Cont/d:

In fact, if there were such types as radical feminists Canberra would be a bomb crater. If there were such a thing as man-hating feminists, men and boys would be turning up tortured and dead with a frequency comparable to that of girls and women, which is daily news fare.

Radical actions include dropping bombs; shooting and blowing people up. Those are the methods that belong with the system that needs to change; it's not a humanist approach.

Lastly, we need a vision of a post-capitalist society. I'd like to talk about that sometime.

Antiseptic: I have posted referenced information that is accurate, as opposed to the statements you're still making. However, even if women had achieved the gains you claim have already been made - so what?

Since women continue to be responsible for 70% or more of childcare and you have posted many times how unfair it is that men be expected to support women and children, what entitles you (or any man who shares your views) to a better education or better employment opportunities than the average mother with kids in tow; or any female who is likely to be childbearing in the future ?

Very well put, Pynchme.
It seems to me then that an important issue is to establish comprehensively that the current system is (if it is) leading us to destruction (there is no question that it's unethical and exploitative, which ought to be reason enough for an overhaul), since if women are motivated by maternal instincts for optimal conditions in which to nest and rear children, they might be interested to know that our present culture, quite apart from being ethically reprehensible, cannot continue in the state of rude health it's enjoyed so far.
Then, as you say, "we need a vision of a post-capitalist society". Here is a rather large conundrum; no one can imagine such a system! Moreover, and here's the real sticking point for mine, global capitalism, with its vast infrastructure and the teeming masses it's bred, is now impossible to reign in. Only capitalism can manage, for now, the human juggernaut it's created. Any disruption to supply might lead to chaos and death on a biblical scale. Indeed, a mass die off is probably inevitable with so many threats looming. It's probably only after such a holocaust that a new and sustainable human culture has any hope of getting off the ground. Nevertheless, that's what we should be formulating and circulating, imo, the fundamentals for an ethical and sustainable post-capitalist human society.

Do women pull their radical “weight”?

I find most “radicals” have an over-developed presumption to their own significance in the world.

They mostly just run around, play at revolutions, pander to their favourite activist cause-du-jour and expect to dictate to other folk what they must think and do. All this Global Warming garbage being the perfect focus for their indifferent existence

So “radical weight” is not simply some much overstated “quality”
but is better described as an underestimated character flaw.

Regarding radical feminists, well dearest Margaret wrapped it up with her statement

“I owe nothing to Womens Lib”

So a lot of “radicals” are simply over-indulged folk who have enough time and money on their hands that they do not have to worry about the day to day issues of work , accommodation, food etc.

in short

politically intense show ponies, looking for a ring to show off in, a cause to champion and someone else to boss around.

I am not sure dear Margaret had that one quite right Col. If the early women's movement had not achieved voting rights for women I am not sure if Maggie would have risen to the dizzy heights of Prime Minister. Of course her hard work and career is as always very much of one's own dedication and commitment.

Pynchme has made some excellent points.

Much of the radicalism we need is reassessing and identifying the pitfalls of global capitalism and ways the system can be tweaked to ensure more power is handed down to the people and vested interest groups hold governments to ransom. Some radical out of the square thinking to ensure we don't continue to perpetuate a system that relies on growth and continual exploitation of resources to survive.

Of course radicalism is in the eye of the beholder and the Left is often branded as Radical by the overly Conservative. However, not all radical thinking is positive depending of course on one's view of the world.

The increase in the radical right is concerning; the idea that the collective interest is 'the enemy' in preference to individualism, consumerism and the idolisation of the laissez-faire. And all the potential risks in that sort of thinking to those who do not possess power. There does not seem to be any balance down that line other than an 'everyone in it for themselves' attitude and a dog-eat-dog existence without any safety nets or protections.

Pynchme

Your words are sweet music to my ears. Long may I read many more of them.:)

<< ... if there were such types as radical feminists, Canberra would be a bomb crater. >>

I agree with your statement that we need a vision of post-capitalist society, but I think it's possible to pull our 'radical weight' in this direction without resorting to violence. In an environment where the current rapacious style of capitalism is still being sold as our best and only option, the act of even putting forward the idea that there are better alternatives is 'radical' in itself. The more it's done, the more traction it will gain, especially as economic and environmental circumstances simultaneously deteriorate, as they're bound to.

Col Rouge

<< ... a lot of “radicals” are simply over-indulged folk who have enough time and money on their hands that they do not have to worry about the day to day issues of work , accommodation, food etc. - in short - politically intense show ponies, looking for a ring to show off in, a cause to champion and someone else to boss around. >>

This comment is typical of the tactics used to discredit and shut down any who dare to contemplate radical alternatives to your beloved laissez-faire capitalism, but again it's typically wide of the mark. Most of the 'radical weight' being shifted in this world right now is happening in third world countries where only a very small minority live as you describe. Besides, it is possible to work hard and think outside the square at the same time you know, the two are not mutually exclusive. You, Col, seem to find as much time to contemplate the state of the world as us radically inclined layabouts. :)

Mitchell - welcome! And Squeers, take care, hope to see you back again soon, you're another wonderful breath of fresh air on OLO. Pelican, Benk and Foxy - great comments too, as always, though Benk I must admit I missed the relevance of your lie-detector post. :)

Ah Bronwyn so pleased to see your response, which proves much of my comment

Re “Besides, it is possible to work hard and think outside the square at the same time you know, the two are not mutually exclusive. “

Actually, bronny, I make my money form “thinking outside the square” the difference… I do it in a productive manner, instead of the way of the “radical activist”, who is inherently envious and destructive in approach.

Activists assume their enforced “radical change” is necessary, where as most of the time what is lacking has more to do with their own lack of vision and respect for the rights of others.

“You, Col, seem to find as much time to contemplate the state of the world as us radically inclined layabouts. :)”

How I spend my time, “contemplating” anything, is up to me and not something which your opinion holds sway over.

As it is, I am “multi-focal”, balancing the demands of regular work with additional client expectations, family obligations and the state of the world.

Its called juggling… I find I can have about 4 “job” balls rolling around at any time (but 5 balls tends to cause problems), as well as the family and worldly demands. Maybe you find that hard to contemplate but maybe you are just not used to dealing with “pressure”.

Regarding “shut down any who dare to contemplate radical alternatives to your beloved laissez-faire capitalism,”

No, I like you espousing the fallacious goals of the left. That is what allows me to expose them as frauds.

The challenge for me, is to keep up with the changing names of the flim-flam and balderdash of the left

Like dearest Margaret also said "Socialists have always spent much of their time seeking new titles for their beliefs, because the old versions so quickly become outdated and discredited."

We see it today, in the lefts attempts to turn AGW/Climate Change into a motive for

Socialism by Stealth

Replacing the more direct thrust of failed collectivism, promoted with Brezhnev's tanks