I have a major problem with Foxy's responses...
I am unsure as to why women would need to choose between career and children? Surely in an equal partnership both partners can care equally for the children. In fact, paternity leave is now a serious consideration in most employment situations.
I am unsure about the ethical dilemma of childcare. Working in the childcare industry, I see it is most common that both parents drop their children and often take a day off each week to care for their children...ie Mum takes care one day, dad one day an childcare three days. Children are loved and cared for in a high quality environment which is continuing to improve.
I am unsure of why Foxy would prefer women or men not to have a choice wether to stay in an unhappy marriage. Of course, the ideal is to work on the relationship together especially through the tough times, but Foxy is not acknowledging that for some, the tough times include domestic violence, sexual assault of minors, financial stress due to gambling or alcohol addiction, extra marital affairs. Of course women or men need to be empowered to live healthy lives and if that includes needing to leave an untenable situation then praise God for the feminine revolution.
It is not just females that have benefittwd from the feminist revolution...men too. As the pendulum sways, we are in the process of acknowledging that so often social stereotypes prevent men from expressing who they are. We are looking into ways for all to become the adult they were created to be. That can only be good.
As for cultural diversity..... of course all cultures should be respected.... because humanity is precious and there is more than one ideal ie my ideal, no matter how idyllic it is, can not be the only measure of culture society has.
I think these revolutions have helped us to grasp the diversity of humanity and appreciate the rich tapestry that makes our world.

Romany:"Ah TRTL, - Love your work.

Truthnow - what TRTL said."

Celivia:"I, too, would second -no third- what TRTL said.

I hope at that Truthnow will take the troublenow to give a decent reply to Foxy's post, because I feel that he is quite undeserving of such a thoughtful response."

Sancho:"What Celivia and Romany said: what TRTL said."

No doubt s/he'll mend his ways after such a scolding and start thinking "properly".

So much for cultural diversity...

The question is a perfect example of someone swallowing talkback radio polemics whole. Don't think about stuff - just whack all the things you don't like into one box and complain loudly.

It's sad really. Feminism and cultural diversity have brought change that some people clearly have trouble dealing with.

chainsmoker:"Feminism and cultural diversity have brought change that some people clearly have trouble dealing with."

I'd say that's about as big an understatement as I've seen. The fact is that feminism is an exclusiivist philiosophy, which is bound to create division and disadvantage. The fact that the disadvantage is diffused among many men rather than, as previously, among many women doesn't make it a good thing. In fact, under the much-despised "patriarchy", women were highly valued and generally protected, despite some suffering hardship. Feminism, on the other hand, has little regard for men at all, except insofar as they can advance the cause of women or as bad examples can be used to justify further discrimination in favour of women.

Cultural diversity in general, on the other hand, is an inclusivist paradigm. It creates an environment in which people are free to express their own ways of being. It is as far from feminism in it's basic raison d'etre as it is possible to be, despite the attempts by some feminists to justify their attacks on men as culturally diverse.

Both create challenges, but one is a challenge to get the most out of a diverse range of views and to express one's own cultural norms, while the other is a challenge to avoid expressing or doing anything that does not conform to the "women first, men nowhere" ideology that feminism demands. No wonder the "thought police" have tried to shut down the thread.

Foxy and others.
Your post on feminism is a good generalized summary of the pros and cons of in an idealized state. Like all “isms” there are very wide of range of practical diversities.

Feminism as an empowering agent is great and I’m all for it. But it seems to create at the lower end unrealistic expectations and merely confuses responses between individuals. Not every woman wants "feminism's liberation". I've even heard derogitary comments by "liberated" women about house wives there is something wrong with their choice ( almost letting down the sisterhood).

It can also be argued that it has highlighted the differences rather than equality. Great for marketing but is it equality of opportunity being exploited along gender fear lines:
• Men aren’t allowed men’s only clubs/spaces. Consider the “Titan shed ad” (good grief pass me the hemlock)
• Women have woman only gyms “feal uncomfortable being watched by (evil men) join a women’ s gym. ( Lesbians don’t go to female gyms?). Women’s clinics (The clinic I attend has M/F Drs I don’t consider their gender just their competence). There are several women’s business and women’s special interest groups etc.

All this seems to indicate that women ARE the fragile gender and need special non men environments to be happy. Sadly the WW , daytime TV set believe this pap and their interpretation is often to mimic the worst of “male” (sic) traits as a right and claim special gender protection When confronted with the consequences of their behaviour.

As an ex businessman I have been confronted with both opportunistic abuses and unacceptable attitudes from some young women who see feminism as a vector for special consideration, power not equality

Up until very recently Breast cancer gained most research funding and profile even though Prostate cancer claims similar number of lives.
Who’s looking after ‘men’s’ issues, sensitivities?…create a masculism movement? Just what we need another inter group conflict/contest for resources etc. Equality is a human rights issue not a gender one and should be treated as such.

Ok , please comment , I would appreciate the input.

In my earlier posts I tried to answer the questions
posed in this thread,i.e. the negative aspects of
feminism, and cultural diversity.
Due to the word limit - that's all I could
do. Present a brief summary. Rather than an
in-depth discussion of every point presented.

Of course for their part men, after
some hesitancy, have generally reacted positively
to the growing equality of women. In fact, their own
roles, being complimentary to those of women,are
inevitably, in flux also. Men are now permitted a more
gentle and expressive personality than would have
been considered appropriate a few decades ago.

Like the female role, the masculine role is more
ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to
interpretation by the individual.

Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part of the challenge of
social and cultural change. Under the 'old' system, everyone
knew what their roles were, and most people
unquestioningly behaved as they were supposed to. The system
constrained people, but it freed them from the need to make
choices.

There are fewer constraints today, but the individual now
has the liberty (or the burden) to choose his or her own
path to self-fulfillment.

What will the final shape of gender roles be?

The most probable pattern is one in which many alternative
lifestyles and roles will be acceptable for both men
and women. Our society is individualistic and highly open
to change and experiementation, and it is likely that women
and men will explore a wide variety of possible roles.

As I said in other threads, true liberation from the
restrictions of gender would mean that all possible options
would be open and equally acceptable for both sexes.

Then a person's individual human qualities, rather than her
or his biological sez would be the primary measure of that
person's worth and achievement.