So what is feminism now? Particularly now that we are well past the bra-burners (though some of them live on to annoy another day).

How do gen X and Y see feminism as a concept and movement in today's world? Most the big battles have been won. Do they even care, or are the equalities that were hard fought for now just accepted as the norm?

Of course, there are still pockets of issues within our society, particularly when it comes to issues of earnings and childcare (both paid childcare and normal day to day tasks). Most of these though are likely to be overcome on a generational basis - successive generations will become more and more used to expecting to negotiate between couples as to who does what, rather than taking on role expectations as a result of gender. Currently though the pick-up and drop-off and childcare centres and at schools highlights the fact that there are still inequalities. Whether these are a result of role expectations or a result of family negotiations isnt apparent, but from previous discussions on such topics it would appear that gender-based role expectations still play a very large role in who does what within a family group.

Country Gal, at the out of hours care my son attends there is no obvious gender divide on those dropping off and picking up kids (although I only see other parents in particular timeslots).

One area we still need to fix is industrial agreements that have unnecessary gender divides regarding parenting. Other than the bit's associated with carrying the child and recovery post delivery there is no real reason to have different provisions for mothers and fathers. Industrial agreements should be structured to allow families to decide their arrangements rather than having forced by different availibility of parenting related leave and working conditions.

Time to move past feminism towards a movement which seeks to free both men and women from unnecessary gender stereotypes and constraints rather than movements which treat the needs of one as greater then the other.

R0bert

Absolutely agree on the need to move past the focus on improving women's rights and instead focus on equality of opportunity. Do you have any stat's on men using parental leave as opposed to women? Annecdotally I know of only one man taking parental leave - this might be to do with my location out in the country, where traditional roles are probably that bit more ingrained still. What is sad to see is the number of men that look down at him for being a "kept man". This to me is strongly indicative of a lack of respect for child-raising, and underlines some of the reasons for ongoing inequalities. In the situation that I know of, its simply a case of he's good with kids, and his wife earns more, so it makes sense that he be the one stay at home post-breastfeeding era.

My experience at child care centres is the same as Roberts.

Things seem highly variable. Quite often pay differences appear to reflect length of time in which there has been a significant presence in an industry and at the bottom end of professional careers (ie. University training) women appear to be the up and comers. On the face of it there could be an automatic reversal given time.

However there seem to be less visible changes that erode gains made by feminism. Trades are increasingly commanding proportionally higher renumeration compared with professions than they used to. Males seem to dominate trades.

In some areas though women seem to be somewhat disadvantaged. Take pornography. Women seem to be considered a male erotic tool. How many three somes with two males indulging and entertaining a woman do you see in mainstream porn? Or how about some current news where an 18 year old is labelled a boy in an outrageous pack rape and even the prosecutor doesn't think the culprits should be significantly punished. Oops an understandable mistake? Boys will be boys? Give me a break.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=155021

PS. Another comment on the "young boys" as they are described by the journalist. The prosecutor considers that they regretted their behaviour. Yeah regretted it enough to sell the DVD.

Late this afternoon I went to an information session at my son's school and men were outnumbered 6 to 1 by women. A different experience to the out of hours care pick up and drop off.

I'd be surprised if many men have taken leave to be the prime carer at this stage. If the agreements in place at my work and the approach of my union are typical it is much more difficult for men to get the leave to take on that role. A much shorter paid leave period and much less access to unpaid leave, part time work wile the kids are young etc in existing agreements and the conditions the union continues to ask for.

R0bert

mjpb: "In some areas though women seem to be somewhat disadvantaged. Take pornography. Women seem to be considered a male erotic tool. How many three somes with two males indulging and entertaining a woman do you see in mainstream porn? Or how about some current news where an 18 year old is labelled a boy in an outrageous pack rape and even the prosecutor doesn't think the culprits should be significantly punished. Oops an understandable mistake? Boys will be boys? Give me a break."

Until that comment, I had considered mjpb to one of the more reasonable Christians in this forum. However, in linking the neurotic Christian repression of sexuality with contemporary feminism, s/he relegates herself to the unfortunate company of Boazy, runner and all the other purse-lipped and miserable wowsers.

What is this Christian obsession with pornography? mjpb certainly seems more familiar with its genres than one might expect from someone who disapproves of it.

And what on earth does it have to do with CG's intelligent and reasonable initial post?

mpjb:
> "In some areas though women seem to be somewhat disadvantaged."

Premise noted.

> "Take pornography. Women seem to be considered a male erotic tool."

Lets assume you are correct and that women don't enjoy pornography (which they do, of course). What is your point? I don't see a problem with that.

1. Sex is a product, like anything else.
2. Women CHOOSE to sell their bodies.
3. Women ENJOY this employment.
4. Women ENJOY giving men pleasure in this way.
5. Women DO NOT PAY FOR men to do the same.
6. Men are biologically in different ways to women. That means they get a greater sexual reward than women when viewing explicit pornography. It's a fact of nature.

So are women going to start taking some responsibility for their choices or are you going to blame everything on men like a classical feminist? I see women being employed on behalf of their MALE clients.

> "How many three somes with two males indulging and entertaining a woman do you see in mainstream porn?"

How many women or feminists consume pornography and put their money where their mouths are? There isn't a demand and as long as there isn't one, you will have to make do with what millions of other hypocritical Christian women (with their Values) enjoy with their Chrisitan husbands on a weekly basis. Btw, the qualifier of "mainstream" porn there kind of nullifies your point anyway, since it implies there is some available.

> "how about some current news where an 18 year old is labelled .................... Give me a break."

No. You haven't cited any source and are resorting to an emotional plea.If anyone is disadvantaged by gender laws, it's men.

Now about the premise... you have it backwards. Women disadvantage themselves by not exercising their power as a consumer. Perhaps it's because men have a larger biological payoff and hence place a higher monetary value on pornography. Perhaps it's because women have been brainwashed by Classical Feminism. Or it's a combination of both.

Wellll CJ.. I see you are up to form on the personal abuse stakes again :)

[neurotic Christian repression of sexuality with contemporary feminism, s/he relegates herself to the unfortunate company of Boazy, runner and all the other purse-lipped and miserable wowsers.]

"Purse lipped" ? (interesting image) http://www.worldwidewords.org/qa/qa-pur2.htm

"Miserable Wowser" ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wowser
"one whose overdeveloped sense of morality drives them to deprive others of their pleasures."

"Repression of sexuality" ?

Good grief. But ur right.. on the 'repression of sexuality' WHEN it happens to be of a deviant kind. YES..I am an absolute wowser at the thought of humans having sex with animals, males with males.. females with females..parents with their own children.....

If that qualifies me as a 'wowser' and 'repressing sexuality' then I'll take that Label happily. But the other side of the coin is...what does criticizing my stand on these things make.....'you' ?

Country Gal...

FEMINISM IS A DIRTY WORD.... gotcha :) well.. it is.. in the sense that it should never have been neccessary. Sadly, the felt need for it, is just another symptom of a society alienated from its Creator,and stumbling though the moral and social darkness and taking positions on human relationships which relfect not "love" but.. power.
If the men of Emily Pankhursts day, were the self sacrificing, loving, giving, sharing, supporting husbands, fathers and friends that the Bible clearly shows they ought to be.. why would women ever feel repressed, disadvantaged or excluded ?

Again.. the better response to unfair or unjust treatment of women, would have been simple repentance...not feminism

What was that you were saying about an intelligent conversation, Country Girl?

BOAZ... I'm assuming you left out the parts about marriage in that diatribe on sexuality.

Steel,

Don’t feel ignored. Even though you actually put forward a coherent argument rather than a curious emotive response there is a word limit and CJ’s post was more enticing.

CJ,

”... linking the neurotic Christian repression of sexuality with contemporary feminism”

I don’t believe that I did that. I simply cited pornography as an example where attitudes toward women are demonstrably unfavourable. I compared ménage a trios quite objectively to show the disadvantage. You are correct that I am a Christian and I don’t believe that ménage a trois are great in the first place nor do I condone pornography but my Christian values didn’t rate a mention.

“s/he relegates herself to the unfortunate company of Boazy, runner and all the other purse-lipped and miserable wowsers.”

Sticks and stones CJ. I had to laugh when I read that. I bet that is the first time the ubiquitous Boazy has been described as purse lipped (SILENT and disapproving).

”What is this Christian obsession with pornography?”

To be honest I thought my post would make me appear more obsessed with the pack rape 44 words on pack rape cf. 29 on porn according to my computer’s word count. Are you sure you are not filtering your interpretation too heavily through pre-conceived ideas? Is it possible you are prejudiced?

”And what on earth does it have to do with CG's intelligent and reasonable initial post?”

The observation that most of the big battles have been won needs to be contextualized as there have been gains and losses.

Boazy,

Would it be too ironic if I suggested that Christianity is now topical in this thread because CJ was asking for it? I suspect that historically feminism arose to counter female oppression that set in as Christendom became secularized and old structures combined with new attitudes were detrimental to women. As has been the case subsequently the problem was solved on the same level it was created so it becomes a reoccurring theme with 2 steps forward and 1 step back and people like CJ defending their right to er never mind.

What the hell was that last paragraph about mjpb? You were joking right? Only it's really hard to tell if you were joking or just posting gibberish that you thought meant something.

Back to the point I've made previously re industrial agreements.

A document was circulated recently by my union as part of the negotiations for an agreement. Provisions the union was proposing. I've extracted the provisions most relevant to parenting from the proposal and at the end of the document some proposed alterations which might work better.

Work Life Balance
7. Increase paid maternity leave to 16 weeks, (including ability to access 32 weeks at half pay).
8. Increase unpaid maternity leave to 2 years.
9. Paid Leave to attend IVF program.
10. Increase paid paternity leave to 4 weeks (including ability to access 8 weeks at half pay).
11. If multiple births occur the period of maternity/paternity leave is to be doubled.

Other
10. Increase the number of family leave days.

My proposed rewording of relevant items
7. Paid newborn parenting leave for one parent to 16 weeks, (including ability to access 32 weeks at half pay).
8. Unpaid newborn parenting leave to 2 years.
10. Paid newborn parenting leave for both parents to 4 weeks (including ability to access 8 weeks at half pay).

The intent is to support the provisions the union was seeking but allow the decision about who takes on the full time care role to be made by the family rather than by gender based leave provisions. A stat dec or similar may be required to ensure that families don't double dip (both parents taking the extended paid leave from different employers), the current gender based system stops that but means those who employ new mothers carry additional cost for doing so).

I also suggested a removal of the differentiation between full and part time work so that a spread of hours can be negotiated rather than forced into brackets which may force less work hours than needed. If an employee can meet their parenting committments by working a 1/2 hour less a day it's silly to require them to work 10 hours less a week to fit a bracket. Employer and employee both miss out.

R0bert

MJBP
just because that intellectual midget BUGSY doesn't 'get' your last paragraph does not meen that no one did:)
Actually I found your post rather profound. 1 Cor 1:21 comes to mind re your critics.

OOOOOK... BUGSY..I apologise :) your an I.M. at all.. but I'll bet ur reading this now 0_-

Robert. umm... those thoughts about materinity leave etc were wonderful.. in fact they would be perfectly suited for the Marxist Utopia we were once told was good for us all :) no..I'm not saying your heart skin color is a bit on the red side, I'm just trying to get my head around the following:

1/ To afford such things, we must have a thriving business with BIG profits.
2/ To obtain those BIG profits we must either have
a)a well patented product,
b)have copied someone elses good product (saving us the R&D) and making a killing in the market with our version.
c)be competitive based on our highly efficient operation, and be immune to competitors like China and their 'enlightened' labor rates.
d) have blown up the factory of our competitors such that we are the only player.
e) Have destroyed our competition by other scurrelous means.

Aside from that.. in this competitive world.. who the heck is going to pay for all this ?

I've got more work than I can poke 10 sticks at this year.. but will I "employ" people ? not a chance.. keep it with son and daughter.. wife etc...employ them... and when I can't cope any more I'll contract it out to mass production leaving very minimal labor at my end..and still keep it in house.

FEMINISM.... I repeat.. is not really they key issue, its simply loving each other without making gender any more of an issue than the physical constraints dictate.

BD, I'm not trying to argue the merits or otherwise of the leave, rather to ensure that what is available is not portioned out by gender. I've taken what the union has proposed and reworded it to leave the decision about who takes the leave to the family concerned.

Existing structures pretty much force mothers to be the prime carers in the early years (and deprive fathers of the opportunity). That should be a decision left to the family and dependant on their values and circumstances.

What I've proposed should entail no additional cost for employers over what the union is seeking (except for employers with predominately male workforces). That does not imply that what the union is seeking is fair or reasonable but rather that my interests are in removing artificial gender based restrictions. The only ones who are harmed by the rewording are those who think that gender should be the issue.

R0bert

Fair enough Rob :) point taken.

The next thing we should discuss is 'The relevance and viability of Unions in a real competitive world' :)

putting it another way.. "Do Unions live in Fantasy Land"?

or..

"Have Unions passed their Use-By Date" ?

or..

BELLY for 'Union Ombudsman" :) He'll sort em out.

In response to the original post...

Well, for a start, I don't find the "bra burners" annoying at all. I agree that many battles have been one, but, by and large, it was those second generation feminists who won them for us. I am humbled by and grateful to the women who worked in the civil rights movements of the 60s and 70s. Besides, it just seems good manners to me to honour them - it is to their credit that I earn good money, and travelled alone, and studied, and can do what I like. Clearly, they got some stuff wrong, but it's hard work to build a new culture, and glitches are to be expected.

Nor do I think we are "well past" them. There's work. Raunch culture appears to have replaced housewifery in rating women's appearance over their accomplishments. There are still not enough women in parliament, or in senior political staffer or public sector positions, or in business or on boards - we are underrepresented in all those arenas. Then there's childcare, of course, as you've discussed here, and which, in part, causes the problems described in the preceeding sentence.

Of course, we also have much to celebrate. We must also be sensitive to impinging on the rights of men, and making sure boys are not left behind in the classroom. We must be aware that men in the lowest socio-economic group are now the most deeply unhappy and terminally single in society. We must work with men for equity for all.

Having said that, may I note, without being incendiary but purely for the irony of it, how quickly this thread turned in to a conversation between men?

botheration

Great post. I agree, we owe a lot to that generation of feminists. And yes, gains have been made but I'm sure many of those visionary women must be disappointed in some of today's trends. The unquestioning acceptance of 'raunch culture' and the increasing obsession with appearance that you point out are certainly two of them. I actually believed during the seventies that women would eventually be liberated from these chains, and be able to leave the house dressed for comfort over sex appeal just as their male counterparts have always been free to do. I actually think we're now more bound than ever to societally imposed ideals of how we should look. Even women who rattle that glass ceiling are careful to make sure they look pretty goddam good doing it. In fact I've seen research suggesting most don't get anywhere near that height unless they do.

'may I note, without being incendiary but purely for the irony of it, how quickly this thread turned in to a conversation between men?'

Yes I agree it is ironic but I hasten to add not at all unwelcome. A comment once made on a previous thread where the same thing happened was that women don't have the time that men do to sit in front of the computer. Likewise, I'm not meaning to be inflammatory, just putting it out there. Perhaps women don't enjoy the passivity of online conversation to the extent that men do. Perhaps they are intimidated by it. Or maybe some of the many masculin sounding psuedonyms we see on OLO actually belong to women. Personally, I'm not keen on psuedonyms, but I have sometimes wondered whether some responses to comments I've made would be different if I were perceived to be a male.

Bronwyn, yep, I'm one of those without time to sit in front of the computer on a regular basis (usually OLO browsing done whilst waiting for other stuff to download) :)

I do agree somewhat with your observations re women having to look good to succeed. But as for having to look great whilst rattling the glass ceiling, might I mention Helen Clarke, and say no more on the subject :)

One of the issues that has come out of the feminist movement, is that "we" were lied to by the 2nd gen feminists. We were told that we could have it all. Well its pretty bloody obvious that we cant, and I think that has lead to some degree of disillusionment. But the major gain that has been made is one of choice. We can choose family, we can choose career and we can choose a combination of the two (although commonsense dictates that if we choose the combo, one side will suffer somewhat).

R0bert, I find what your union has come up with to be very sad. I thought it was a requirement that everything was gender-neutral. Where I work, such leave is refered to as parental leave, and one parent has the right to take it. Its all unpaid, but that said, work is very flexible with helping come to suitable arrangements. In my case I am working an extra 1/2 day - day a week unpaid, then pay continuing during parental leave. But we dont have unions, AND there are staff shortages.

CG... "women have to look good to succeed".... yes.. and no.

YES .. they, like ALL of us need to be reasonably well groomed to convey a message that we take care of ourselves and infer that we will also take care of the job we may be applying for...

NO in that if 'dressing well/looking good' means they need to expose more cleavage.. higher skirts, figure hugging jeans.. whatever.. where the primary message is "I'm a sex object" well.. it implies a prevailing mentality which is no different than the one that feminism sought to overcome. "Women have their place".

Now.. it seems women are simply modifying their behavior to fit in with male expectations ? "Men like sexy women/Women dress to feed that"

Honestly, this is symptomatic of very deep problems.. of 'shallowness' (if you get the irony there) in our attitudes one toward another.
I think its symptomatic of alienation from God. When Jesus was asked by His disciples about how they can avoid the pressures of the 'world'...he said "Be IN the world...but not OF it".

In spite of the usual list of so called 'oppressive' things in Pauls writings trotted out by the anti God squad, there is much in the New Testament which addresses this fundamental problem between the genders.

The New Testament is abundantly clear that women should be treated with the utmost respect and love and definitely NOT as any kind of sex object.
The problem of overcoming 'viewing women as sex objects' is in reality a problem of overcoming alienation from that which would give us a reason to regard them otherwise ..ie. God.

In the absense of a divine standard, all calls for recognition of equality, treatment of respect and dignity, are just rhetoric which fades out under the pressure of 'the natural man'. I'd add one more adjective there.. the 'unregenerate' man.

And what gender is Boazy's imaginary friend, I wonder? How can you claim that your god is the divine source of equality between the sexes, when it is invariably depicted and referred to as male?

Actually, I think that CG's perspective comes closest to my own view of the contemporary relevance of feminism. To a large extent, I think that women were sold a bit of a pup by 2nd-wave feminism, which was essentially enacted in material terms by conscripting women into the workforce. While women's status has generally improved compared with the 1950s, I'm not at all sure that the quality of their lives has.

It is now virtually mandatory to have two incomes in order to service a mortgage, not to mention being able afford all the gadgets and knicknacks that seem to be essential to contemporary life. Before I came to my senses and 'downshifted' into a 'tree change', virtually all the women I knew socially and professionally were caught up in the treadmill of trying to balance a career, kids and a relationship without cracking up, and not always succeeding.

While I'm sure women and men are more 'equal' these days, I can't help but wish sometimes that the equality extended a bit further than the material conditions of existence.

I believe that a significant reason Bugsy struggled with my comments directed to you was that she/he lacked the necessary background.

In Western society most people feel like they own Christianity due to the history and take it for granted without feeling the need to go to Church and otherwise learn about it to find out what it is. Without direct exposure their knowledge of it becomes restricted to a few soundbytes from what you call the anti-God squad that are typically either incorrect or so out of context that things are completely misrepresented.

I believe that you make some good points but they might not mesh with the mythical Christianity that is often propagated in our society. In that view atheism protects women from the inequalities within a generally intolerant religion. Is it possible that your generally directed comments based on an intimacy with the religion might not bridge the gap? If not they won't be fully appreciated and received in accordance with their merit.

Martin Luther King pursued similar concepts in relation to racial equality but presented them in slightly different ways. Clearly racism is just as offensive both to Christians and pursuant to legitimate ethics as prejudice against women. Without removing all racism or making everyone Christian I believe that he succeeded in addressing much of the problem of American racism using Christian solutions. In this regard he followed in the footsteps of those who abolished slavery in Western society. Have you read any of his speeches?

I concede that he had the benefit of working up to the late 60s when society hadn't been right through the 60s and 70s. If he had popped up in this day and age racism would be just as bad and his audience wouldn't have been as receptive. By now Christianity would have been considered an intolerant racist network of belief with no authority to speak against racism.

mjpb, please do not associate your failure as a communicator on others "lack of background".

Your paragraph didn't make sense. Just look at this sentence:

"I suspect that historically feminism arose to counter female oppression that set in as Christendom became secularized and old structures combined with new attitudes were detrimental to women."

What? When did Christianity become secularised? What time frame are you talking about? It appears to be before WWI, because thats about when feminism really started gaining as a movement. So are you talking about the Enlightenment? Perhaps the Republican revolutions of America and France? When? Without a point of reference this sentence is meaningless.

Even worse is the last sentence, you didn't even bother to finish that one, so thats why I thought you were joking.

It appears that you may be talking in some sort of mental shorthand that other Christians may interpret with their own Christian outlook, but objectively your statements are often confusing and erroneous.

BD, you have taken me out of context - wasnt I who made the quote "women have to look good to succeed", I merely commented on it and made the point that there is at least one highly successful woman in the country next to ours that wouldnt win any beauty pagents. Yes, good grooming in men and women goes a long way to being taken seriously - I dont disagree with that.

In fact, a lot of the oppression of women over the ages (and poor treatment of non-whites) stems from Christianity, and the Catholic Church in particular. Even the Bible is a very male-dominated domain, with little place for women (although I will concede that the Catholics hold up Mary, but only in her virgin-mother role). I wonder though whether this is as a result of the domination of the religion by men at a later date, who of course would put their own slant on things.

I would rather this not slide into another religion debate though,as that's a surefire way to a deadend.

I also agree that women need to be careful in their push for equality, that we dont trample on the needs of men (and in particular boys). It is possible for the pendulum to swing to far, and we all need to be mindful of that. Whilst I believe that it is up to men to push for equality gains in areas where they are under-represented and for drawing attention to needs areas, women should support them in this - a good example is the new focus on prostate cancer.

Sorry to be boring, but I’m not done sticking up for the second wave.

Firstly, I think what we gained most from second wave feminism is equality under the law, particularly in employment and education. Choice is a by-product.

I don’t buy that we were lied to or sold a pup. This implies premeditation, it implies that 2ndGenFems looked deep into their crystal ball, saw that their policies would fail in twenty years time, but went ahead anyway because-we-want-it-our-way-and-screw-our-know-it-all-upstart-daughters! Jeez, how the hell did they know how it was all going to turn out? They were courageous and brilliant and thought – erroneously as it turns out, though I still have hope for the future – that women, like men, could balance work and family. Bee-yatches!

Believe me, I understand the bitterness. The cocktail of hormone-skewing drugs I’m on right now stem directly from the notion that I could “have it all”. Second wave feminism made many mistakes. But do you really think feminism – or the men’s movement, or Indigenous activists, or culture in general – isn’t inadvertently and with the best intentions making mistakes right now that future generations could justifiably damn us for? Culture is an eternal unfinished project, ever-evolving, hopefully bettering, subtly yet monumentally shifting.

Rather than blame the past, or the brave, inspired activists who peopled it (who volunteers to compare CVs with Gloria Steinem?), why don’t we set about building a better future? We all agree that the goal is to write the feminist movement out of existence - to get beyond it. Let’s map our path. And let’s not hang sh!t on the women who preceded us in order to get there.

**
CJ Morgan said: “And what gender is Boazy's imaginary friend, I wonder? How can you claim that your god is the divine source of equality between the sexes, when it is invariably depicted and referred to as male?”

I’m not mad about bringing up god, but it’s interesting that, in The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins borrows that classic second-wave invention consciousness-raising for his atheist activism.

I am 30, right on the cusp of Gen X & Y. If anything I think the derision that many women of my generation direct at the second wave of feminists can be perceived to be a great compliment to their achievements.

We are a generation of women filled with self belief that we can choose any path and achieve to whichever level that we may seek to achieve. As an example... when I was 23 I bought my first home... there was no thought that I was female, single etc to hold me back from doing so as former generations may have... I just went and did it. Taking that opportunity, making that choice and taking on the resultant responsibility, as many other women are doing today, is surely the best way to honour the achievement of those feminists.

I believe the future challenge of feminism lies within domestic circumstances where there is the expectation that men and women will both contribute financially to a household, yet the unpaid work of the household often remains unequally distributed.

Botheration, I guess "lied to" is a strong term when it comes to the foresight failings of the 2nd gen feminists. Whilst I dont expect the benefits of hindsight, to suggest that women could have it all, when men of the time certainly couldnt, was pretty ambitious, to the extent that applying logic to the statements at the time would have shown them to be erroneous in the extreme - no crystal ball required. Men could have families and career, but their relationship with their families was generally pretty poor. Women now suffer the same fate. I still believe that the big gain was choice. But its really only in the last few years that we have come to any awareness that there is a requirement still to make a choice as to which area of your life is MORE important.

Another aside is that its probably really only the middle-upper class that have had the gains over equality of choice. The poor always had to make their families around work. In labouring roles, women have worked alongside men for generations, and it didnt take feminism to achieve this. Simple necessity sorted it out. Of course, poverty is not an ideal situation anyway, but its interesting to note that the more affluent a group you examine, the wider the gaps between equality (at least in the past).

I also am on the cusp of GenX/Y (depending on who is quoting dates depends which group I fall into), and have benefited from the gains of feminism. But I also come from a background where women's roles as hard workers and providers has been in place for generations, so perhaps the attitude that I inherited didnt really come from the feminist movement per se

Bugsy,

"mjpb, please do not associate your failure as a communicator on others "lack of background"."

Surely I am entitled to make this speculation. I did not fail in my communication. I addressed the comment to Boazy and he advised that he understood. Ergo my communication was a complete success. Obviously I have no problem with anyone else such as yourself(being someone it was not addressed to) reading it but you did not understand it. I speculated as to why that might be. There is no need to adopt that tone.

MJPB, just because Boazy has indicated that he thinks he understands what was meant by that paragraph, does not actually mean it makes any sense, regardless of to whom it was directed.

Bugsy,

I was recently listening to a radio program where one of the jocks admitted arguing with someone about what their name was and wouldn't believe the person until they saw his drivers licence. I can't help but be reminded of that anecdote when I read your last post.

If it was me I wouldn't have shown my licence. That is a lateral hint.

Ok, mjpb, show me your licence.

I would love for you you to give me an example of "an old structure combined with new attitudes" that was considered "detrimental to women" and arose from the "secularisation of Christendom". Please be sure to describe how feminism arose to counter this female oppression caused by the the "old structure". Also, please make clear the link between the "old structure", "new attitudes" and the "secularisation of Christendom".

Discuss

You have 2 hours and a 350 word limit, your time starts now.

How about I just introduce some irony?

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/23410/Eight-deaths-linked-to-Labour-s-new-sex-jab-for-schoolgirls

Why are gains for women so often associated with losses?