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.