Squeers, interesting topic. I suspect that what you're noticing is the product of evolution in action. The vast majority of females of most primate species, including humans, have a vested interest in maintaining a stable status quo, simply in order to foster a safe environment for her while she is gestating or has a child at the breast. It is a queer female indeed who chooses to create instability and internecine disharmony and the rest will let her know in no uncertain terms that they don't approve.

The triumph of feminism is that it has managed to pull off both a radical reorganisation of society and avoid this female disapprobation. Its failure is that it has taken little cognisance of male response, since that is far more likely to be diverse and fragmented and hence easily ignored in a world in which power is granted by 50% of a vote. One never hears of the "male vote", but the "female vote" is widely regarded as being responsible for the rise of Kevin Rudd and for making Tony Abbott unelectable.

By making domestic violence and family law matters central to the radical feminist agenda of the 70s and 80s, the queer radicals bought off the conservative women with a promise of security, in return for which they were rewarded with a mandate for their more disruptive agenda, which was a naked grab for "power without glory" as Frank Hardy so eloquently described an earlier era in which self-serving ideologues ruled.

Where are the radicals today? They're where they wanted to be - in charge of social policy and largely in charge of the power structures, especially those on the Left. As for the rest, they're still clinging to the trunk of the tree of society, wondering why they don't feel as safe as they were promised they would be and waiting for Big Sister to hand out the next free lunch.

It is a wonder women have not as yet woken up to the fact that they have the power and should use it and insist on it. One of the other posters on this thread, repeats the myth that a vote every three years is all anyone is entitled to. On a website I access regularly, is a piece on equality for women. Its here and I recommend it to all women who want equality, and those radical men who believe they should have equality. This is the link.

http://www.community-law.info/?page_id=458

On that website also is a Royal Identifier, the same one that was affixed to every Act of Parliament before the wild and wooly leftist fringe took it off every Act, systematically and effectively destroying the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth is an entity lifted directly from the Authorised King James Version of the Holy Bible, and was created by affixing a Royal Identifier to a Proclamation made at the Palace in 1900. The Act was required to be sealed with a Royal Identifier, and the Master of the Rolls, fixed it to the Act in 1900. That Act created a United Nation out of a fractious and uncooperative collection of colonies. It was a compact between all Christian sects in Australia, Roman Catholic, Anglican, Methodist Presbyterian, Seventh Day Adventist, and all the others and the vote in 1900, was the same as the proportion of Christians to others, reflected in the last census.

In many cases there are more women than men in Church. The backbone of many congregations are the wonderful women, and when Kevin Rudd wanted to be Prime Minister, he courted the Christian vote. His prayer to be elected was heard by 200,000 Christian voters who went to their Church, to hear a debate between him and JH. The Christian women of Australia just could not vote for an Atheist in 2004. Until it was made plain Latham was an atheist, he was leading in the polling by the same margin as stuck to Kevin. It is this year a head to head between two Christian leaders

I was careful to say that this criticism of women is based on "my" experience; I don't extrapolate that to encompass all women, I merely ask to be disabused. I start with the premise that our current system is bad. Capitalism is exploitative and rapacious, and can never attain to equality within its closed global precincts; boom and bust, devastation of the planet, and ultimately total collapse, is written in capitalism's DNA. Now the conspicuous consumption of men in rich countries is probably just as unconscionable as women's, but at least there's a representative cohort of male critics. Count the number of female anti-capitalists here, for instance: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_capitalism. In my experience, women evince no disquiet whatsoever about commodity culture, they're too busy getting fulfilled (that is, duped) within it.
Similarly patriotism; in my view it masks a host of evils by insulating military involvement from just criticism. Who are the female Noam Chomskys? Institutionalised religion is another fibre in the indestructible fabric of hegemony, but where are the prominent female critics of the church?
But no need to go on, I agree with Antiseptic. Perhaps the female psyche is the toughest fibre of all in the hemp of hegemon?
Suzieonline, I don't think there's any contradiction in my rhetorical question about women above.
I want to have these subjective notions exploded.
Who are the female visionaries, and what do they stand for?

Squeers, what you're saying is very important and I think essentially correct - often wondered very similar things myself (alluded to in a recent post somewhere).

I haven't got time to respond properly just now, but will do when I get home from work.

Women have not been pulling their radical weight, because most people do not really know what a radical is. A free radical is what we should all be, but while women tolerate inequality, and a male dominated Satanic State Culture, where the State has become the dominant Church, just as it was in the failed Soviet Union, and Third Reich, we will be the poorer for it. .

The removal of the Royal Seal from all Acts of Parliament, and the requirement that all Acts pass a third hurdle before they are in reality law, was a Radical step taken by the English to keep the bastards they elected to Parliament honest. It was radical because the root or basic law of England was and remains the law, as published in the Holy Bible, Legitimate Statute Law reflected the Holy Bible in every way, even down to banning lawyers from the Commons House of Parliament in England for 498 years.

Most women in their Churches don’t realize that they are part of the great silent majority, and their power for good far exceeds that of most politicians. As women have been enfranchised, so the system has disenfranchised both men and women, so that elected representatives have formed the belief that they can do pretty much as they please, provided they control a majority in Parliament. This brainwashing extends to most people by way of the media. It is totally wrong, and leads to absolute corruption.

As women have become better educated, many have joined the ranks of the legal profession. Most women value honesty and integrity. Any man who cheats on his woman will swiftly find that out. When I did law at Uni 80% of the class were women. They considered me a radical, because I questioned the way we were being taught. One of my fellow males, formerly an engineer, said it was engineers who put them there, because engineers freed women from drudgery. Jesus Christ was in reality a social engineer, whose system has stood the test of time, since 1297. Women need to become more radical

Women are probably (dare I say) 'natural' peacemakers probably for those traditional reasons as Antiseptic points out ie. stable environments for child raising.

However, while men dominate the more radical discourse with regards to politics, capitalism and consumerism in the public arena there are certainly many ordinary women, even on OLO, who have discussed the detriments of capitalism, depedency on growth economics and consumerism.

There are some high profile women who stand out such as Sharon Burrow of the ACTU and a few Greens politicians just on top of my head but I am sure there are more. Mind you no strong radical male voice comes straight to mind either so maybe the radical discourse has diminished overall with only recent murmurings due to the GFC.

History shows that men tend to lead revolutionary movements but women have certainly been part of those causes. The French Resistance included many women and Guevara had many women alongside.

Perhaps it is when the stability of family is threatened by an oppressive regime that women will choose the radical path to protect that stability in the long term.

As for generalisations about feminists well many feminists have argued that true equality can only be realised when men are also equal in terms of choice. Remember it is still women primarily who are at home raising the kids and men who earn the highest salaries. Personally I don't really care about that, it is up to individuals and families to work out what works best for them.

To some extent the feminist movement has created other problems which is not unusual. Change can bring about many unforseen problems. What is seen as a solution to one problem may create a whole new network of other issues - it happens in government policy all the time. The biggest effect has been what do we do with the children? They seem to have been forgotten in the whole equality equation among a flurry of contrary opinons about home care versus institutionalised care all peppered with a lot of self interest most of the time.