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.