the Constitution of Australia provides men with two legislatures in the federal
parliament, women are provided with none. men govern women, themselves,
education, health, the bureaucracy, unions, politics, the professions, corporate
governance, domestic life and the delivery of justice, that's the law. women
govern nothing in their own right, remaining under perpetual male supervision.

three High Court justices, a Governor-General, an acting Prime Minister, one
fifth of the Cabinet, Outer Ministry and Parliamentary Secretariate [10/49], 40 of
150 members of the House of Representatives, 27 of 76 members of the
Senate, women have acquired the skills to govern independently of men in the
parliament of an equal rights republic enacting law by agreement between the
cabinets of a women's legislature and a men's legislatures presided over by an
executive comprised of equal numbers of senior women and senior men
accompanied by courts of women's and men's jurisdiction.

the outcome, peace and sustainable prosperity in perpetuity.

radical enough?

I've been reading the comments on this thread
with interest and now realise that my initial
response was rather narrow - through a middle
class perspective.

In fact the feminist movement has been largely
a middle class pursuit. It was led by well
educated women - excluded from the political and
professional organisations run by middle class
men.

Sure, things have changed greatly since Anne
Summers wrote, "Damned Whores and God's Police,"
however in Australian society women from non-English
speaking backgrounds remain one of the most marginalised
groups. Suffering more unemployment, alienation and
isolation. Many from lower socio-economic backgrounds
have been excluded from active participation in
Australian democracy.

The rest of us, well up until the 1960s - we were
expected to be a wife and a mother, now we're
expected to be everything else as well.

Seriously, women are expected to be efficient workers,
loving mothers and partners as well as active citizens -
and sure we've come a long way - but we've still got a
long way to go. And that as Squeers is suggesting
is something we've got to do something about!
Fight for the rights of all women!

' we were expected to be a wife and a mother, now we're
expected to be everything else as well.'

Ah that old chestnut, societal expectations.

It seems to me the most radical thing a woman can do is accept responsibility for her own choices, and stop blaming 'societal expectations' for everything.

Whether it be choosing to do the housework, choosing to buy beauty magazines, choosing to have children or not, choosing to wear a low cut top and a tea towel for a skirt, choosing a high earning partner, choosing a career, choosing to go home blind drunk with a stranger.

It seems to me even though women can participate fully in public life, they still really want men, or even other women, to give them permission. The problem with having choice is that you have to choose, and take responsibility for what you chose.

Conversely, society must expect nothing from men. I keep waiting for 'masculinists' to rally against the unrealistic representations of home maintenance as portrayed in Better Homes and Gardens and Backyard Blitz. Duping the male population into spending their weekends and pay packets at Bunnings and being expected to be a carpenter, a plumber, a landscape gardener, an arborist. All the while publishing studies about the proportion of yard work men are doing, how they're time poor, reducing home improvement to a gender equity issue. Studies on the media praying on men's DIY insecurities, forcing them to conform to an unrealistic ideal.

All for a nice place to do the 'entertaining'. For who? You guessed it, not his friends, he meets them down the pub. Sure he might enjoy getting away form the wife and spending 3 hours to buy a screwdriver in Bunnings, but that's just analogous to a woman under constant body image pressures enjoying getting her nails done.

But you'll never see this, as men are immune to 'societal expectations', or else they take responsibility for their choices.

Bronny,

'Sadly to say, I think they've gone shopping. :)'
Very Good. Perhaps they have.

BTW: Perhaps they're not 'androcentric values' after all.

This may be diverting this thread slightly, but a question occurred to me and I suspect that the people who follow this thread are the right people to ask.

Last year, there was alot of discussion about the Kyle & Jackie O lie detector scandal. One of the key issues was claims that the girl was lying. It just occurred to me that she was hooked up to a lie detector when she made the claim. Does anyone know if the lie detector thought that she was lying? I know that it is old news, but I cannot believe that I didn't think to ask this at the time.

Hello all,
I'm a friend of Squeers', who is currently indisposed and asks me to pass on his regrets that he's unable to participate further in this thread. He says that his opening premise is all important: "that our current system is bad. Capitalism is exploitative and rapacious, and can never attain to [even relative] equality [for the global consumer base] within its closed global precincts; boom and bust, devastation of the planet, and ultimately total collapse, is written in[to] capitalism's DNA".
If you don't accept this, or can argue that the economic dynamics at play are sustainable or ultimately governable, then political tinkering within the system might be valid, all important or even vital.
But if the system is headed for a cliff, as all the evidence suggests it is, then what we need is radical action directed at the remote dynamic that drives us ever on. All the political jockeying within the system does nothing about where we're heading. We have to get outside the whale. When we go over the cliff it's not going to matter whether we were a patriarchal or a matriarchal system!
What prevents what amounts to the revolutionary change that's needed, is hegemony.
So when Antiseptic puts women's apparent conservatism down to evolution--Squeers' "perennial preeners and peacemakers"--the implication is that women are not merely under-represented in radical politics, they are quite possibly the overwhelming inhibitors of genuine change!
Squeers doesn't mind if women take over (though gender equality would be optimal), they'd probably do a better job! But what's the good of reforming a society that's headed for disaster?!
Bronwyn is thus spot on!
If this analysis is credible, then women, with their 50% of the vote, are not only not pulling their radical weight, they're insuring we keep unerringly on course.

(Thanks Mitchell - sorry to hear that Squeers can't be here for now. If it's illness or some difficulty please pass along my wishes for a quick recovery.)

On another thread I wrote: <"Feminism's general intent has been to change the systems and structures whereby power and authority were/are gained and maintained at the expense of others, especially women and children, not to buy a controlling share in the idiocracy.

Our intent must be to value all people; not just swap roles as oppressor and oppressed.">

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9889#159334

All people from middle to lower income groups are exploited in order to maintain existing power structures that benefit a few at the top of the social pyramid. Where ever people are dependent on others for financial support they are at a major disadvantage in a capitalist system - hence feminism's emphasis on the need for females to obtain education and employment opportunities. People may well choose to fulfil traditional roles but they need to be equipped to support themselves if the need arises.

As those gains slowly accumulate many women have forgotten that feminism that made it possible. They remain dependent on male approval and "... parties to their own oppression". Marked examples of that in non-Western societies exist where women assist in honour killings, often of their own daughters. They are infused with notions of being the 'good' woman. Examples that are less stark continue to pervade Western society.

Less powerful men are kept preoccupied with trying to preserve what little power and authority they have had - such as authority over women and children. Therefore feminism continues to be busy putting out spot fires - petty stuff, but necessary just to hang on to the tenuous gains that have been made.

The powers that are advantaged by maintaining antagonisms between the little folk. Many people have absorbed a stereotype of 'feminist' along with terms such as feminazi and radfem and so on. Their fears are being played of course. If a few thought about it they'd realize that they've never met a woman who conformed to such a stereotype.

cont/d: