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.