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'.