Each individual's experience is unique, and each one contains lots of data about things that don't work, from sticking your hand in a fire to marrying a feminist...

squeers:"I’m saying that we have to reaffirm youthful ideals, and imagine a better world"

I'm on your side bro'. Sorry, can't help taking the p!ss. I agree with you, really I do. Those ideals don't have to include wilful ignorance, do they? If the particular "better world" model has been tried and found wanting, is it not a good thing to know this and factor it into your thinking?

Getting back to the point, Marxist/Trotskyist feminism, as practised within the Union movement, the public service and Gender Studies Departments at second-rate "institutions of high-enough learning" all around this land, has had its day. There is no need for it any more. Women are in control, both in the home as always, and increasingly in the public sphere. The campaign to "undermine the gender enemy" can end, comr...sista.

Antiseptic: "squeers:"full-blown, blind cynicism (what you call “wisdom”),
"Not at all. My wisdom, such as it is, is not cynical at all, but it does encompass all of the things that I've learnt. As it happens, I've learnt broadly and have a decent layman's knowledge of several fields and much better than that in a couple. This society and culture, for all its faults, has given me a great deal of freedom to move into different fields when I got bored, which I've probably done much too frequently for most people's comfort."
I was careful to use the phrase "blind cynicism" i.e. the possessor has no idea that that is what lies beneath his thin veneer of "hubris"; my posts have made this clear, and your opening salvo does have a hubristic pong to it...
Antiseptic "Those ideals don't have to include wilful ignorance, do they? If the particular "better world" model has been tried and found wanting, is it not a good thing to know this and factor it into your thinking?"
No they don't; but because something has failed to work, it doesn't mean it can't work, and certainly doesn't mean that we should stick with the current disastrous system by default.
In any case, it is not the socialist model that failed, but humanity that failed it, both in the form of individuals like Stalin, and via the ideological and actual stand-off with the West. It comes down to the human heart/psyche/soul being utterly prone to manipulation and corruption.
Your last paragraph is not worthy of a response.

squeers:"the possessor has no idea that that is what lies beneath his thin veneer of "hubris""

Hubris implies a false sense of pride or an unwontedly-inflated sense of self-worth. A justifiable confidence in one's own capacity to make judgements is not hubristic.

On tho other hand, presuming to tell someone else that they "have no idea" about what underlies their own thoughts is clearly the product of a hubristic sense of elitism, untempered by the wisdom gained through experience. See the difference?

squeers:"because something has failed to work, it doesn't mean it can't work, and certainly doesn't mean that we should stick with the current disastrous system by default."

Certainly fresh eyes may see a way around a problem that has been missed by others. That doesn't mean the way is worth following, as it may simply lead to other, more difficult problems.

That's where experience comes in to the picture. Following one's nose willy-nilly is rarely going to lead anywhere except down the garden path.

If a social system is truly disastrous, such as say Nazi Germany, or Khmer rouge Cambodia, it doesn't take fresh eyes to see it and it is likely that almost any path chosen will lead to something better.

If it is not, such as say Australia or modern day Israel, then the wise person will recognise the particular negative aspects and deal with them as they can. Some may even try to influence the way in which others deal with those negative aspects, but it is unlikely that they would be able to convince those others to tread a path that diverges too greatly from the one they already know to be OK, if not perfect. The chances of coming up against some unforeseen problem are too great.

squeers:"Your last paragraph is not worthy of a response"

So much for the idea that we should challenge received wisdom, eh? Radical, man...

This is getting like a game of chess, Antiseptic, but it’s at the endgame stage where to continue is futile.
There is a deal of qualifying implied in both our positions, since we are forced to be pithy. One qualification I have is that not everyone is going be idealistic in youth. Some people are born conservatives; that is, they enjoy their bounty as God-given, or deserved due to the merits of the individual (homeland) concerned. Or perhaps they are utterly credulous and really believe the racist/sexist/supremacist mantra of their “church”. This is either hubris or cynicism, though it amounts to the same thing; it is rationalisation that redounds to the credit of the subject. If it is hubris, then it is some degree of narcissism. If it is cynicism, it’s yet more destructive as a pathologically assertive drive that wilfully ignores its own better judgement: that the privileged position enjoyed is a matter of sheer fortune, that but for the grace of God go I. Confronted with this self-knowledge, the subject will either resort to the kind of rationalisation I mention, with which capacity s/he is congenitally blessed, or s/he will prefer honesty and self-knowledge, which must manifest as outrage: conservative/radical, right/left respectively. The conservative is puffed up with conceit—hubristic or cynical—and the radical (best case scenario) has had done with lies and vainglory, and wants only to pull the whole rotten fabric of lies apart.
Ironically, this is all in the Bible that the conservatives clutch to their breasts!
Australia, or modern Israel “are” disastrous; you are only viewing the situation from your own privileged position of fortunate superiority. Where we find ourselves geopolitically is not due to merit; we got where we are, and maintain it, through rapaciousness, unscrupulousness and blind fortune. This is all rationalised by the conservative right; but the left, if we had a left, is disgusted and rebellious.