During my little holiday from OLO, I availed myself of the opportunity to peruse other Australian sites. I noted that there were plenty of intelligent, articulate and opinionated women blogging and commenting out there.

I'm wondering why it is that OLO increasingly attracts so few "regular" women posters in the comment's section?

While I was away, it seemed that Lexi was the only regular female contributor.
It seems it's almost exclusively male opinion around here - I wonder why?

Dear Poirot,

There were many female posters when I first joined
this forum and you're right slowly but surely
they have been disappearing.

One of the reasons could be that the standard of
debate on this forum has possibly become far more
shall we say - "conservative" (for want of a better
word ) and or "predictable."
And people feel no longer challenged or interested
in contributing.

The same old, same old, ideas and ideologies abound.
And some of the postings seem to have gotten more
personal and nastier - and that makes enjoyment in
posting less enjoyable.
And the few females that do remain - may be entertaining
thoughts of leaving as well - (haven't heard from Pelican
for a while).
Don't forget that quite a few males who used to
provide a bit intelligently - have gone as well. And
well reasoned and logical posters like Pericles,
to just name one, are posting less and less regularly.

A pity. But what can you do. I wonder what it says about
the rest of us who continue to post? (determined not to
give in no matter how we're pushed - perservering regardless).

cont'd ...

BTW: Welcome back!

Poirot, that's nonsense. Check the articles section and there are many women posters, many of whom manage to post without claiming to be victims of male oppression every second sentence.

Antiseptic,

My point was about the dearth of women posting consistently and regularly in the comment's section on this forum....I don't recall raising the issue as an adjunct to claims by women of male domination.

In fact, I don't see it as an issue of male domination. I see it as females by and large choosing not to participate in OLO.

Poirot, I was actually referring to Lexi's comment in my remark about claiming male oppression.

Personally, I don;t bother with the general section much anymore because there's very little chance of a real meeting of minds and I rarely have my own views challenged or my knowledge expanded.

I can't see any point in preaching to the choir, although perhaps that's what some of those who choose other venues might be seeking.

Poirot, Lexi,

It could be that men have more time on their hands, and are more arrogant about voicing their opinions and prejudices.

But like you say, maybe the more articulate posters have said what they want to say and are withdrawing, leaving the field to us dumbos :)

So ..... what do we do about it ? Should there be daily quotas, equal numbers of men and women ? Should some of us have sex-changes ? Should women get preferential treatment, 500-word limits and ten posts a day per subject ? It's a tough one.

Cheers,

Joe

Joe,

As endearing as your sarcastic rejoinders often are, I'm not requesting that we "do" something about it.
I'm merely noting the phenomenon and asking fellow OLOer's to surmise the reasons why.

Perhaps you're right, Poirot, our task is to interpret the world, not to change it :)

Joe

A: Grumpy old men.

The real question is really why any woman would be interested to spend so much time with this lot in the first place. Perhaps their husbands just aren't grumpy and cantankerous enough.

See if a woman doesn't get enough rumpy-grumpy at home, she seeks out a cynical sarcastic hater in the online world.

It's pretty simple really.

I have long read feminist social commentry for similar reasons

Oftentimes I even look on that Sam Brett site, to read posts from vacuous self-centered judgemental self righteous man hating chicks. I don't get enough of it in my everyday life, and I enjoy reading posts from these dreadful women so I can feel so smug I have managed to avoid such women in real life.

Though I have really dropped off my posting on OLO. It really is getting boring. Perhaps if Col came back...

The Vile Ginx even!

Sorry HasBeen and Belly and OUG and SM and Individual and the butcher talking in circles just makes me feel live I've visited a retirement home. Yabbs is always good value of course!

A better question is where are all the under 35s? This place is way more exciting than Twitter!

Hiya Houellie,

Yep, I noticed that you've not been posting as much recently.

So now I'm wondering what it is that attracts me to OLO. Perhaps the subject matter here is more male oriented...I like a good stoush on world affairs (political, social and such like).
You're right that I don't live with a grumblebum and therefore maybe I seek out reasonably solid debate. Many women do get bogged down on the "feminism" issue. I've found that particular subject quite confusing and perplexing as I have contrasting views regarding modern society and I invariably find I shoot myself down in flames.

I do get what your saying about the round and round in circles Aussie political mish-mash emanating from some of the regulars...boring.....

Joe,

"..our task is to interpret the world, not to change it..."

You can't help yourself can you....be nice if you once engaged without sarcastic overtones and that nice little smiley face at the end to add to the insult.

You could look out the back of course.

That's where you'll find them, in the kitchen, barefoot & pregnant, just as god & nature designed.

Unlike lionesses, our females have never been much good at catching a feed, only cooking it.

I do reckon it's like that Monty Python to me. I come here for a good argument. Sometimes even when I agree with anti, I play devil's advocate because he really gives a good argument. Better than the people I actually disagree with. I wish I disagreed with you and pelican more too actually.

I think I'm like you in that 'er indoors just wont argue with me and isn't a feminist and isn't political at all so I come here. Trouble is lately here people are arguing, inarticulately and humourlessly, about stuff I'm not really bothered about.

I went to a feminist site, but they just censor stuff and reject posts because they don't agree with you. No matter how politely you put it, they just delete anything at all challenging. I couldn't believe that actually, when they all had the chance to gang up on me, that they wouldn't even have any contradictory views on their site. Mazing. I really was super polite too, used Jewely's innocent questioning style technique on them.

I do have some great arguments with Indian posters on cricinfo though. No, not circinfo as one of the recent topics had links to, which I embarassingly misread. I couldn't conceive how arguments about circumcision would be on a cricket site! Then I re-read it just as I was about to post. Can you tell I'm bored yet?

Thank you, Hasbeen.

You are such a charmer.

Now why would women avoid OLO when there are men like you to interact with?

It beats me.

*So now I'm wondering what it is that attracts me to OLO. Perhaps the subject matter here is more male oriented...I like a good stoush on world affairs (political, social and such like).*

Well that could be a reason, Poirot. Good to see you back, btw.

I doubt if so many women are interested in things like world affairs.
Yet if you go to the Thermomix forum, thousands are posting their
latest recipee and what they cooked for dinner last night.

We have our share of females here, although its not always obvious.
Rhian and Oto are female, but once again, these are thinking females,
clearly not your Mrs Average, who is busy on Facebook, discussing
the kids or grandkids.

Ca va, Poirot,

:)

But seriously, why not try to change the world instead of just sitting back and lamenting it ? Form a Thesis Eleven faction within OLO ?

What if every male contributor on OLO made an effort to encourage, recruit, incite, provoke or trick ONE woman each to make a contribution ? It wouldn't have to be brilliant, judging by some of the blokes' contributions, including my own. I go to choir tonight (three-quarters women) so I'll scout around. What do you reckon ?

Cheers,

Joe

Actually Poirot, as others have pointed out, the real question is "where are all the people?".

Gee Poirot, I did expect a bit better than that, after all it was a bit outrageous.

Hope Lexi can do better.

most real women don't speak english. they're outnumbered by educated english speaking females.

Poirot "noted that there were plenty of intelligent, articulate and opinionated women blogging and commenting out there."

Did you see many actively participating on sites where there was a genuine mix of conflicting views and perspectives?

I've got the impression that there are not many sites around which do have space for most viewpoints (even if those viewpoints are hotly challenged). I've also had the subjective impression that some of those who've taken part here in the past and moved on with parting shot's at "male posters" don't accept not being able to have opposing views shut down. One in particular with a habit of dishing it out and getting all bent out of shape when it was returned in kind.

There are still some "intelligent, articulate and opinionated women" posting here, yourself, Lexi, Rhian (I think is a woman), Suzieonline being a few that come to mind and a bunch of others who seem to drop in and out.

The time of year might have some impact on people's posting habits, be interesting to see who's posting in a months time.

R0bert

Dear Antiseptic,

I did not mention "male oppression," at all in my
previous post. It referred to OLO posters in general.
You appear to have some sort of a problem - and
that's something only you can fix.

Cheers.

RObert,

You are right. As I mentioned in OUG's thread, I'd been following a stoush about feminism - and had been impressed by the level of expression employed by the men and many women taking part. Yes there was plenty of conflict and difference of perspective. I also visited another site for a while mainly about economics and politics - and I noted a few women there - but overall I found it boring after a while.

OLO is perhaps the only site that provides a forum for wide-ranging subjects. It also hosts a heavy volume of participation.

Joe,

Interesting idea, however, it seems to me that cajoling or convincing someone to participate may not prove successful in the long run. For instance, I don't personally know any women who would be as interested as I am in putting my views out there on OLO. I often talk politics and social issues with my daughter. She's an intelligent and articulate woman, but I know she wouldn't be interested in this site.

I suppose I was musing on the women who have fallen away. As Lexi mentioned, there seemed to be more women around when I first joined.

Hasbeen,

Glad you were meaning to be outrageous - I worry about you sometimes.

I humbly submit that presumably the women have what they think is "a life", since I don't think this site is particularly macho. So I imagine they're having their hair and nails done and maybe a nip and tuck, or boob reduction/enhancement; or they're just watching the neighbours through the slit in the curtain (domestic politics is far more diverting than the real thing). Or perhaps they're grudgingly "giving out", as they say? It seems to me, in short, that the ladies are preoccupied with frivolities--which is a compliment since they're doing what they're supposed to. After all, oour culture is nothing if not frivolous.
Just as pertinent, is where are all the "young" people?
Well they have the illusion of a life too you see. It takes wisdom, and years, to be disillusioned (and apparently male genitalia).
It seems to me the ladies and the young folk have romantic notions to work out, and in the ladies' case their youth is spent before their romanticism. No wonder the age to suicide for the ladies is overwhelmingly in the fifties--disillusioned at last and too old to do anything else about it!
Of course I realise one shouldn't say such things--all the more reason to say them--and I'm no misogynist, but the ladies are busy getting hairdo's, boob jobs, and that elusive great sex they read about endlessly. Of course they have their little hobby horses--modest environmentailsm, the McGrath foundation etc., but these are more in the nature of accessories than anything they'd burn their bras for.
In the end, I suspect OLO's too dry for the ladies--too much reality, which always clashes with fake.

Yabby suggested that many females are happily engaged on facebook. I think he's right. But what about the women who maybe aspire to more articulate and informed forums? I know they're out there because recently I read loads of well-written articles and follow-up comments.

Squeers, no doubt, is correct in his assumption that many women are busy attempting to maintain and promote their sexuality in a society that provides much artificial stimulus to such ends. Many I think are happy enough in their own little first-world paradigms and don't give much thought to the bigger issues save for parroting the commentaries they glean between commercials on MSM.

But the men and women who entertained me recently during the controversy on feminism are capable of excellent commentary and stimulating and thought-provoking argument. And although they may have romance, sex or hair do's on their minds, they are not vacuous entities....but they don't come here.

Perhaps Lexi is right when she surmises that OLO is too conservative a forum for their likes.

The only other sites of this nature I frequent regularly, although rarely contributing are both run by ladies.

I find JoNova, & Jennifer Marohasy are both very interesting sites, but on both of them, there are few lady contributors. They both get contributors with high technical expertise, & following many of the references can involve some serious math at times.

If the net had been available when I was a kid,I doubt I'd ever have got round to flying jets of aircraft carriers, but I don't think it would have had much effect many of the women I know.

squeers, I'm no misogynist either, but if I'd said what you did I'd have been crucified as one.

One of the things I have deliberately set out to do on this site is to break up the cheer squads of avowedly-feminist women that tended to swamp any serious discussion with polemic and abuse, making it nearly impossible to have a coherent conversation.

At the risk of being immodest, I think I've managed that task reasonably well. It's to be hoped that the women who might look at contributing in future will offer something more substantial than a crow's chorus of approval for anything said by women and a sypmhony of raspberries for the things said by men.

Lexi, despite your obvious ability, you have a disturbing tendency to join the flock of crows when one starts to form and an irritating habit of speaking in platitudes. I enjoy your contributions when they're genuinely yours, not merely somebody else's recycled words or me-tooism.

Thanks Poirot for responding to my comments so serenely--and who could argue with them. I have to say however that most of the prose stylists I enjoy, both canonical and contemporary, are men, especially those with a socio-political bent. Apart from Camille Paglia, Judith Butler and Germaine Greer--who tend to be verbose, abstruse and polemical respectively--in the modern era, my favourite writers are men when it comes to politeloquence: Clive James, Alan Bennett, John Updike, Edward Said, Terry Eagleton and even Christopher Hitchens, to name a few. Can you point me towards one or two of these female prose stylists you allude to? I've no doubt they're out there and I'd love to swap allegiances.

Anti,
You're right you know. If you'd come out against the ladies the way I did I'm sure you'd have been unceremoniously disposed of, but then your agenda wants balance imho, whereas I tend to attack men just as vehemently. It's a banality that both sexes are biased in their own favour, indeed that nearly all political views uncannily reflect the interests of their exponents, whether they be grandiloquent or monosyllabic. I try to challenge my wonted biases, and I think the fairest positions are counter-intuitive. Whenever I get up people's noses I know I'm getting close to the money : )

Correction, above I meant to say "who could argue" with Poirot's comments in response.

Dear Antiseptic,

It's interesting that on every thread you somehow
manage to bring up the topic of "male oppression," and
that you continue to refer to female posters on OLO
as a "flock of crows," as "cheer squads of avowedly-feminist
women" and say that they tend to "swamp any serious
discussion with polemic and abuse making it nearly
impossible to have a coherent conversation.," and so on.

From an observers point of view - reading your posts it
would appear that the one doing the abusing is you.
How on earth can anyone have a meaningful conversation
or a debate with someone who continually descends into
a meaningless tactical stream of insults.

Perhaps if you were to respond locgically and intelligently -
you may be
taken more seriously instead of coming across as negatively
as you do. It takes two to have a debate - and its very
discouraging to continue when your opinion isn't respected -
and sweeping generalisations and insults are made about you.

Take a look at yourself - and what you do - before accusing
others of anything. Go back to your other thread - and
read what Pericles posted to you - there's a lot of truth
in what he said. It's time you realised how you are perceived
on OLO to quite a few people - not just your own "cheer squad"
(as you put it).

Lexi:"How on earth can anyone have a meaningful conversation
or a debate with someone who continually descends into
a meaningless tactical stream of insults."

Precisely my point. If you'd like to see an example of a reasonable discussion on on a subject related to gender, have a look at

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13171

and

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13162&page=1

Plenty of disagreement there, but in the end something of a meeting of minds on both threads. You'll note that the discussion remained generally on-track and that there were lots of substantive, well-considered points made.

I won't bother linking to the most recent example of a discussion on a gender-related topic in the general section. It was a fine example of the crow chorus in action, doing its best to drown out any chance of a meeting of minds.

squeers:"your agenda wants balance imho"

What do you think is my "agenda"?

At the risk of exposing my 'feminine side', I find this forum a little too confrontational at times; despite often trying to give as good as I get.
I much prefer discourse with gentle souls, like David f. and Pelican; come to think of it all the females that I'm aware of, and I daresay a few that I'm not.
I agree with Squeer's sentiments. This is a great place for people who don't have much of a social life, or whose immediate family and friends aren't enthralled with arguing Politics, Religion and the Meaning OF Life.
It's certainly much safer than the pub.

It's an interesting point Poirot, and I think the reason there aren't more women posting has to do with preference, not that they're not interested in the subject matter.

While not many women seem to involve themselves in comments threads, we get plenty of female support editing the journal. Out of the editorial volunteers 21 out of 33 are male, and the two most involved at the moment - Jo Coghlan and Kali Goldstone - are certainly both female.

I've just scanned down a couple of weeks of articles and most days we have at least a couple of female contributors, although there has been the odd all-male day.

We also know from surveys that around one-third of readers are female.

So involvement of females in the discussion threads seems to be something specific to threads in general, or perhaps just this thread.

I've just done a quick and unscientific scan of The Australian and The National Times discussion threads, and while women are in a definite minority there are certainly more than there are on our thread. Of course it's hard to know who is and isn't a woman, because nicknames can hide anything.

So that suggests threads are less attractive to women than articles - so it is partly a preference issue - but that this forum is less attractive than most.

So maybe it is time to do a survey to find out why women aren't more involved in the forum.

Squeers,

Yes I like Paglia too but, as you say, she is verbose.

Okay....articulate women speaking out on global issues. Here are three that I admire greatly with examples of their work.

Naomi Klein
http://www.naomiklein.org/articles

Vandana Shiva (Indian ecologist)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/events/reith_2000/lecture5.stm

Arundhati Roy (Author of Booker Prize winning "The God of Small Things")
http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/Roys-full-speech/2004/11/04/1099362264349.html

I'm going to include two articles on the feminist controversy that I've been alluding to - both written by women. One is in defence of MTR and the other is Jennifer Wilson's reply. One of the points I was trying to make was that this issue fired up many women to take part in discussion, especially in "comment" sections....we don't have that sort of female participation on OLO.

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/01/25/3415534.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2012/01/30/3418912.htm

I'm a casual contributer with a neutral nickname that may hide the fact that I am female. There are two major reasons why I don't conbtribute more, both mentioned in other posts.

First, I have a busy life. I work (self-employed); also writing a couple of books (and have a varied email correspondence with people doing similar research). For the last year I've been handling a family probate, and renovating two houses (both damaged by last year's heavy rains) 1000km apart.

Second, the posts on OLO are extremely and boringly predictable (even the ones I agree with). Whatever the topic, people tend just to restate their standard views. 'Debate' becomes a repetition of x versus y. It's so rigid that I've been fascinated to see that when I occasionally make a contribution, it's as though my post is invisible - the circus of x versus y rolls on regardless!

I have often thought of making the following challenge: I would love to see each regular poster make a case (on whatever topic) diametrically opposed to the stand they normally take. This is how formal debates work - each side is given a case to argue, whether or not they personally agree with it. It's a valuable exercise. By getting people out of their comfort zone, it forces them to (a) think seriously about the other viewpoint, and (b) critique the basis of their own view.

Well, this post will probably go down like all my others - like a lead balloon. Ho-hum. Back to the real world.

Bonjour mon amie Poirot, Mesdames et Mesdemoiselles,

Ce sont eux qui sont beaux. J'ai eu tort ! Oh ! comme je voudrais être comme eux. Je n'ai pas de corne, hélas ! Que c'est laid, un front plat. Il m'en faudrait une ou deux, pour rehausser mes traits tombants. Ça viendra peut-être, et je n'aurai plus honte, je pourrai aller tous les retrouver. Mais ça ne pousse pas !

: )

Grim: "I much prefer discourse with gentle souls, like David f. and Pelican; come to think of it all the females that I'm aware of, and I daresay a few that I'm not".

I agree and it's hard not to admire the mostly serene female temperaments of many of the ladies, and some of the men. However I'm sometimes confrontational and I think that's a good thing to a point. Sometimes we need to have our cages rattled and it can force us to drop our defences and pretences. My other concern is that if we cultivate an overly mannered persona it can tend to fit like a straight jacket; we've created this unreal representation that represses the dark side like Jekyll's Hyde. So yes, polite discourse is admirable and all that, but it can be a wish-washy mode of forbearance that's too polite to interrogate seemly surfaces and established bias. The great rhetoricians of the past, indeed all ages, were not afraid of being acerbic and deconstructive, and often found it a necessity, in pursuit of the truth, which is never on the surface.
There does come a point though where confrontation as a tactic is overdone and loses its efficacy, and even alienates debate--and Squeers has been guilty of that.
I think you get the balance just right, Grim.

I've often felt the brunt of DavidF's impolitic side, btw, so am happy to exonerate him of the charge of breeding accord.

Antiseptic,
"agenda" may have been a poor choice of words, you just seem to maintain a constant bias against the ladies when men are often just as deserving. You often make excellent observations too though and I enjoy reading your comments.

*It's so rigid that I've been fascinated to see that when I occasionally make a contribution, it's as though my post is invisible*

Well there you go, Cossomby, your post was clearly not invisible!

In fact I enjoy reading the thoughts of new posters, one might
always learn something or examine a different perspective.
That does not mean that I would feel compelled to comment, but
perhaps just take it in for contemplation.

Interesting would be to know, how many people are simply lurkers
and don't post at all. Some people are in fact quite nervous about
posting on public forums, even using a nick.

Some posters I always read, such as Pericles, Houllie and Poirot.
Some, like UOG, I tend to skip over, as its more a jumble of thoughts
rather then anything worth seriously contemplating.

Dear Antiseptic,

Thanks for the links.

In the first link I notice that your post
was deleted for being offensive. Proves my point.
In the second link - your post did not appear.

As I stated earlier - perhaps it would be a good
idea for you to actually read what you're posting
prior to doing so. Then, if you were to edit
out all the abusive references - people may become
interested in inter-acting with you - especially
the females that you continue to regularly criticise.
At present the only meeting of the minds that you seem
to accept are ones that agree with your opinion.

How about from now on you try focusing on the topic of
the debate and the substantive issues of the subjects
under discussion and not descend into a maze of meaningless
tactical stream of insults. You may then get the coherent
conversations that you say you're after. Take a risk -
and make this start - what have you got to lose -
except perhaps the meaningless tactical tit-for-tat.

Lexi:"In the second link - your post did not appear."

Really? Perhaps you just have a case of selective blindness

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13162#227610

I shan't go into the reason for the deletion in the first link, other than to say it was down to prurience rather than anything substantive in the comment.

Nonetheless, the thread proceeded to a less than combative conclusion.

Perhaps that's something to which the crow chorus might aspire.

Poirot, thanks for the two links to the MTR discussion. Some interesting point's in the original article and some disturbing views about men.

Both pieces were worth a read.

R0bert

Sorry, Poirot,

I got too carried away with singing Abba and 'Shelter' and 'Let there be peace on earth' and Cole Porter and The Carpenters and so much else that I didn't get around to cajoling any women to think about contributing to OLO. Sing Australia really gets the endorphins going, every place I've been.

But I'll keep trying.

:)

Cossomby,

I hear you - and I agree that often threads are boring, predictable and repetitious. Most of us are acquainted with other poster's predilections and either support or react accordingly.
I like your idea of challenging oneself to argue in favour of an opposing view...(like me arguing in support of the Iraq War or supporting Newt Gingrich for the Republican nomination [twitch, twitch]).

Graham,

I did note on the feminist issue in the comment sections of blogs and on twitter that there was a high degree of male participation, not putting the boot the boot in, but as supportive commentary.

bonmot,

Ashamed as I am to admit it, my French is rather limited (Do you give lessons?)....but I think I got your drift : )

Poirot/Cossomby, remaining wedded to a view after considering alternatives is not a sign of inflexibility necessarily. Remaining wedded to that view when alternatives have been examined and dismissed simply because they are not congruent with one's own view is most ertainly an indication of a lack of reasoning ability.

I nearly always argue all sides of any debate as best I can, then do my best to support whichever side is clearly most supportable. I nearly always endeavour to bolster whatever side that is with confirmatory evidence if I can find it.

Let's not forget that the scientific method consists of "observe, hypothesise, test" as a mimimal requirement. It does not consist of "desire, choose, rationalise", despite the preference of some.

Dear Anti,

I believe in aspirations.
If you were to lead by example,
perhaps the "crows chorus," that you perceive
could become excellent warblers under your
tutelage.

Poirot non amie;

translation herewith:

They are the ones who are beautiful. I was wrong! Oh! how I would like to be like them. Alas! I don't have a horn. I would need one or two to enhance my drooping features. Perhaps it will come and I won't be ashamed anymore, I'll be able to find them all again. But it's not growing!

: )

Dear Poirot,

I just found the English translation of bonmot's French
quote. He beat me to giving it to you.

Dear bonmot,

Brilliant!

Here's another reason why I don't post often.

Squeers and Antiseptic tried on two attitudes to women: that the ladies are preoccupied with frivolities (Squeers) or that the cheer squads of avowedly-feminist women ... tend to swamp any serious discussion with polemic and abuse (Antiseptic).

Now Antispetic writes: squeers, I'm no misogynist either, but if I'd said what you did I'd have been crucified as one.

I'll give them both the benefit of the doubt, and assume that these posts are attempts to stir.

But why rise to the bait? Whether genuine views or just stirs, these lines are almost sweetly old-fashioned. So I wouldn't bother any more - I've been there, done that, for decades. The world has changed - women can get their hair done and think about sex and be feminists (which I define as having the same opportunity as men to succeed, fail or just be dumb). And they can do all that and enjoy serious intellectual challenges and debate ... if they can find it.

So if you guys find that women don't engage with you over ideas, then maybe they've heard it all before and have just moved on?

PS Thanks, Yabbie

bonmot,

Thanks for that : )

I managed to work out most of it, but your translation makes it much clearer.

Anti,

Cossomby was just suggesting an exercise to take us out of our comfort zone. For example, it might be useful to me as I'm rather conflicted about "feminism" because it's application in the West is influenced greatly by a system I often criticise.

Lexi,

Thanks for that : )

RObert,

Glad you found the articles interesting - this issue completely bypassed OLOers it seems.

Poirot:"this issue completely bypassed OLOers it seems"

Not so. If you'd participate in the articles section you'll find that the Jennifer Wilson/MTR issue has already been discussed.

Thank you, Anti.

I don't suppose you could tell me where or post a link, could you...and are you referring to the recent stoush or simmering issues in the past?

P.S. I do participate in the article's section - quite often in fact. However, the general section often has plenty of action.

Cossomby,
I appreciate your comments and would encourage you to post more often.
Perhaps it's inevitable that there's an element of misogyny in all men who are conscious of the gender divide. But then that goes both ways and you'd have to admit that "men" (a stereotype) have also born the brunt of feminine mockery and feminist spleen for decades. I think each gender is deserving of criticism, though as individuals we can all claim to disown the stereotypes.

This comment is interesting:

"The world has changed - women can get their hair done and think about sex and be feminists (which I define as having the same opportunity as men to succeed, fail or just be dumb). And they can do all that and enjoy serious intellectual challenges and debate ... if they can find it".

Yes, feminism has wrought a degree of change in our culture; it's called political correctness and women enjoy the illusion, and to a certain extent the reality, of equal treatment. There's still work to be done but equality within the prevailing system has degenerated into the yardstick of feminist intervention. Any aspiration for real change, for the overthrow of patriarchal society and paternalism has been mitigated by the realisation that women constitute two of the pillars of patriarchy, paternalism and patriotism.
Feminists have abandoned their chance to change the world men built--and evermore extravagantly seek to renew--or at least took the kudos for, and have settled instead for the boast that they can be just as self-indulgent, narcissistic and irresponsible.
Your comment's interesting because it's so typical of a mindset common to both sexes that takes the prevailing reckless order utterly for granted. There's no thought of changing the world, no conception that the world could be other than it is, just an indignant insistence on an equal share of what amounts in the West to manna from heaven.
Women don't want emancipation, they just want better treatment/service to go with the indulgence. They want their illusions maintained.

Poirot, it wasn't discussed as such, but I mentioned it in passing in the women's super thread.

I think Jennifer Wilson's handled herself very well and the subject is an important one. I'm quite interested in Graham's view, since I was suspended last year for mentioning that a particular article was the product of someone from the Sydney Catholic diocese.

squeers, Eva Cox has made several comments lately in a similar vein. I do hope it signals a shift from the way mainstream carrerist feminists have handled themselves.

Squeers, now that's a post worth discussing. At one level, I think you (and Eva Cox) are on to something. I think there's no doubt that equal pay/opportunities and at least some respect can make a woman less inclined to want to overthrow the patriachy. And I write that both facetiously and seriously. There's also no doubt that 'liberation' has led to outbreaks of idiocy among women, as I said before, gender equality also allows women to be equally dumb as men (and why not? maybe that's better than women being expected to be God's police, or in the current manifestation, carrying all the family 'honour', at the risk of death).

I was around in the 60s, and was involved in Womens Lib in the 70s. (I had a memorable evening some years back, when a much younger male colleague, who had subcontracted me on a job, took me out to dinner when we had finished - and asked breathlessly 'what was it like to be alive in the 60s?' Ah, normal?).

So I remember many, and was involved in some, movements to change the system. And, alas, the system is, mainly, still with us. I'm cautious about revolution; one of the things we can see from history is that the regimes that follow well-intentioned revolution can be worse than the regimes they overthrew.

But we didn't all give up - some of us are still working away as white-ants inside the system. TBC.

Cossomby,
I've pretty much given up. And when you know the system has to change but wont, can't, the only thing left is cynicism. I agree that revolutions of the past are disturbing precedents. But then we're not within cooee of a revolution, not even in countries where austerity is starting to bite. There's absolutely no hope in spoiled nanny states like Australia, and even less in the US where the ideology of "freedom"--that is the free market, the freedom to suffer unmolested or starve in the streets--seems indomitable. I'm persuaded that societies are even less capable of change than individuals are, and that gender's got nothing to do with it. It seems change can only come via collapse and subsequent rebuilding, rather than gradualism. I'm afraid I think your white-anting just makes the system stronger as it flexes and moves to accommodate trivial dissent. As long as capitalism is undergirded by "democracy"--that is institutional patronage--it'll continue to be seen as the best of all possible worlds. That being the case perhaps your right, that equality and freedom from paternalism within the system are still worth fighting for. Even if women can't have freedom from exploitation, nor an authentic life or a sustainable world, they can still attain ideological emancipation. But these brave souls, prepared to be pariahs for their convictions, seem very few. I see more females wrapped in flags in the media these days than burning their bras. It seems to me identity politics in general are redundant, at least in the West (certainly not in the Moslem world), just another mode of consumption, a niche market. I think we're yet to fully appreciate that idealism cuts no mustard in this world--Marx's seminal realisation. We're a race of dreamers and a few of us pathetically try to conjure change from the ethers. We may as well invoke angels (my grandmother did once to keep her plane aloft during an international flight). Meanwhile realism is relentless. Perhaps then the Buddha's doctrine of renunciation in an "unsatisfactory" world trumps Marx's naive positivism?

Squeers and Cossomby,

Firstly, let me say that it's nice to see a discussion concerning feminism that hasn't degenerated into a slanging match over who's the most worthy gender.

It seems to me that our system requires women to be "out there" - that emancipation of sorts was always going to be feature of a highly industrial society. The women's movement probably did its bit the hasten change and widen the parameters of that change, but a system based on consumption needs as many acolytes as it can manufacture.
I've often likened modern consumer society to a conveyor belt - one where its participants believe they're free simply because they appear to be moving forward.

Squeers, alluding back to your take that women are out there having their nips and tucks and nails done, etc. It occurs to me that although our society provides kudos to female frivolity and vanity, most women eventually find themselves trying to cope with the manic responsibilities involved in both raising children while holding down a "job". All the women I know with young children appear to exist in a perpetual hurricane, rushing here and there, and only taking a breather when periodically the eye of the storm deigns to pass over them.

Certainly, I believe that if people are dissatisfied with the system, they should attempt to change their own lives in whatever way they can - Gandhi said "You must be the change you want to see in the world"...I think he's right.

" "You must be the change you want to see in the world"...I think he's right." - so do I

It is an interesting discussion. Picking up on the point you made about the mothers of young children, it does seem to be the nature of children (especially with current society vlaues) that they are high maintenance. I think that there are parts of that maintenance level that are largely a consequence of the same consumer culture.

Expectations that parents have of what's required that may be way more than kid's actually need to develop and experience a great childhood.

R0bert

Tis is all wery good.

'a niche market.'? Everything is a niche market. Feminism in the beginning was a niche market just like Gothism and Jockism and those hats where bear comes down from a straw.

Conform, consume, obey. The best trick ever is to allow people a pretend disobedience, and then use it to market gear to them and a look and a an image.

There is actually no space left for any original thought, The Cure were even jumpin' someone else's train, and if anyone tries there will always be a guy around the corner fulfilling that market, sullying originality and surrounding it in cliche! There is nothing free from the corruption of the market, even your love for your spouse.

Diamonds; Because money equals love!

'one where its participants believe they're free simply because they appear to be moving forward.'

And why not! Do you want to move backward? The secret is really, and I hop you're listening is idleness! THAT's what really gets em. An idle person doesn't aspire, and without aspiring to wealth, an image, a pretension, respect, well, you really don't need that new tie.

'most women eventually find themselves trying to cope with the manic responsibilities involved in both raising children while holding down a "job"'

I reject this. This is what they're told. Time poor? Don't make me wet myself laughing. Let them live 50 years ago and hand wash clothes, cook food without a microwave, mend clothes, have 5 kids rather than 1 or 2. Stressed? Hahaha. Let them consider their husband being conscripted or worry about being bombed.

The repesponsibilities of raising children does not include teaching them Japanese before they turn 5. It does not include 'stimulating' them, or Gymberoo, or 'quality time'. No house needs a home theatre movie room eihter.

'they should attempt to change their own lives in whatever way they can'
The only change they could make would be to downsize. Everything. But they would then be guilty of hurting 'The Economy', and making people lose their jobs. Ending is better than mending.

Anyone who is time poor is time poor by choice. We all get 24 hours. Affluenza is what you have.

The thing is keeping up with the Jonses has always been there. I suppose now the collapse of runner type morals has focussed all the keeping up into possessions.

TV is to blame. We should ban it.

And mothers who stay at home filled in the time that washing machines made by competing with working women by turning themselves into house managers and being a life coach and personal trainer and events organiser for their kids. Then they can answer 'what do you do all day, I need mental stimulation' with 'I don't know how you can dump your kids at daycare, they need more stimulation and quality time'.

If you could be 'better' than someone just by being more virtuous, attending church, covering up a black eye, if you weren't 'worth it', and knew your place, and enjoyed your working class status, with pride, and engaged in those dreaded 'Politics of Envy' reverse snobbery, then that would scare the bejesus out of the conservatives!

I suppose we still have ACA and Aussie Battlers, the trouble is they earn $100 an hour and have a home theatre room and Two brand new cars.

They work like a 'busy mum' an they're time poor, and they wouldn't have it any other way because small businesses are the backbone of the country. They're doin it tough trying to beat those banks for that private school education for little Kyla and Oscar and Eva and Jack.

RObert and Houlle raise valid points.
I would agree on the question of time -for members of both sexes- that time poverty is directly proportional to aspirations. At the risk of appearing sexist, is it possible that consumerism and 'keeping up with the Joneses' has accelerated with the increase of 2 breadwinner families?
As with so many of my generation, my mum could stay at home. She found part time work only when she wanted something father couldn't see any need of: new curtains, carpets...
Is it sexist to suggest many of the things many women regard as necessities, many men regard as luxuries? And vice versa. Many ockers regard a slab and watching the footy as 'necessities', I guess.
In short, does the quality, as well as the quantity of consumerism change as more women enter the workforce?
My feeling is women are far more concerned about appearances, and not just personal appearance.
But I could be wrong.

Drive to the Gym and run on the treadmill and drive home.

Eat takeaway food because you're too tired from working in order to be able to afford takeaway food every night.

Work to pay for childcare, because you need that 'career' as a sechetary.

Go on the latest diet because that model lost her post-pregnancy weight in 2 months with her personal trainer and chef, so you should be able to do it too. She has a video telling you how, you just have to believe like those people on the biggest loser. Follow their journey, you'll laugh and you'll cry.

There is no such thing as Luxuary. You deserve luxury every day. Because you're a time poor mum. You're worth it.

Hey did you know next door has a feature wall, and spanner cushions are on sale at bunnings for $12.36. It would be great for that 'lifestyle' of outdoor living and alfresco dining. Anything European is cool. You can live the authentic slow life if you buy the right paraphernalia.

All in all, I think the end result is magnificent. You used to have more people fighting in pubs for pride, nicer lawns and a clean car, or scheming to marry the richer banker guy, or baking the better cake or starching the collars, but now we just have 'designer', alfresco', 'outdoor living', IKEA, hollywood baby names and private schools and home theatres.

We've progressed!

I don't know whether people are any happy or unhappy, but they are choosing all this. They get told they're time poor and battlers and we are worshipping the economy and it's loving us right. What I don't understand is why people keep critisizing a system where we are wealthy enough to live on half of what we earn and still have a life infinately better than 90% of the world's population.

Why are celebrities real and starving kids in Africa not. Why do people only compare ourselves to people on the rung above. It's a much easier life if you compare yourself to pikeys and bogans. That's what I do.

I prefer to just compare myself to myself.
...
...
(sigh).

Grim,

For one thing, the backyard is now a shrine like the 'good room' of the 70s and 80s. It's the outdoor room, that must be decorated and renovated and renovated.

A nice neat lawn will not do.

I suppose you could argue, that the lifestyle was something women used to aspire to by marrying the right guy. The romance of flash cars and trips to Paris, that sort of thing.

It could be argued that guys worked hard to attain money to impress the chicks with a nice car and nice things.

It's an interesting point you raise about the new driver of women and having their own money. Now they can get this stuff, and they seem pretty keen to work themselves into the ground to get it. But they still want the house cleanliness and that was previously their source of pride, and still want to impress guys with their appearance.

When only the guy worked, it was his simple needs that counter-balanced the wife's desires for asthetics, but now she is working too, so it could mean more trinkets and bows.

Definately applies to back yards.

It's also interesting this new trend of interest in cooking and manual labour handyman skills. With the associated power tools and kitchen gadgets of course. Maybe people long for the simple life, and it's been marketed to them. See, the market always delivers

Houellie and Grim,

You won't find any argument from me on the fact that aspiration is catalyst for a time-poor life in the modern world. It's seems odd to contemplate that in an age of labour-saving devices, women are run off their feet paying for them...upgrade-improve, etc. etc.
Easy access to credit means that the average worker can aspire to filling up their satchel with expensive goodies ad infinitum. They are then left with the task of paying it all off. However, it seems that most would consider this a good trade-off.

Houellie, I agree that ever since the Industrial Revolution "idleness" has been the common enemy of consuming society. It was reinforced by the Protestant work ethic....I think that a goodly drop of idleness in one's day - time for contemplation - makes the world a better experience.

http://idler.co.uk/

Wise words, Houellebecq.
Personally I don't buy the propaganda that women do all the work--and there ain't much to do anyway (except the parenting; that really is huge!). When I was widowed with my four kids I had the domestic side of life running like clockwork, though I only had two at school at the time. With all our labour saving devices it's true that we have more time than ever. I think a big part of the illusion is the notion that one of our duties is to ourselves, that we have to nurture, develop and reward ourselves, devoting more time to "leisure". My aged mother doesn't get that; she can still work 16 hours a day doing domestic work and sewing and knitting and whatever else is required by her huge family and her lazy husband cheerfully. To her that's leisure. She was literally born to serve and wouldn't have it any other way. By the same token, when she brought me and my four siblings up it was a synch; she didn't need the diversions and paraphernalia, or to nurse her conscience because the only holiday activity she'd planned was letting us play in the street. Kids are massively time-consuming and schools are always finding more hoops for parents to jump through. On top of that, rearing an accomplished person (or a useless one) is a major investment. Mine do soccer, music, dance and that keeps me broke.
It's the modern attitude that life owes us something, that we deserve perpetual rewards for our labours (hilarious), via one mode of consumption or another, that keeps us on the treadmill and the economy prospering. Insatiable, unslakable desire, for pleasure, for experiences (as if experiences were something you had to consciously pursue and accumulate--a form of capital rather than fortune), is the driver more than keeping up with the Jones's; formatively, the desire for gratification that's never quite achieved, but with maturity mere habit, consumption for the sake of it, utterly mundane and faddish.

No wonder not many women post here; it's a site for grumpy old men.

"Leisure" as we think of it these days, is more like an invented state that we are expected to partake of as an antidote to our "jobs" which are usually removed from our place of residence.

Squeers - your mum is an example of someone who's work is part of her everyday world. Before industrialisation, most people "worked" like that...it wasn't separate from the rest of their existence as it is now.
Whole industries have sprung up to provide "holidays" and "leisure experiences" starting with Butlins holdiday camps to the the modern cruise ship industry. It's as if it's because we now have the means to arrange "entertainment" that we have forgotten how to entertain ourselves. Same with our kids who now have to be organised to within an inch of their lives or we assume we're not being good parents.

It seems to me that simplifying one's life and taking the simple pleasures as they arise is perhaps the best way to get the most out of living.

Most of the men on here aren't grumpy, it's just some are more proliferate.

The fact is despite the grumpiness and complaining online, it is really easy to avoid all that vexes thee (whether it is government intervention, greed, materialism etc) in real life. In Australia it is just about possible to live according to your own values as much as you are able.

While it is good to aspire to improvements, things don't always go our way, so while aspiration is okay it is also important to remain grounded, happy and realistic.

It is not too difficult to ignore those bits of life that rankle and life is really pretty simple if you let it be - and that is something coming from someone who tends to let passion run away at times.

I think that is right anyway, maybe not, I used to be decisive but now I am not so sure. ;)

Very true squeers about expectations of life.

Everything is a product, and everything MUST be entertaining. Kids cannot be expected to learn unless it's entertaining for them. It used to be that some things were dull and difficult. Not any more. You must engage with entertainment.Everything must be fun. Jobs are now careers that must be rewarding. Rewarding? I do xyz, you give me money. Enough! This attitude never goes down well in performance reviews.

I often used to say when I was a vagabond (Collecting experiences, as you say, from 50 countries in a matter of 5 years no less) that possessions end up owning you. You buy a car for example, it wants petrol, servicing, rego, insurance, you have to lock it, you have to protect your investment. You are obligated to look after something. Well you don't have to I suppose but the more things you own, there are more things to do. Like cleaning a house with 3 bathrooms.

I think also that housework increases to fill up time. If a woman is working, she somehow has a presentable house doing say 5 hours housework a week. But if she had more time, I bet another 10 hours of housework would be done. I mean she wouldn't want antiseptic to think she'd been sitting on her bum all day.

The ultimate thing though, is that shopping, the act of buying IS a leisure activity in itself for some. Window shopping used to be what people did, to dream, to enjoy the shiny, and then they went home. But now they have Harvey Norman buy now and pay later and credit cards. They can consumate the love right there and then.

'Mine do soccer, music, dance and that keeps me broke. '
When I was a young lad, we used to sing and dance around the piano (music) and play football with the neighbourhood kids. Well I honestly did play football but am too young for the piano stuff, but I believe it did happen.

'"Leisure" as we think of it these days, is more like an invented state that we are expected to partake of as an antidote to our "jobs" which are usually removed from our place of residence.....Before industrialisation, most people "worked" like that...it wasn't separate from the rest of their existence as it is now.'

That's funny Poirot, when DIY and cooking are considered leisure activities. Men want to do physical labour and women want to bake stuff. Is it just nostalgia? I think the sense of achievement is higher in these modes of work, hence the holidays needed from the mind-numbing, intangible 'achievements' of most office work.

'grounded, happy and realistic'
I think you have self-esteem problems pelican. You can do anything! Yes you can! You are special. Gifted.

And I am a grumpy old man BTW. Though I haven't even reached 40, I have enjoyed terminal cynicism as long as I can remember. Some people are a 'people person' whatever that means, me, well, I hate people. There are individuals I like, but generally people are idiots.

I like that Idler Poirot. Have you ever seen the movie Idiocracy?

'It seems to me that simplifying one's life and taking the simple pleasures as they arise is perhaps the best way to get the most out of living.'

Like The Dude in The Big Lebowski!

Pelican:"it is really easy to avoid all that vexes thee"

Oh, would it were so!

Squeers,

Your earlier comment on OLO being "too dry" for the ladies got me thinking.

Too much reality?

On the contrary, maybe there's not enough reality on a forum like OLO. Perhaps the "dry" is a form of desiccation or devitalisation. Because the rhetoric I was reading from the "ladies" during those discussions was resonant with vitality and passion.

Perhaps that's what impressed me - because I'm quite conservative in my own presentation. It would also explain why a woman like me inhabits OLO and why those others don't.

Poirot,
My first salvo was just that, though it still stands.
I was a little tardy entering this thread and to be honest I only read the first few posts. Looking back I'm disappointed to see that Houellebecq pre-empted me with the grumpy old men label and the issue of the absence of youth on the forum that I also raised (I only read your later posts Houellebecq and thought I was being original).
It depends how you define "reality". Having finally read the two articles you put up, I'd have to say first of all that I take Wilson's position in suggesting Tankard Reist is no feminist; she has no connection with the rare breed of feminists I respect at any rate. And this leads me into the question of "reality". If you look at Tankard Reists defence, putting the "issue" aside it seems to me to be a purely domestic cat-fight that belongs in a gossip magazine (the sort women are fascinated with), or before one of those harassment tribunals women resort to with such alacrity (a great many are warranted, no doubt, but the ladies have made it an innuendo industry). If you look at the "issue" in the article, it too is an insular polemic on alleged rights and abuses that are divorced from contingent social, philosophical and paternalistic questions real feminists are concerned with.
tbc

...
The Baptist faith is highly pertinent and its paternalism is utterly at odds with any feminism worthy of the name. Tankard Reist, I infer, is precisely the kind of degenerate feminist I abhor, donning the robes and abusing the office of a radical tradition that had transcended domesticity to confront the androgynous ambient context. This admittedly is also outside reality, and outside idealism, but that's where our bleak insights about truth are glimpsed and our illusions diluted. Tankard Reist moralises within a cloistered milieu, myopically invoked, presided over by an imaginary father-figure, and insulated from the larger questions of the human condition both on the ground and in the air. If you read the male authors I mention above, they've at least left the suburbs and occupy the much drier air of international and even universal politics.
Of course my initial diatribe was aimed at the domesticated female, not those rare feminists who have retreated into obscurity, but the vast majority for whom vitality and passion derive from gossip and slander and closeted imbroglios. Apologies for the stereotyping but most hens are socially motivated and prefer clucking and squabbling and preening to abstract debate.

Squeers,

Yes, I took Wilson's side in he debate also. And while I agree with you as to MTR's brand of "feminism", the issue did raise many peripheral arguments. I posted those two articles as an overview of the controversy. Of course, I can't post all the comments from the numerous discussions that arose from this issue, but it was my positive impression of those responses that led me to start this thread. My point all along is that the ding-dong between the two protagonists was accompanied by an exuberant chorus of men and particularly women. The women, for the most part, were measured, articulate and fervent in their expression and, dare I say, some even ventured into abstract debate.

You might see it differently, but it seems to me that much clucking, squabbling and preening occurs with monotonous regularity on OLO, despite its lack of domesticated females.

Maybe the roosters aren't all that different from the hens when all is said and done.

Interesting posts.

A great deal has changed over the years.
New economic roles have brought women
greater equality with men and also many fresh
opportunities, particularly the chance to
experience careers and achievement in the world
beyond the home. The changes in gender roles has
helped to reshape the workplace, the family and
the relationships of the sexes - but the feminist
ideals of the 1960s have not always been fulfilled
by the reality of today's world.

Surveys show that most working women enjoy their
job, and for economic and other reasons would not
wish to be "only a housewife." Yet for many women,
the experience of a career has sometimes involved
puzzlement and even pain.

Women who looked forward
to "having it all" have found that the rigors of
pursuing their careers, maintaining intimate
relationships, and raising children - difficult to
balance. Some, who put their careers before
marriage found that they had hit the "invisible
ceiling," feeling deeply betrayed. Now in their forties,
they regard themselves as casualties of their own
revolution - especially if they did not marry and now
face the prospect of never finding a husband or having
children.

The postfeminist generation of women
today take the benefits of women's liberation for granted,
yet they are dubious about the burdens of being the perfect
wife, mother, and executive.

Changes in women's roles have had an immense impact on the
family. A generation of children is now being raised by
working mothers, who leave them in some form of day care
from an early age - something unprecedented on this scale
in previous experiences.

Like the feminie role, the masculine role is now more
ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to interpretation
by the individual. And I guess resolving this kind of
ambiguity is part of the challlenge of social and cultural
change.

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

A place I find interesting is Essential Baby. You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy.

These chicks tear strips of each other and every issue is a black and white moral issue.

It's breast feeders against selfish failure as a mum bottle feeders, it's anti-circumsizers vs pro-genital mutilators, it's propper mums vs neglectful working 'mothers', parents that don't use the word No as it's too negative vs child abuse smackers. It's genius!

They even have these abbreviations of DH and DD (Darling/Dear Husband/Daughter), to patronise all the people in the family.

*It would also explain why a woman like me inhabits OLO and why those others don't.*

Poirot, IMHO alot of this is genetic, in both males and females.
I was born with a sense of curiosity, I like to understand things.
So I'm interested in what makes people tick to understanding complex
global issues and try to stay informed. You seemingly have a similar
sense of curiosity. A number of posters on OLO would be the same.

But I don't think that you represent the typical Ms Australia. I did check out Houllies suggested "Essential Baby" and that
sounds more typical to me!

Firstly I admit to loving a good catfight :) Secondly I love the
topics:-

"Do you leave the house without makeup?"
"Do you harbour a passion for cleaning?"
etc.

The girls love that stuff, but don't ask them about the poor
in Bangaladesh, for frankly they don't care too much, it does not
relate to them.

So I think that the long term posters on OLO are more your thinking
types, who like to analyse and understand. Then we have our blow
in posters, who have some cause to promote, on which they focus.
When they find some resistance and posters shoot down their arguments,
many spit the dummy and leave. Both male and female.

Thanks for that, Yabby

I don't think I represent the typical Ms Aussie either. I'm actually a bit of a loner as far as the company of other women is concerned, and I tend to agree with Houellie's take on people in general.

From my observation,most women communicate differently to men. Their discussions are peppered with lots of "strokes" and compliments and they often form cliques that support each other's opinion simply because they're members of the clique whereas men tend to focus on the areas of difference and leave out the ego-massage. It's rare for men to form cliques in the same way that women do - common ground is simply that,not a reason to be friends.

The women that tend to stick on this forum are often content to remain focussed on the issues and they give as good as they get. Long may they continue and the lightweight socialisers go elsewhere.

I've been busy all day doing renovations, true to type, while my wife went out for coffee with a friend (2.5 hrs, and then had a lovely visit from a fiend at home while I painted 1.5 hrs. Bubs at daycare but housework postponed again).

Yabby's claim: "The girls love that stuff, but don't ask them about the poor
in Bangaladesh, for frankly they don't care too much, it does not
relate to them", is kind of what I'm on about above. What is all this self-fulfilment Lexi's on about? Surely a new concept and one which once one presumably either felt or didn't as a kind of epiphany. Self-fulfilment these days is just another facet to being a "successful person", whatever that means, and is part of what I meant about us having traded fortune for capital.
And what about the sainted Pelican's contribution here--sorry Pelican but not one of your deepest posts imo: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/images/icon_link_white.gif
"While it is good to aspire to improvements, things don't always go our way, so while aspiration is okay it is also important to remain grounded, happy and realistic". There you go again, Pelican's with Lexi, it's all about self-fulfilment. And this gem:
"It is not too difficult to ignore those bits of life that rankle and life is really pretty simple if you let it be". Tell that to the Bangladeshes Pelican, who I doubt are obsessed with their personal growth. This is exactly the kind of parochialism I do think the ladies are generally guilty of, whereas all corners of the modern world are inextricably linked and interactive and we have to factor the lot of the Bangladeshes into our personal equations.
I do find it hard to ignore the big issues, though the ladies seem to easily reduce everything to the local, the domestic and the personal.
Poirot, you are indeed an exception (and I've known Pelican and Lexi to back international human rights issues).

Dear Squeers,

The point that I was trying to make is that we have fewer
constraints today then people did in the past under the
"old system," where 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.

Today there are many alternative lifestyles and roles that
are acceptable for both men and women. Our society is
individualistic and open to change and experimentation - and in
it is possible for men and women to explore a wide variety of
roles. There are not the restrictions of gender that applied
in the past. Today all possible options are open and
equally acceptable for both sexes.

I supported my husband when he struck out on his own and
decided to freelance - work wise.
He supported me while I undertook some post-graduate studies.
Self-fulfillment is whatever rocks
your boat.

"but don't ask them about the poor in Bangaladesh, for frankly they don't care too much, it does not relate to them"

Be interesting to see if there are any stats on gender and involvement in aid projects.

The following is speculation, no evidence to back it up and I may well be wrong but it does seem relevant.

I'm not working in the CBD now days so don't get accosted by all the collectors for various charities that I used to navigate between the train station and office. One thing I had noticed back in the day was that women seemed to be much more likely to stop and give than men (myself included). There also seems to be a lot of women involved in various aid groups, local and abroad.

My impression is that men are more likely to be pragmatic than women regarding helping the needy that we are not directly responsible for.
We might care more about how the problem came to be and the likely impacts of our help and maybe a little less about the sheer human tragedy.

Perhaps also better at making big things happen when we do get involved. Men will be at the fore front in the post disaster clean-up but maybe not so obvious in the week in, week out work at the local charity store (employment may have a lot to do with that) and some of the other less immediate roles.

My impression is that generally men do prefer to analyse things more than women, are more interested in how they work, women care more that they work.

Please assume an assumption of exceptions in all of the above.

R0bert

RObert,
I agree that the ladies are a soft touch and much more likely to support charities than men, and at the end of the day that's probably of far more use than agonising over abstracts. But there's a price to be paid too for compassion divorced from reason, and MTR's a perfect example of that, as was Mother Theresa. Abortion isn't just about the sanctity of life (indeed that least of all), and charity isn't as simple as making a donation, though it appears to be for the ladies. I don't think men are meaner than women, they're just more worldly-wise and suspicious, or despairing. It took a man to say that patriotism was the last refuge of a scoundrel (which bears thinking about), and another (gay) man to say it was the first, whereas women blithely wrap themselves in the flag (I want to puke every time a cricketer kiss the badge on his cap mind you) as if it was pure white linen, or they didn't know what military men get up to on tour, or in war. War is an absolute obscenity but you can count on the ladies to launder it at home. The greater burden is men's for perpetrating their deeds, but the ladies can bleach and starch anything--or these days send it to the dry cleaners.
A very broad brush I know.

*I do find it hard to ignore the big issues, though the ladies seem to easily reduce everything to the local, the domestic and the personal.*

Well Squeers, in this case I'm going to stick up for the ladies,
as I don't think it is just them. I think its a whole huge chunk
of society, both men and women.

For a whole lot of men its "my footy team, my mates, my family, my
car, my shed."

I have a whole lot of affluent friends, quite educated, who are
mainly interested in how they went at golf that morning. If I go
the local pub, nobody wants to talk world affairs. Its all local,
them, their family. It seems for alot of people, their world
revolves around them and they don't have much interest beyond that.

Fair enough, each to their own, but personally I find it all kind
of boring after a while

Lexi,
this seems simplistic to me: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/images/icon_link_white.gif
I doubt people "unquestioningly behaved as they were
supposed to", they probably had a more realistic estimation of life and made the most of it--or became alcoholics.
And what makes you think you're not choosing what you're supposed to by the market, indeed that your choosing at all?
"Today there are many alternative lifestyles and roles that
are acceptable for both men and women".
Doesn't sound very spontaneous. Are you really fulfilled by these anticipated "lifestyles"?
"I supported my husband when he struck out on his own and
decided to freelance - work wise.
He supported me while I undertook some post-graduate studies".
Domestic bliss.
"Our society is
individualistic and open to change and experimentation - and in
it is possible for men and women to explore a wide variety of
roles".
I can't imagine a male saying that, let alone falling for it. Sorry, role-play's not acceptable to me, but whatever rocks your boat, Lexi.

I have to say I'm fascinated at the turn this conversation has taken.

Lexi, what better "alternatives" and "roles" are available to me that weren't available 20, 30 or 40 years ago? I'm a heterosexual man with 2 children. I have no desire to become homosexual, or dress in drag, or to be a "house-husband". If I want to buy a house, I can't do it on one income. If I apply for a white-collar job, I have to face the fact that if a woman with similar or even somewhat lesser qualifications applies, I will not be considered. I could go on...

What's your "Brave New World" got in it for me?

squeers, you gazumped me.

Lexi,

Anti (and Squeers) makes a pertinent point. The core investment for most men in their lives has usually been their working effort toward purchasing a house - which now requires two incomes and, therefore, two working careers to attain.

If we replace the word "people" in the first paragraph of your last post with the word "women", it's probably more representative of the state of play.

"The point I was trying to make is that we have fewer
constraints today than "women" in the past under the
"old system" where "women" knew what their roles were,
and most "women" unquestioningly behaved as they were
supposed to. The system constrained "women", but it freed
them from the need to make choices."

After all,let's call a spade a spade.

Dear Poirot,

I was referring to the restrictive times of the past
when both men and women did what was expected of them
Traditional gender roles continued largely unchanged
for quite a few decades. The era of the 1950s
established the stereotypes that some people still regard
with lingering nostalgia: the father as a dutiful
provider to his wife and family, playing his daily part in a
booming economy; the mother as contented housewife,
cheerfully doing the laundry and making peanut butter
sandwiches for the kids.

Women were treated much like children - they were not allowed
to make contracts of even own property. The system did
constrain people.

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 some flux
also. Men are new permitted a more gentle and expressive
personality than would have been considered appropriate
a few decades ago. The 1950s "John Wayne" image of
American manhood today has less and less appeal to both sexes.

As I stated earlier - like the feminine role, the masculine
role is now 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.

Sexual equality does not necessarily mean gender similarity or
a "unisex" society. It does not necessarily mean that women
will gradually adopt the characteristics of men or that
the two existing genders will converge on some happy medium.
The most probable pattern is one in which many alternative
lifestyles and roles will be acceptable for both men and
women. I tried to point out that our society today is
individualistic and highly open to change and experimentation
and it is one in which it is likely that men and women will
explore a wide variety of possible roles.

cont'd ...

BTW ; I apologise that I've actually drifted off course
from the subject matter of your thread - I think I was
inspired by something Squeers posted. So back to the subject...

I guess the major reason why I'm still here and still posting
is that I enjoy discussions that challenge my assumptions,
and beliefs. I enjoy reading alternative perspectives that
demonstrate a degree of reflection - and I do
find quite a few posters that provide just that. I won't
list them here (don't want to be accused of being too
"personal" or self indulgent - which I realise I am currently
being - but what the heck).

Humans are the most extraordinary creatures, and a big part
of me still wants to reach an even greater understanding about
who we are. Not because I need to know more, necessarily,
but because I am drawn to the process of discovery.

Sorry if I've made you cringe - but there you have it.

Lexi,

Never mind about drifting off course. All subjects connect to other aspects and I think it's best to explore them.

You don't make me cringe, in fact it's often heartening to read your positive take on such things....yet...

I suspect I'm far more cynical than your good self. I do take your points, however, your rhetoric comes across as a text-book preamble giving kudos to idealistic view of consumer society.

In my opinion, the only reason women have achieved emancipation of sorts is that profit is made from their participation. I appreciate that women now have far greater scope, but it seems to me that often it only amounts to a widening of their selection of treadmills.

I have a huge problem with the daycare industry, which of course solves two challenges: It provides a place to deposit tots while mum is working (or sociaising?) and it in itself is a huge money-making entity. for example, if we take things to the extreme, If Mrs A pays Mrs B (or someone) to look after her tots then GDP rises. If Mrs A looks after her own tots, GDP is not affected. etc.

Of course, I'd be howled down on any woman's forum for such views. It's a masculine trait to think of our stage societal development as something at the end of some Utopian trajectory. I'm suspicious of such a conclusion. It's happening because it suits capitalism to allow it, not because Westerners have reached some apex of consciousness...the wheel never stops turning.

Lexi that really is garbage.

Straight after the war [early 46], we went to Townsville. After a depression, followed by a war, anyone who was in the services was flat broke.

We lived in a good area, all rented, by senior people with good jobs, & all flat broke. Half slept on mattresses on the floor, while they saved for the beds, but they had a great life, particularly the women.

The men rode bikes, even in the tropical downpours, there were no cars available to buy, even if they could have afforded them.

I saw most of the men, dad included, come home on pay day, & hand the pay packet to the lady. She would open it, hand the man his "pocket money" & then control spending the rest.

As they gained affluence, it did not matter who's name was on the loan, the lady had at least 50%, & mostly more input into what was purchased.

After school I had to remember if it was cards, tennis or bowls day, to know where to go, to find mum. Afternoon tea was timed for the school kids arrival at all these ladies activities. It was only on Monday when the washer woman came, that I went straight home.

It was not expected that wives work in paid employment. How did you women allowed this idyllic lifestyle to disappear? It was most clumsy of you. Listening to those women's libbers has cost you a lot.

It was only in PNG in the 70s that I saw a lifestyle as good for the ladies. There they even had a full time servant in the houseboy or girl, as had some in Townsville in the 40s.

I found it interesting how few of us could really handle a personal servant well. When you're not raised to it is a challenge.

*It's happening because it suits capitalism to allow it,*

Poirot, this is where I have a problem with your posts. As if
the evil capitalism is driving all this. Who is this evil capitalism?

Its simply our individual choices, multiplied by millions. Lexi is
correct, we all have far more choices then we ever did. Its up to
us to make them happen however.

When I was in my twenties, I had a few dreams. One was to be self
employed, one was to live in the country on a piece of land big enough
to make a small living. (This was in the 70s) There was no way I
could achieve those things, as well as bankroll a wife and kids, so
I would have needed a partner prepared to work 3 days a week or similar.
Yet women at the time that I was associated with, took a
very different attitude. They wanted to stay home, they were not
about to get married to go to work. Quite frankly, they wanted a
meal ticket.

So I had to choose between that scenario and following my dreams and
the dreams won.

Today society has changed dramatically, as we all have far more
choices. In the 70s, just borrowing money to start a business was
a major problem. The Govt controlled the banks and everything else.

So I see the changes not as the evil capitalism, but about people
being able to follow their dreams, less constricted by Govt and
society dictates. You can choose to do the career thing, you can
choose to get educated, you can choose to be self employed, you
can choose to be a hippy in Denmark-Walpole and grow dope, its
really up to you and whomever you shack up with.

Some people choose to stay home, as you do, some choose the career
path and daycare solution. Some, like Gail Kelly, chose to have
4 kids, yet still become CEO of Westpac, up from her earlier job
as a bank teller in South Africa.

What capitalism allows is people to have choices about their-lives.

Yabby,

You're the one who on this occasion is calling capitalism "evil".

I merely offered my critique as to the reason women have been let off the leash.

My point being that it's not because of some noble zenith in human consciousness - it's much more mercenary than that.

*merely offered my critique as to the reason women have been let off the leash.
My point being that it's not because of some noble zenith in human consciousness - it's much more mercenary than that*

Poirot, I'm not so sure about this leash, henbpecked husbands existed
then as they do now. IMHO alot of people simply wanted more choices,
then society and our cultural habits allowed.

For of course within each gender, individuals can be quite different.
Some women love their careers. Some women love working a couple of
days a week, it gets them out of the house, amongst people etc.
Some women like the extra spending money, for the first wage
usually just pays for the basics.

I remember when some men got quite upset, that their wives wanted to
go out to work. It puzzled me, as to why. IMHO some of them might
have been control freaks, mum having her own money made them feel
threatened. Other women demanded that their husbands earn more,
they had no plans to go out to work, that was not the purpose of
marriage.

Today we have choices, we can all do as we please really, as long
as the partner agrees.I think thats a good thing, not a bad thing.

Yabby,
Women looking for a meal ticket are still in plentiful supply, despite the propaganda from women's lobies about how tough they have it.
However, the trouble with your line of reasoning (actually rationalising) is it's determinedly optimistic, and as we know it's easy to look on the bright side of life, if you're determined, "...great race, the Romans"--or seriously messed up.
Your're the one who brought up Bangladesh and you can't escape the fact that there are ethical issues and economic inequalities apropos our relative status, any more than the ladies can balance the meagre donations they make to charity against the zillions they squander on therapeutic shopping and cosmetic services (though I don't condemn the ladies for this; I see them as victims of the system and hardly exercising free or healthy "choices"; that's just their delusion). Even those determined to put a positive spin on an utterly catered existence, if they're so shallow as to play that game, have to contend with the patent fact that apart from delusional, this highly selective heaven on earth is physically unsustainable and morally insupportable. Thus we have the phenomenon of breath-taking denialism apropos resource depletion and environmental degradation. Anything but face the fact that it's not only a fool's paradise, but a terminal delusion. And here's where the genders meet; conservatives of both sexes are capable of rationalising anything.
And this is what watered-down feminism is signature to; it's all compassion and no rigour. Of course in MTR's case she doesn't need to worry about the future as God will take of that.
I doubt, Yabby, that Poirot, is personifying capitalism, though if she is I'd find that infinitely more plausible than your contention that "Its simply our individual choices". But then, that's determined optimism.

Poirot "My point being that it's not because of some noble zenith in human consciousness - it's much more mercenary than that."

I think the massive shift in technology has been one of the biggest factors along the way. The industrial revolution changed a lot, the two world war's forced some more changes, electronics have allowed/created more change.

I suspect that most of the changes which have happened have done so because they can, some have made our lives better and some maybe not so much.

R0bert

*Your're the one who brought up Bangladesh and you can't escape the fact that there are ethical issues and economic inequalities apropos our relative status*

Indeed Sqeers, but I am not about to slit my wrists over it. I will
discuss solutions and lobby for what I think is possible, like family
planning for the third world for instance. In other words, I'm
all for empowering people everywhere to help themselves. But I'm
not about to sell the Ipad and send the money to Africa, as you
seem to be implying that we should be doing.

*I see them as victims of the system and hardly exercising free or healthy "choices"; that's just their delusion*

Oh come on, the system is us, making choices. There is no capitalism
boogie man who forces women to have breast implants, etc. We all
are the system.

*Thus we have the phenomenon of breath-taking denialism apropos resource depletion and environmental degradation*

Well then stop increasing the human population by 250'000 people
a day, or things will only get worse.

RObert,

There's no doubt that our lives have become more convenient and comfortable in a material sense.

We've lost a lot along the way - our sense of community for one. In an age that glorifies the individual, we find that communities in the modern sense are often artificially contrived (and one is usually compelled to commute to partake of the society within them).

Seneca said "Prosperity fosters bad tempers", which again, reiterating the theme of Squeers' last post, would hinge on the fulfillment or not of expectation and optimism emanating from our exalted state.

Why so much disaffection and depression in such a supposedly elevated culture?

I can't help thinking that for all our technological prowess and good fortune we missed the boat in a philosphical sense. "All hail the marketplace", it seems, is the theme of modern progress. We've raised generations of philistines when we could, with our advanced means, have bestowed simple truths and wisdom to the multitudes.

Civilisation should mean more than societal structure and material wealth.

Yabby:
"Oh come on, the system is us, making choices. There is no capitalism
boogie man who forces women to have breast implants, etc. We all
are the system".

OK, so why do we need the "science" of advertising and marketing if it's free choice?
And why is it so important for corporations to impart a positive spin and to abhor, even litigate against, negativity?
Indeed determined optimism is the mathematical lifeblood and currency of the system--whose keepers must love guys and dolls like you. Fortunes are made and lost and countries rise and fall on nothing but consumer confidence. We're locked into a spending addiction that must be nurtured and cultivated. Labor is supremely optimistic at the moment about the economy and the opposition is pessimistic--funny that. And it's all based on free choice and fulfilment? That's not optimism, it's imbicility!
For me fulfilment is seeing through my delusions, not indulging them.

Squeers,

I think what Yabby really means is that we're free to be seduced by marketing and advertising....and then we get to exercise our freedom of choice as to which entity has done the best job on us.

Delusions are great for business.

Another fascinating thing about so-called "choice" are our supermarkets. Therein lies almost too much choice as to the selection of brands available - yet, for the most part, it is all presided over by a duopoly between Coles and Woolworths. (Yes, I know about IGA, Yabby, and farmer's markets)

*OK, so why do we need the "science" of advertising and marketing if it's free choice?*

Squeers, for much the same reasons as you probably got all dressed
up and tried to display your charm, when you tried to chat up some
female. You wanted something from her.

Think of it this way. What would the world look like with no
advertising at all? How would you know if a good product even
exists? Fact is the more they bombard us with ads, the more
immune we become to them. Think of how many ads you see per day
and how many that you actually take notice of and go and buy something.
Very very few indeed. Today, consumers are more empowered
then ever before. We used to believe some of the ads. Now we can
google and check to see what other consumers experiences were with
the product. That is hugely empowering to us humble customers!

*We're locked into a spending addiction that must be nurtured and cultivated.*

But Squeers, that is your choice! You can live in the sticks and
grow your own food, make your own clothes if you wish. Some choose
to do just that. Most seemingly prefer to live in cities and live
it up.

*For me fulfilment is seeing through my delusions, not indulging them.*

Well that is wonderful for you, Squeers. But take religion and how
many go to sleep happily, knowing that their Jesus loves them.
Do you think Runner and others would be happy without their beliefs?
Should we ban Jesus? Yet people send hundreds of millions of $ to
the bible belt or give it to the church, hoping to buy their future
ticket to heaven. Religion is a massive industry, selling hope and
never having to deliver anything but hope. Clearly people get their
money's worth of good feelings from it, or they would not spend
it as they do. Why should I object, if it makes them happy?

Nothin much happenin over on the other threads so I decided to have a wander down here.
Surpise, surprise, I tend to agree with Yabby --always a font of earthy wisdom.

Those who think (or who have been programmed to see) it as a symptom of capitalism need to look a little deeper.
There are wellsprings & streams deeper & older than capitalism that move all creatures.

[Some background music please]

"And that's why birds do it, bees do it
Even educated fleas do it

Cold Cape Cod clams, 'gainst their wish, do it
Even lazy jellyfish do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love

I've heard that lizards and frogs do it
Layin' on a rock
They say that roosters do it
With a doodle and cock

I'm sure sometimes on the sly you do it
Maybe even you and I might do it"

We seek to differentiate ourselves for advantage --we are in an arms race of sorts -- and humans, because we can, do it so much better.

"Some Argentines, without means do it
I hear even Boston beans do it"

One persons frivolous adornments are another's essentials.

"The most refined lady bugs do it
When a gentleman calls
Moths in your rugs they do it
What's the use of moth balls

The chimpanzees in the zoos do it,
Some courageous kangaroos do it"

And though --depending on your perspective --it can be seen as wasteful. I suspect that if we seek to constrain it too much we may staunch the flow of our creative/innovative juices. To cite an example (that is likely to be close to Squeers heart) as was the case in Maoist China when everyone saved by wearing little grey suits.

And, I'd hazard a guess that even those wiser souls who position themselves far above the madding crowd are playing the same game -even though they may be myopically unaware.

Belgian private ds do it
even Nouveau academes do it
Let's do it, let's fall in love --weeell, maybe not!

Dear SPQR,

Don'r forget -

"Lithuanians and Lets do it!"

Metaphors be with you!

So (as this thread appears to be winding down) it seems that most of the women who contribute to OLO do so as authors of articles, often joining the article's section as commenters on their own articles. There now exists only a very small cohort of women who post in both sections regularly.

Obviously, there's something about the style and content of debate here that doesn't appeal to average feminine sensibilities (I think :)

We've ranged a little off the initial debate, Poirot, but I can't let Yabby entirely off the hook before the curtain falls.
Ok, Yabby, I accept your rationalising of the current dispensation as the best of all possible worlds so far as it caters nicely for a great many people's expectations and fulfilment (though decidedly not my own, and there is no way to opt out or lead a viable alternative lifestyle btw), but what about my other two clauses, that it's "physically unsustainable and morally insupportable". Since you've been dutifully reading your National Geographic, or equivolent, of late, you'll know that we need several more Earths to support our "lifestyles" en masse, and you'll know that of the finite resources available we consume more than the lion's share. It's not just about fulfilment; it's about the fact too that while we find fulfilment the other half starves. There is no defence of the current state of affairs that can be made to tally with our professed science or our professed ethics. It's nothing but "irrational positivism", that is rationalisation and I abhor your equanimity!

Correction, I meant "irrational optimism", playing on the title of Matt Ridley's garbage.

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for this thread. I wonder statistically how
many women used to post to this forum in the past
as compared to now. It would be interesting to look
at the numbers.

I can understand Squeers' concern about our lifestyles.
We can replace material goods with a range of pleasures that
don't do harm to the environment. In this sense we will
be richer with less. As Tor Hundloe pointed out some time
ago, "Man's war with the earth is becoming dangerous to both.
It is time for a truce."

Hundloe stresses that, "You and I as
global citizens need to put aside
our narrow self interests
and work together as friends
if there is to be a world for those humans and other
animals who follow us...
real happiness is not the fleeting
euphoric of a shopping expedition or sexual pursuit... "

If someone asks me what makes me happiest, it's never anything
I can quantify like a house or a possession or something I
can touch. It's the spirit of the human being, which can
fill me with more joy than anything in the world.
Sorry - I'm getting ccarried away. Time to stop.

*It's not just about fulfilment; it's about the fact too that while we find fulfilment the other half starves.*

Squeers, we have sent countless boatloads of food and continue to
do so, to the other half. Net result is even more babies. I am
sick of parents with six, eight, ten children, telling me that they
are doing it tough. Until you deal with this issue, you are peeing
in the breeze, when it comes to any kind of sustainable planet.

Nobody on OLO has been more vocal then myself, about providing
good family planning for the third world. Our politicians, our
people, ignore it. Now we have pressure in Australia and the USA,
to go back to the holy zygote. If these so called educated people
are so frigging blind, there is not much more that I can do about it,
I am afraid.

Take some note of what Divergence quotes on this issue, he/she is
well informed. Ever growing population is the key problem and
Squeers pedalling to work is not going to solve anything except
make Squeers feel good.

People lived quite well, before the age of oil. 5 acres, some vegies,
some chooks, some fruit trees, a cow,a few crafts etc.

If we haven't found another energy source by the time we have used
up the ones that are available, I guess there will be a massive
population crash and the survivors will go back to how things were
100 years ago. So be it. Now why should I have sleepless nights
about that?

I did my bit, I did not breed like a rabbit, but just enjoyed the
sex, when it was available :)

Dear Yabby,

The foundation for recognising the vulnerability of our
planet was being laid in the 1970s, by Tor Hundloe and
others. The following is an excerpt from one of his
campaign speeches from the 1974 election. The language is
dated - but I don't think it matters:

"All efforts to support economic growth, feed more people
and mine more minerals requires very large amounts of
energy - amounts that are doubling every 12 years. It is
this immense breaking away from living within the
limits of the sun's energy, as other living things do, that
is at the root of man's abuse of the earth.

There is only so much fossil fuel, only so much
hundred-million-year-old sunlight in storage. We are burning
our capital. We are close to the end of the fossil fuel
economy.

We are building up carbon dioxide in the air. We are
running the risk of irreversible, disastrous climate changes.

Even if we could invent a perfectly safe and clean source
of energy based on solar power, we would still be defeated
by the fact that the earth's climate can absorb only
so much extra heat before it changes too much for us to
stand.

All the energy we ever use ends up as heat and it has to
go somewhere. This is the law of physics and has nothing
to do with technology, politics, or economics.

This limit that we are just finding out about, gives the
final blow to the widely held idea that if we had more
and more high energy technology we could solve our
problems by desalting the sea, making a desert bloom,
making metals out of granite and food out of coal.

In theory these things could be done, but in reality
such energy intensive solutions can simply not work on
anything like world scale, not because we shall never
have the energy but because we shall have no place
to put the heat that energy turns into.

We face another dead end, this time with respect to the
larger cake, larger share for all policy. "

cont'd ...

cont'd ...

"Some will not like the idea of redistributing material
wealth, but it is an idea that comes not from
ideology but from the logic of ecology. Seen in
political form, conservation is not a plot by the rich
to keep the poor poor. On the contrary, it suggests
the rich are rich enough, and the poor must become
better off so that they are not forced to degrade
nature simply to feed their children.

Conservation takes a long view. We today should have
a lower material standard of living so that the
people tomorrow will be able to have a standard of
living at all."

As Hundloe tells us, "All the fantastic inventions we have
put to use have delivered the middle classes (wherever
they live) a lifestyle far beyond scarcity. A major
tragedy is that most of us don't recognise our
success. Some of the most eminent economists,
psychologists, and philosophers have made clear what
should be obvious: we don't become happier if life is
led in search of the next material object, in
conspicuous consumption. What happens in the hypothetical
world where we are all "the Joneses' on top of the
pile?" Is that the end of striving, of incentive,
of the drive that is essentially human?"

Perhaps we need to re-examine the old adage - "moderation
in all things?"

From the Intro to Jerry Pournelle's 2011 edition of "A Step Further Out
"We live in an age of marvels. Despite that, we feel a sense of impending doom.... That's still true... We could still go to space. We could still mine the asteroids. We could still take part in developing mankind’s vast future. Indeed, it is easier to do now than it would have been when I wrote these essays. The unrelenting enmity of the Soviet Union has been replaced by other threats, some of them severe, but none comparable to 26,000 nuclear warheads. We have computers and the Internet. There is free exchange of ideas throughout most of the world, and the information revolution relentlessly expands that area. We still face the threat of famine, but it is not as acute as it was in the times when these essays were written. Communications, transportation, electronics, rocket technology – it’s all better now. We can still go to the planets.

We still live in an age of marvels, and it’s still true that the only limit to growth is nerve."

TBC

Robert

and from reviews of a book I've not yet read Abundance the Future is Better Than You Think http://www.amazon.com/Abundance-ebook/dp
/B005FLOGMM

“At a moment when our world faces multiple crises and is awash in pessimism, Abundance redirects the conversation, spotlighting scientific innovators working to improve people's lives around the world. The result is more than a portrait of brilliant minds - it's a reminder of the infinite possibilities for doing good when we tap into our own empathy and wisdom.”—Arianna Huffington, CEO, Huffington Post

“This brilliant must-read book provides the key to the coming era of abundance replacing eons of scarcity, a powerful antidote to today’s malaise and pessimism.”—Ray Kurzweil, inventor, author and futurist, author of The Singularity is Near

"Now that human beings communicate so easily, I suspect that nothing can stop the inevitable torrent of new technologies, new ideas and new arrangements that will transform the lives of our children. Peter Diamandis and Steven Kotler give us a blinding glimpse of the innovations that are coming our way — and that they are helping to create. This is a vital book."—Matt Ridley, author of The Rational Optimist

“Comprehensively sampled here are a hell of a lot of the profound innovations going on to improve the human condition. Every breakthrough helps empower others, and so they aggregate into a trend you can count on.”—Stewart Brand, author, Whole Earth Discipline

“Diamandis and Kotler challenge us all to solve humanity’s grand challenges. Innovative small teams are now empowered to accomplish what only governments and large corporations could once achieve. The result is nothing less than the most transformative and thrilling period in human history.”––Timothy Ferriss, #1 NY Times bestselling author of The 4-Hour Workweek

“Today, philanthropists, innovators and passionate entrepreneurs are more empowered than ever before to solve humanity’s grand challenges. Abundance chronicles many of these stories and the emerging tools driving us towards an age of abundance. This is an audacious and powerful read!”—Jeff Skoll

TBC
R0bert

Part 3

“Diamandis and Kotler do a masterful job of explaining why we are at the start of a new era of radically increasing standards of living throughout the world. Abundance is essential reading for anyone looking for a better tomorrow.”—Elon Musk, CEO, SpaceX, CEO, Tesla Motors, Founder, PayPal

“Abundance provides proof that the proper combination of technology, people and capital can meet any grand challenge.”—Sir Richard Branson, Chairman of the Virgin Group

"This engaging book is a needed corrective, a whirlwind tour of the latest developments in health care, agriculture, energy, and other fields ...The authors make a compelling case for optimism over dread as we face the exhilarating unknown. " --Publisher's Weekly

"If the future isn’t necessarily bright enough for shades, then, write high-tech pioneer Diamandis and science journalist Kotler think things are going to work out just fine...A nicely optimistic look at a matter that usually brings out the darkest thoughts among prognosticators..." --Kirku

R0bert

Yabby,

Actually your post raising the issue of third world contraception and family planning is pertinent to the feminist controversy I raised earlier. It also demonstrates why it was more than a "cat fight" and that the issues surrounding feminist representation in the Western world can have an impact on the ground in developing countries.

Here's an article examining MTR's role as a bioethics adviser to Senator Harradine.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/tankard-reist-explain-yourself-20120123-1qdst.html

Harradine was instrumental in getting up Australia's version of the Global Gag rule which seeks to withhold funding for third world health services "that mention abortion or provide abortion services". The Global Gag rule has detrimental effects on the health of women in the developing world because funding is cut for other services also.

http://www.globalfundforwomen.org/impact/publications/newsletters/spring-2009/1154

Poirot, Harradine showed how much damage a single Catholic politician
can do. Other politicians generally won't touch the topic, as they
might lose votes, but not gain any. All very sad really.

At the time when Bush reimposed the Gag rule, I had subscribed
to some Catholic email lists, such as Priests for Life, to know
a bit more how they functioned, for much Catholic lobbying goes
on behind the scenes, in the name of all sorts of groups.

Whew, I was blown away. These guys moved heaven and earth to put
pressure on Bush and they won. Family planning clinics in much
of the third world were shut down. The power of the tentacles of
the Vatican, extend far further then many might presume, even within
our own parliament.

Population and family planning should be gender neutral and global
issues. If people had children that were loved and wanted, a great
deal of misery and suffering would fall away.

But I know I'm peeing into the breeze on this one. People are too
busy with their own little patch of self interest, to care.
Especially so, our politicians.

*It's the spirit of the human being, which can
fill me with more joy than anything in the world.*

Whew Lexi, luckily I have a far more realistic attitude
to life and our species.

We are a destrucrive species, we really are. We declare
the zygote holy and thousands of species will be decimated
and perish as a result, but of course only humans matter.
All very depressing.

So I prefer to see the amusing side of life, like human
foibles. Here we have a 500 million $ cruise liner
sailing along the Italian coast, and the true story
is slowly coming to the surface. The captain, trusted
and respected by thousands in his uniform, is trying
to impress the 25 year old dancer who has fallen in love
with him (her underwear was found in his cabin). He wines
and dines her, sails close to the shore to impress her,
the ooooops, he rips the crap out of the ship's side
and she topples over.

Ah, all that human spirit, mixed with good old testoserone :)

Sorry Lexi, but I am not proud of our species, but I do
see the funny side of life.

I refuse to focus on the human spirit. Why not the bonobo
spirit or the chimp spirit?

We are just another species, however a very destructive one
at that. That is not something to be proud of, IMHO.

Lexi, the idea that heat is the ultimate limiting factor to human energy use is not new. I can recall several SF stories I read back in the 70s to that effect. However, it really does take a stupendous amount of energy to add to the temperature of the atmosphere.Every gram of water requires about 4.2 Joules to raise its temperature by 1 degree and there are billions of tonnes of water in the atmosphere. That's without considering the specific heat capacity of the other atmospheric components. On top of that, the amount of heat impinging on the earth from the sun's radiation is about 1kW/sqare meter, which is so much greater than anything that man is able to contribute that it makes any such contribution insignificant.

Poirot:"The Global Gag rule has detrimental effects on the health of women in the developing world because funding is cut for other services also."

As I pointed out in another thread, femi-lobbyists have skewed health resources in Australia,with breast cancer taking a far larger slice of the funding pie than other more serious and more prevalent cancers, to the point that the Cancer Council has had to ask for reconsideration of the way funding is allocated.

It seems that making decisions on religious or quasi-religious ideological grounds is never good practise.

Dear RObert,

Thanks for the positive references.
Technology is only as harmful as humans make it or allow it
to be. There is a peculiar school of determinism that
disregards the power of humans to control the machines they
manufacture. That is one extreme on a continuum. The other
extreme is the school of technological optimists who
have unfettered faith in our ability to make machines that
are capable of replacing everything nature does for us, and
for free. Economists should note - reality is at neither
extreme.

Dear Yabby,

In pre-industrial societies people traditionally treated
nature with respect, considering themselves a part of,
rather than set apart from, the natural world; this
attitude was typical, for example, among the Indian
tribes of North America in pre-Colonial times.

In industrialised societies our attitude is different.
We consider ourselves the lords of creation and see
nature primarily as a resource for exploitation.
As our "needs" increase, our capacity for exploitation
expands. We do not see our ravaging of the environment
as "ravaging" at all, it is "progress" or "development."

We are so used to exploiting natural resources and
dumping our waste products into the environment that we
frequently forget that resources are limited and
exhaustible and that pollution can disrupt the ecological
balance on which our survival (and that of other species)
depends.

Dear Anti,

Today we're desperately seeking solutions - whether
its to climate change, water scarcity, pollution,
Third World poverty or cures for the various cancers that afflict
people. Hopefully our world leaders will start taking
notice of the vast army of experts who are willing and
able to guide us through the difficult coming years.
A better world
is possible. It will take time, It will be difficult.
But as RObert pointed out - it will be worth it.

RObert,

Here's an excerpt from the "Abundance" book you mentioned:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/briancaulfield/2012/01/26/abundance-why-the-future-will-be-much-better-than-you-think/

Of course, the prescription of rational optimism is that we should keep forging ahead "knowing" that our ingenuity will "come up with something".

According to Thomas Cleary in his book "Thunder in the Sky", Taoist theory suggests "that a continued and unrelenting push for "progress" leads to breakdown and regression when it reaches a certain point."

I'm inclined to that view - and I believe that it is a view that is perceived subliminally by the human species.

Here's an article on Matt Ridley's line of Rational Optimism:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/Ridleyriddle1.html

Poirot thanks for the link to the Forbes piece. The Kindle edition of the books not yet available (later this month).

I'm not completely optimistic, humans still have the opportunity to screw up the opportunity that we have right now. We have enough wealth and resources left to create opportunities for the future but if we squander that by either indulgence or pulling back too far future generations may not have enough wealth and resources to create those opportunities again.

R0bert

RObert,

That Taoist doctrine suggests that it is not "withdrawal" from progress that is called for, but a kind of "simmer" so that it is controlled but still cooking (so to speak).

Poirot, continuing on way off topic.

The current state of play over resources (and energy usage etc) re minds me of a story I heard many years ago (getting my old man credentials in order there).

You are travelling and are out of water. You come to a water pump. In a tin under the pump is a bottle of water and a note. The note tells you that the pump has a leather washer in it which dries out. To use the pump you need to pour the water down the pump to moisten the washer then pump as hard as you can for a while and eventually you should get a plentiful supply of clean water. Please refill the bottle when you are done for the benefit of the next traveller.

Do you drink the water (maybe a sip at a time to make it last longer) or use what is available to get the pump working?

R0bert

RObert,

Topic - smopic...I like it when we go meandering....after all, everything is connected.

I like that analogy....will ponder it some more this morning (it's still morning here) and try and think of something similar.

I think if you take Huxley's Brave New World as a guide book for how the future will literally turn out you cant go much wrong. I'd say we're about half way there already. You cant really fault it, and I always wonder why Orwell gets so much credit when Huxley's vision looks much more accurate to me.

Humanists are ridiculously optimistic. Well they're misguided in the first place, because the central aim of humanity is to be entertained. And titillated. You just cant fight that.

You can try and scare people and appeal to fear and loathing all you like (Self loathing as in the humanists), but how can that possibly compete with reality TV and the nipple count in the daily sport and finding a better fitting Bra on ACA. Throw in a bit of grief-porn and mateship, the logies, and whinging about speed cameras and you have the sum total of a nourishing existence.

R0bert,

You put a committee in place to manage the water while it all evaporates, and then you instigate a PPP with a private company to install and maintain a soft drink vending machine. It creates jobs, and the deal is protected by commercial in confidence and you can still have some public servants to regulate the cleanliness of the machince and audit a few KPIs on refreshment delivery. See, you just don't employ enpough people the way you're doing it. You haven't even thought of the advertising potential and how you could cross-market. It's a captive audience at that pump.

Holly I said it was an old story - from memory back in the Joh era when I heard it. Much simpler to do then, bulldoze any nearby mangroves, historic buildings etc and get it done without committee's and with a minimum of party faithful being appointed to key roles.

I'll leave aside speculation about who may have paid off who to get a rezoning through as I don't wish to be libellous and who brings lunch to the office in a brown paper bag these days anyway.

R0bert

where are all the woman?
indeed

[tis funny...my monthly web download runout
looking for woman..on the web;to diverge..some of them uploads
keep uploading fancy adverts..

so im over looking online..for em
but still love hearing what they think

when i was an activist..i was ammazed at how many protests..were organised by woman...and i note many love the aspect a feemale gives to a press release or disaster

noting a lot of em are doing the business[in govt..gg/pm/premiers judges/lawyers/nurses...mothers..models caregivers..etc

heck i think they are all just flat out working
to wit too busy..working..to even voice an opinion

or form a decent relationship
[appart from their children]
and their children

and then there is the media
that is servile..to womans physical needs/wants..and desires

kiss principle
keep it simple