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.