Even under the old patriarchy where there were many advantages to being a man, there were also always many advantages in being a woman. Women didn’t have to leave their children, men did all the really hard, dirty and dangerous work. There was never a danger that a woman would have to go down the mines, go out on the fishing boats in storms or pick up the sanny pans. She would never have to leave her children for months or even years at a time to find work, let alone go off to war and die in the mud, blood, vomit and diarrhoea, etc.

The new feminism however seeks to remove all disadvantages of being a woman while retaining all the disadvantages of being a man. While there were always disadvantages for both sexes under the old system, under the new system there are to be disadvantages only for one sex.
(Cont)

Wellll Rob :) welcome to the Biblical understanding of male female gender roles..

So glad to see you questioning the 'liberty' which feminazi's want us to believe they are offering.

Yes.. blokes (and females) had identifiable roles connected to their gender. Take that away and you have taken step 1 to social disintegration and cultural decay.

No ? well my much used illustration of the Yor Yuront of cape York who were decimated by the introduction of the steel axe should put that to bed. Male identity was INTRICATELY tied up with the ownership of and manufacture of the stone axe. Many subtle male relationships and status were derived by the manufacture process and the procurement of raw materials.

No one giving out "superior" steel axes had a clue how much damage they were doing because they didn't understand the culture.

In Feminism we have some reactionary victims of abusive fathers (like Mary Wolstencroft) taking a stand which attracts a life of its own in time and becomes a movement. It even got to the point of outright terrorism and the attempted or threatened bombing of the English Parliment. (hmmm maybe this was in reality bombing a symbol of an abusive father.)

Rob513264, it probably depends which part of feminism you are comparing with which part of historical (and for BD's sake current) patriarchy.

Feminism like every other grouping comes in a range of attitudes and strengths.

Many in the middle want equality but we hear more from the extremes. I read William Farrell's myth of male power recently and one of the issues he goes into at length is the draft and that no country has the same combat requirements on women that they place on men. Searching elsewhere I found evidence that some feminist groups while opposed to the draft have supported the idea that where it exists women should be subjected to it to the same degree that men are.

There are feminists who want equility, unfortunately they don't tend to get the publicity that the extremists get.

There are aspects of feminism which are freeing men up, the idea that men should lose contact with kids post seperation because they have had the reponsibity of being the breadwinner is freeing men from that responsibility, it becomes legitimate for men to choose to work less to spend more time with their kids. I think that time will show that when traditional responsibilities are used against men on a large scale men will find the burden of those responsibilities weighs less heavily on our shoulders.

R0bert

Without the pill societies were more reluctant to send women to war because they may have been pregnant. This may also explain the women first in the lifeboats attitude that prevailed in the past. The man would die but his children might live on.

I really dont like the reverse sexism that exsists in a lot of adds these days where the man is made out to be dumb or stupid. Although I am a women it irritates me and I wish they'd come up with something more innovative.

The feminists have bought about a devaluing of the status of motherhood and glorified male occupations. Now as we have an ever aging poplulation and have noone to man the stations and are in danger of being swamped by other races as we become a dying race it is obvious that the providing of children for the nation would have been of more beneifit than women doing work that could be done by men.

Haaving said that I'm not advocating 10children for each family maybe just four and had younger so they grow up and enter the workforce earlier. Men however helped cause this exodus of women from motherhood. Because they were expected to work seven days a week with no annual holidays and no pay. It was in fact a form of slave master relationship when you had to ask your husband for a few dollars to even buy something as simple as a milkshake. Women who had been through it instructed their daughters to have a career instead.

Make motherhood a paid job with every second week-end off while her husband minds the children and access to back-up child care when not
feeling well. Make it an attractive job with at least a basic income and women may choose to return to it.
I read somewhere once that payroll tax was intended to be used as a wage for women but the politicians decided they'd rather use it for other things.

(…inued)
Sorry about delay in posting second half of OP but got caught by 350 word rul.

Case in point. Some time ago Pru Goward was all over the media touting the fact that women do 15% more housework than men and protesting this iniquity. At about the same time I heard a feminist on the radio making derisive comments about men complaining about a lack of recognition for doing all the really dangerous work in the culture. I remember her words, ‘and I wracked my brains trying to think of all the hidden dangers in a board room. [laughter]’

Ok I thought, well a reasonable guide to danger in the workplace would be workplace fatalities. Firstly, I have to say that getting sexually differentiated info on work place fatalities was like filleting a dinosaur. The number of enquiries I had to make and leads I had to follow to finally find the info was extraordinary.

It turned out that men are 2560% more likely to die at work than women are – the report authors commented that if the figures did not include MVA’s to and from work the figure would be much, much higher.

While 15% is a significant margin and housework is an important issue it pales into insignificance when compared to 2560% and actually dying at work. So, I turn to the Sex Discrimination Commissioner with my research and ask her what she plans to do about this sexual discrepancy – the answer was ‘nothing’ – she referred me to WorkCover [no laughter].

This is just one example of how the new feminists, through the SDC no less, want to get rid of all disadvantages for women but couldn’t give a firefly’s fart about disadvantages for men (ironically it means the Sex Discrimination Commissioner is actually practicing sexual discrimination – sigh…).

I assert that the quest to remove all disadvantages for one sex while doing nothing to remove any of the disadvantages for the other sex is more sexist than the sexism of the past – how thinkest thou?

sharkfin,

“ The man would die but his children might live on.”

And so, incidentally of course, would their mother.

“Men however helped cause this exodus of women from motherhood. Because they were expected to work seven days a week with no annual holidays and no pay. It was in fact a form of slave master relationship…”

For 2 years I looked after my kids full-time (ages 3-5 & 4-6) while my wife went away to study at a distant University. It was not only the most enjoyable job I have ever had it was the easiest. Cooking for 4, laundry for 4, 1 house to clean, being your own boss – it was a doddle and an extremely pleasant one because I was doing it for people I loved. And when I started work in 1973 and we were paid in cash I was surprized to see that about 70% of the men were not allowed to open their own packets – it was their wives who gave them allowances. Who was the master and who was the slave?

“Make motherhood a paid job with every second week-end off while her husband minds the children and access to back-up child care when not feeling well.”

Create of job with conditions like that and you will be flooded by men wanting to become mothers

Mo9st of this whole problem started with the government decision to
force lending institutions to lend on two incomes.

It forced women into the workforce and forced up the price of housing
dramatically. I know I have said this on OLO previously but it always
amazes me how all commentators on housing costs are ignorant of simple
economics.

In any market place twice as much money into that market and surprise
surprise prices rise to meet the amount of available money.

Surprise surprise borrow on two incomes and you need two jobs to pay the
mortgage.

This forced women into the workforce and delayed childbearing by just
too many years for their own good.
This major change in the role of women disorintated the social
structure and can be laid squarley at the feet of the Pru Gowards of
this world.

Women can thank the feminists for disturbing their age old family
structure and giving them the gynalogical and other health issues
they now suffer.
Unfortunately it is not just in the family that this has caused
problems but in society as a whole including child behaviour and crime.

That is a broad brush I agree, but I am sure you can see a contribution
to the above problems.

I think that society is pushing too much for things to be the same whilst pretending to encourage and support difference. It just works to confuse.

I believe that woman should understand their position and place as should men. Otherwise things get confused.

Confused people do not usually make the best choices.

Robert said:

There are feminists who want equility, unfortunately they don't tend to get the publicity that the extremists get.

Bingo.. how many times have I been woffling on about 'extremists set the agenda' :) yes.. good observation.

What I'd love to see is.... Media portrayls of very warm, loving, sharing male female interaction, which creates the feeling in the viewer that we are all family, that women are like caring sisters, and men are like protective and 'blokey' brothers who are also on the look out for ways to pitch in with making it all happen for everyone.

You only need to visit Manila to see the INCREDIBLE contrast between male female attitudes. It stands out so much... its more like I described above, and then.. if you happen to return to Melbourne on an overcast winters day and you see the sterile, isolationist, me me me, look after number 1, competitive, politically correct, emotionless social desert that Aussieland often is, you could feel tempted to jump right back on the plane and go back to the Phils.

Perhaps one reason is our strong emphasis on 'individuality'... sad.. but true. Bring back the extended family I say.. stay close, think about the help you can give each other in the dark times, and the joy you can share in the high ones.

In a loving society, Patriarchy/Matriarcy really don't figure much, because a loving society is a sharing and caring one.
"As the Father sent me, so I send you" Jesus.
"And this is love, that a man lay down his life for another"
"A new Commandment I give to you, that you love one another, as I have loved you, by this shall all men know, that you are my disciples, that you have love, one for another"

blessings all.

BD, I didn't suggest that extremists set the agenda (although when moderates don't speak up they sometimes do). That's a difference between the way you and I see a lot of issues, you believe that the extremists set the agenda, I think they just get more press and are largely ignored by most. Extremists impact on the agendy, they don't necessarily set it.

Your observations about Melbourne seem close to the mark, don't assume that it's the way the whole country is though.

R0bert

There was an interesting doco on Aunty tonight (Thu 05 April 07) called 'Women of the Holy Kingdom' about, among other women’s issues, women getting the vote in Saudi Arabia wherein one interviewee said:

‘One man said that women cannot make rational decisions because of their period once a month. It is hard to believe that anyone would say such a thing out loud.’ As if this is so obviously absurd that only a moron could believe it, yet women consistently use PMS as an excuse for irrational, including abusive, behaviour.

So when women want responsibility they claim that menstruation does not affect them but when they wish to avoid responsibility they claim they are the victims of it? You would have to be a moron to agree to such a double-standard yet that is apparently what 'intelligent' women expect men to accept.

Women should either admit to be irrational beings in all cases or accept responsibility in all cases as men are expected to do, or would that be too rational? Remember the ‘No Excuses – Never Ever’ campaign? Or was that only supposed to apply to men?.

There is something particularly reprehensible about this 'selective irrationality' based on the extremely rational criterion of what does and does not benefit women in a particular context.

The rules of new feminism are quite clear in the public service.
Equal pay for men and women.
If a woman wants to move her desk then the nearest man is required.
Truck driving women are always welcome.
Large transport companies use women to do pallet drop offs, and use men to do the more heavy lifting jobs.Is this equal or are men being used,for equal pay.
Policewomen have cost the community a 120% increase in the states police wages budget.
The reason is that police women have caused police men to accompany the women on patrols.It is common for most capital police to have two insead of one person on patrol.
The problem has been that Policewomen now spend their time talking to the male officerabout their lives instead of the Police officer concentrating on policing.
Today women are treated in a worse manner by police than when a male only force existed.
Yes I agree with the comment.

Rob, have you read Patricia Pearsons book "When She Was Bad"?

Patricia covers the topic of double standards over PMS quite well. In part if testosterone is not an excuse for men behaving badly then PMS is not an excuse for women.

If you've not read it I'd encourage you to do so to get a perspective on how some feminists see the double standards and sexism issue.

R0bert