Feminism to some, represents a demanding, redolent group of ladies with strongly held views and opinions. To others, an almost exasperating, pedantic category of determined females with whom it's almost impossible for a male to please.

For me at least, the word 'Feminism' represents just another term meaning female, or femininity. All boiled down to just a few very basic words, similar to; feminineness, feminine qualities, which simply further extrapolates to delicate, soft, tender, alluring... ! I think you get the picture.

You see, my most favourite people are females, ladies ! I like the way they; look, feel, smell, walk, talk - in fact I love every feature about them ! Now, you may well be thinking, what's this bloke on ? I'm on nothing. I love women, all women. Feminine gender, OK !

So, while coming home in the car today, I caught the last bit of some forgettable show on Radio National, the ABC. It comprised a panel of three ladies, and a male presenter/moderator, and he was in the process of thanking them all for coming and in doing so, naming each of them. A name I do recall, was Eva Cox, the other two I wouldn't know, except one was described as a 'leading feminist' ? What's a 'Leading Feminist' ? But wait, aren't they all female ?

It's this appellation of 'feminist', that's got me tricked ? The common use of the word, to my dullard understanding, is a lady who's known for her forthright opinions, equality with males in everything, and can be a little autocratic and even imperious with her subordinates ?

I also understand some feminists, within the military demand access to ALL positions hitherto occupied by males. Claiming they can do anything a male can do ? And I totally agree. My only concern, there are some duties within the military, that are inappropriate for ladies, not that they're incapable of performing it ?

Am I on the wrong track folks ?

o sung wo afraid I have fixed views, not about womans Liberation, its the domination I dislike.
And for some that is the target not equality.
IF only that energy was focused on the dreadful way some women are treated in other country.s, not forgetting here two.
I am a white ribbon wearer against the worst offenses against women here
I just get in to trouble for this but increasing break ups all around me,as women betray good men, with lessor ones, asks questions I have no answers for.

You are a brave man to discuss this issue O Sung Wu!
You sound as though you have the basics of feminism at heart, and we need more men like you to support the women in your lives.

To me, Feminism means the constant struggle for equality of the sexes.
It means women standing up for themselves, but still wanting the best for the men in their lives.
It means striving for equal rights for women all over the world, and not just here in Australia.

I am not one of those women who believe women can do ANYTHING a man can do.
I just want a world where women can be treated as equals in a human rights sense.

Now just watch as other posters take on this subject and try to tell me what I really think, and that despite the fact I really love most men, I apparently am a man-hater.

Bring it on boys....

Whilst male posters haven't, as yet, told Suseonline what she really thinks - so I know with certainty too - I'll tentatively agree with her.

I'm reminded of the impasse with tactics and goals which saw a distinction with Suffragettes and Suffragists... maybe we could use a new suite of words, each with a specific meaning?

Without trying for puns (feminasty, etc.), so far I've got feminist, feminette, feminelle, feminista, feminage, feminrix, feminress, feminina, feminino and Houellebecqist.

Loved "Bring it on boys..." so tauntingly non-PC.

To me, feminism doesn't mean things female, or femininity. It means a political movement that arose in the western world in the last century aimed at achieving equality of the sexes - something literally meaningless.

If emily's list is representative feminism then it is very sick indeed. Always putting the 'rights ' of feminist woman above the unborn, fathers and anyone else getting in the road of their sick selfish agenda.

Yes o sung, I have been fond of women ever since I met my first one. I called her mum.

Feminism as I see it, [usually here & on TV], is not however something I could ever like.

There may be lots of nice feminists, but they don't show up anywhere I've seen. Those I see as feminists, rather than ladies, have a tendency to be quite nasty. Look at all our lovely ladies here, who don't rant feminism, but contribute firm opinions.

Those identifying themselves as such do seem to have a chip on their shoulder. Very few if any appear to want to advance the lot of the ladies, or mankind in general. What I see is a desire to tread men down.

It appears they care not how much that may improve the lives of women, provided they can make it look better, by making men’s lives worse. It would appear that if she is doing better than him, that is all that counts, even if both of them are much worse off.

To me, my mother, at home driving her sewing machine, making most of everything, & tending her veggie garden contributed every bit as much to our families & her own wellbeing, as she would have if she had been head master at the school, or run the local service station..

G'day HASBEEN...

You're spot on with you last sentence I reckon, how all our mothers whether those who chose to remain at home or working, contributed SO, SO much to everything.

Excuse me a moment while I get into my ballistic helmet and body armour...there, got it !

OK, would it be fair to say, that a dedicated, hard core feminist, more often than not, might well be a lesbian ? In my mind, somehow I just can't reconcile or harmonize the possibility that some of these women being able to participate and enjoy a truly heterosexual alliance ? Or am I way off the mark ?

Hi there SUSEONLINE...

I sort of agree with your basic premise of a 'feminist' ? On the other hand, I knew a couple of ladies at work, who demonstrated truly feminist traits. One particularly, was very pedantic, almost aggressive (with males), and on one occasion of a promotion, she asserted her right for promotion, claiming she was better qualified, and could perform the tasks and functions better than the initial successful applicant. Thus the promotion was overturned and she got it !

As it happened, I attended several formal functions, and she was there also. Socially, she was charming, very nice, warm, in fact everything a lady should be in a social setting ? Yet at work, she wore the title 'dragonlady'. True, she wasn't married, in her late thirties, early forties, quite an attractive girl - Could she be defined as a true feminist ? I'd bet my pension, she wasn't a Lesbian. That aside, I don't know, I really don't.

Suseonline,
You monster! You've just expressed support International Socialism, fortunately it's been defunct for twenty years.
"Equality" equals endless war, hills of corpses, secret Police and re-education camps.
If your vision of "equality" wasn't so tainted by bloodshed it'd be the gold standard worldwide but fortunately most people understand history and where internationalism and forced equality leads:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7L5Qm-qRjqg&list=HL1362974633
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjcO4tcobc0
Hasbeen,
In that light "feminism" is an activist movement for unmarriable women, all it seeks to do is secure state and lately capitalist support for single women.
There's no such thing as the Feminist archetype of the "strong, empowered woman", the very statement is an oxymoron.
Women, like your and my mothers only became strong, respected figures by overcoming adversity, empowered women are given their positions by the state or the corporation, hence the chip on the shoulder, they demand respect but know deep down that everyone else can see that they haven't earned and don't deserve it.

I don’t know tiger; feminism has always meant radicalization from my experience.

In 1971 when I was 15, I stumbled on a “feminist” dance one Saturday evening at the old Jewish community hall in Darlinghurst. It was full of dykes and Helen Reddy’s brilliant “I am Woman” copped a flogging that night. All girls there, except for a sprinkling of gay guys the odd brother and a few interlopers like me. The vibe and the mandatory “rally sister’s speech” came from old chicks, old to me anyway, probably in their thirties, blokey, you know the look.

Even back then I realized that the feminism of the suffragettes had turned into a war of the sexes. Modern feminism had been hijacked by the sexual revolution of the 1960’s. That revolution produced outstanding leaders such as Angela Merkel and Maggie Thatcher, along with abysmal failures like Gillard.

The double bind paradox that lives in most males has the expectation of a ruthless “man’s world” persona but with the retention of the feminine mystique….that is not an expectation of mine. But what I did expect hasn’t become apparent in any way.

I suppose I expected a “caring persona” that had the future young of the nation in mind rather than the next election. Women in power have failed as women, but excelled at being blokes in every dishonest unscrupulous way…just like us mate.

Suseonline>> Now just watch as other posters take on this subject and try to tell me what I really think, and that despite the fact I really love most men, I apparently am a man-hater.<<

Suse, I want a chromosome test, some of you chicks have too many Y’s….lol

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig."
Andrea Dworkin; from her book Ice and Fire .

"All men are rapists and that's all they are."
Marilyn French, Author

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
Catherine MacKinnon

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience."
Catherine Comin, Vassar College. Assistant Dean of Students.

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them."
Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things."
Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men.)

Germaine Greer, the 68yr old guru of feminists published a book filled with pictures of naked underage boys, titled "The Beautiful Boy".

Greer, "Society is not accustomed to seeing beauty in young males", Greer claimed."

(The book is) "full of pictures of 'ravishing' pre-adult boys with hairless chests, wide-apart legs and slim waists".

"I know that the only people who are supposed to like looking at pictures of boys are a subgroup of gay men. Well, I'd like to reclaim for women the right to appreciate the short-lived beauty of boys, real boys, not simpering 30-year-olds with shaved chests."

Interviewd by Denton,
Andrew Denton: You said in an interview with the 'Sydney Morning Herald' a couple of years ago, "A woman of taste is a pederast — boys rather than men."
Germaine Greer: Yeah.
Andrew Denton: What do you mean by that?
Germaine Greer: Well, boys are beautiful, see, they're not beardy and singlety.

Yep, just as I thought would happen on this thread.

Apparently if you believe in equality of the sexes, then you must be a ranting, raving socialist communist, aggressive, ball- breaking, ambitious, unmarried, lesbian, single, ugly , masculine woman.

I know some women who have all of those qualities who aren't even remotely feminist...
: )

Well Germaine Greer to me at least, represents a rather tragic figure, an individual who is totally confused as to what part she should play amongst other more balanced members of the essayist community.

She seems now to be facing a real quandary, with identifing with most people, male or female. Many actively pillorying much of what she propounds. Strangly too, she persistently seeks out, or she creates controversy and dissension. However else can she guarantee her place in the spotlight. The more preposterous and ridiculous her claims, the better placed she is to retain her precious position within that all important media focus.

Her lifelong maxim, has always been 'all publicity is good publicity', remains indelibly imprinted in her psyche, and is permently entrenched within the Germaine Greer folklore.

I believe Ms. Greer is now a very isolated, lonely,and mordant old maid. Utterly denuded of any physical or emotional appeal. Spurned or ridiculed by all, but the most feral and overzealous of the female species, some of whom are themselves utterly confused as to what their own gender assignment actually is ? All very sad when one is forced to reflect upon the extraordinary intellect of this sad woman ?

O sung wu, I don't know any woman today who identifies with that sad 1970's bra-burner Greer.
She may well have been a trailblazer for women's rights way back then, but we have more wonderful women to look up to these days...

According to some historians, feminism owes much to the work of Gloria Steinhem - who turned out to be a CIA "stooge". Her career and work was directly sponsored by them in conjunction with - and funded by - various business groups.

Why? At the time, the US workforce had been diluted by lower-paid Mexican immigrants and there was a rising feeling of social resentment.

The solution for business was that there was a vast untapped local source of labor available - women!

They were originally encouraged to take on many of the lower paid jobs but have been kept undercompensated ever since and their jobs have since become ones of economic necessity rather than choice.

There are also some that believe that it was part of a deliberate strategy to get kids away from both their parents and break down the family unit but that's probably more an unforeseen consequence rather than a deliberate intention.

Professor Greer is typical of the over-educated middle class Chardonnay Marxists who make up a very large rump of the feminist commentariat.

She lives very well off the fat of the land, off the labour of common people no less, while looking down her nose at them. Life is good in her English country house. Must be good to be constantly waited upon.

Never had to do any real work.

Erin Pizzey on feminists, and she is right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QhliqceyoL8

I found two interesting quotes that took my fancy on this subject.
I felt the overwhelming need to share them.

"Women who seek to be equal with men lack ambition."
Timothy Leary

"Feminism is the radical notion that women are people."
Cheris Kramarae

Every revolution has its consequences, its
benefits and its costs. The revolution of
gender roles has helped to reshape the
workplace, the family, and the relationship
of the sexes - but the feminist ideals of the
1960s haven't always been fulfilled by the
reality of the current century.

A great deal has changed over the decades. New
economic roles have brought women greater
equality with men and also many fresh opportunities,
particularly the chance to experience careers and
achievements in the world beyond the home. But working
women haven't simply traded their housework for a
career, rather, many have taken on two jobs - one
at home, one at work.

Many women who enjoy the rigors of pursuing their
careers, maintaining intimate relationships,
and raising children are finding these things
difficult to balance. Some, who put their careers before
marriage find that they have hit the "invisible
ceiling" and feel deeply betrayed. Now in their forties,
they regard themselves as casualities of their own
revolution - especially if they didn't marry and now
face the prospect of never finding a husband or
having children.

Also, the post feminist generation of women today who
take the benefits of women's liberation for granted,
are dubious about the burdens of being the perfect
wife, mother, and executive. For many women, for the
time being at least, many feel themselves stuck midway
in a revolution that has run out of steam.

I won't go into details about the immense changes that women's
roles have had on the family. Suffice to say that a
generation of children are 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 the
Australian experience.

True liberation from the restrictions of gender would mean
that all possible options would be open and equally
acceptable for both sexes. Then a person's individual
and human qualities, rather than his or her biological
sex, would be the primary measure of that person's worth
and achievement.

No-one is prepared to grasp the nettle presented by Erin Pizzey and other female researchers and authors. But why not?

To be blunt, feminism as it was construed by radical feminists who were indeed Marxists and man haters was based on an ad hominen. It was and is led by an academic feminism that built a political correctness based on many deliberate flaws in reasoning and in fact.

However there is no disputing three simple truths:

first, that young women are revulsed by the obvious unfairnesses and hypocrisy of a movement that relies on the unfathomable and so often blatantly wrong prognostications of self-serving female academics and other careerists who have been shown to put their conclusions first and make the research fit;

second, women who challenge the political correctness and untruths are bullied ruthlessly as traitor to the cause; and

thirdly, it is patently obvious that only a narrow group of women comprising of educated middle class careerists get to propose and benefit from feminism.

Just taking the last, the political correctness of feminism treats all women as the same. Yet women themselves differ more in expectations, needs and desired futures than they differ from men. As well, all but few women are constantly moving though transitions that were and are always completely normal for women.

One only has to live the day of a woman in these roles to understand just how feminism has forgotten them and how just a few of the educated middle class Sisterhood have networked together to ensure their own needs are paramount. Favouritism in recruitment and promotion continues to advantage the annointed ones and those who kowtow to feminist networks like Emilys List.

There are women who have excelled off their own bat through competence and hard work. Such women are iregarded with suspicion and ignored by the feminist bandwagon.

There are many millions of dollars in the victim industries spawned by the feminists who hijacked feminism and Erin Pizzey is right in her assessment. But there are younger researchers who say the same. Like Erin Pizzey, they are similarly cold-shouldered and abused.

Hi there good people...

Wow, I had no idea how academic, how intense this topic could be ?

I've no truck with anybody, male or female who present and then behave in a radical manner. There's no reason for it these days. However, there may be a legitimate exception to that view ? And that is women who have suffered, both physically and psychologically at the hands of a (cowardly) male person ?

And if victims of this awful crime find it necessary to become radical, in order to ensure they'll be thoroughly heard by those in authority who are obligated with safeguarding them - Is to become singularly radical, then more power to them !

Though It's my profound belief, it's a man's 'duty' to protect all females within his immediate family group ! I understand my views might be seen as somewhat cavalier even insouciant. Even so it's my view, a view from which I'd not care to abandon. Further, by 'protect' I don't mean pistols at ten paces, nor twelve rounds under Queensburys rules, I belive we all understand the common exegesis of 'protect' in the year 2013 ?

o sung wu,

The very nasty brand of feminism applied in Australia has a variety of deleterious consequences for most women. In some areas the baby has been thrown out with the bathwater, for example the vexing problems for breastfeeding women, or 'breeders' if one wants to adopt the truly offensive, judgmental language of the 'Left Progressives' so well represented in the educated middle class women who have always hijacked feminism.

Creating a gender divide that must affect the young and the encouragement and proliferation of fatherless families are two other examples. In fact, from the feminist policies applied to family law by ministers like Nicola Roxon, fathers have no role outside of opening their wallet.

Nothing has been done on the big issues affecting women in their major transitions in life (apart from giving the career leg up to educated middle class women), nor to help women in the roles most expect and choose with relish and as their natural birth right. The lack of attention to transport, shopping, local communication and support are just some examples.

Women have lost out badly in city design, transport planning, you name it. But none of that would cross the minds of the educated middle class elite who have a strangle hold on advising and implementing women's policy in government. Such women enjoy sinecures in well paid careers for as long as they like and with a golden handshake to be gone with. Remember Nicola Roxon who could take her leave at a young age and enjoy a superb taxpayer funded superannuation and travel for life?

Equality is a motherhood. But feminism is directed into advantaging the noisy, manipulative who have hijacked it and were always advantaged to start with. Feminism for some is a jolly nice little earner in a victim industry that takes millions annually from the trough of taxpayers' money.

Feminism couldn't exist without the excesses in the entertainment industry. It is designed to foster & further homosexuality with thoughts of contempt only for normal people.

Good afternoon to you ONTHEBEACH and INDIVIDUAL...

I raised a rather stupid topic for my own part. Truth is I'm right out of my depth with the real intricacies and specifics of what the issues are.

I understand what you've said ONTHEBEACH about accommodating the real needs of women, such as privacy and protection in public places and on public transport, as a couple of examples. In fact I heard one suggestion, which was roundly denounced even laughed at, to paint certain railway carrieges for late night services, pink ? For the express use of females only ? And such carriages located at the front of each train.

Myself, I don't know about painting them pink, but the general proposition of having female specific carriages for late night services, has merit. Given the number I women I've known who've suffered some very savage assaults on trains.

Would you both agree then, this whole topic of 'feminism', is not so much about an isolated gender aberration. Rather that of a stated series of 'rights' precisely orianted torwards the absolute access by all women to the highest vocational and political positions that are available !

Simply, these women who describe themselves as 'feminist' demand to be empowered to seek, and to avail themselves to the full suite of ENTITLEMENTS that are now available, seemingly only to males.

That aside, I believe there's a hardcore group of women, who loudly proclaim and identify themselves with 'feminists', who're not anything of the kind. They are simply trying to use that epithet in an attempt to legitimise or validate their particular lifestyle. To permit their group to wear, to act or adorn themselves as they wish, all in the name of 'feminisim'. Aren't they already allowed to do as they wish now ?

On special carriages for women, that is fostering the abysmally wrong assumption and stereotyping that most violence is directed at woman and that 'men' are the 'problem'. There were always laws - already duplicated by transport regulations- that apply. It is a detection and judicial problem: too few to police the laws and offenders get a slap on the wrist.

Looking at feminism and particularly the many dysfunctional consequences (unintended, one hopes charitably) one must ask the question, "Who gains?".

In answer there are many on the gravy train who benefit. But they are educated middle class careerists, not ordinary women, who are no different from any ordinary person in the street regardless of sex or age. There are some gains (most from the civil rights movement of the Sixties) but significant, irretrievable losses too.

Did you follow the link in this thread (below)?

Nordic Countries defund 'Gender Theory'
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5676

Hi again ONTHEBEACH...

Yup, you've blown me right out of the water ! Thank you for that link, and the article contained within that link. I had no idea of the existance of the NIKK and Mr Harald EIR, ONTHEBBEACH ? Amazing.

It would seem you've done much research on this topic, and I'll repeat what I said earlier, this Topic was illconceived by me, I knew so little about it, and it should've been left to someone like yourself to have 'run with it' ?

On the issue of 'female only' railway carrieges. No, I don't necessarily agree with you specifically on this issue. Our females, are ENTITLED to protection. I don't see it as a feminist issue at all. I'm not for a moment suggesting special rollingstock be added to each and every train. Only selected late night services, where risk, and the threat assessment is substantially higher. They are entitled to travel safely, it's a 'right'?

On each of your other points, I do agree with you ol' man.

Again, I must again reiterate, how thoroughly researched you are on this topic ONTHEBEACH ! Thank you. Do you agree with me maybe a little, on the carriages ?

o sung wu,

I really don't care if there are women only carriages or not. However if it was proposed by a man, it would be criticised as sexism, misogyny, discrimination, segregation, sexual apartheid and so on.

It wouldn't work in practice though. There are many good reasons why not. Why not the elderly and infirm? What about minors who are male? Delays in filling carriages and so on. What about train safety in case of fire, accident or other threat (need for movement between carriages)? There is as I say a long list.

However there is already a practice on some lines of having a carriage that is closer to the guard and monitored. It is not gender specific though and that reduces many of the practical problems. One can go there if one wishes. I have previously mentioned that to family members.

But safety on public transport should apply to everyone without discrimination. As public compensation schemes have long held, 'A life is a life'. We cannot remove all sources of risk, it is impractical.

The overwhelming number of trips on public transport are uneventful. Violence is unusual but highly reported. You may have noticed that the most recent violent fracas on public transport involved two women.

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

Again you've made some valid points apropos the aged, infirm, and children and the like.

However, your last sentence mentioning crime perpetrated on passangers travelling by rail, 'is unusual, and highly reported' is incorrect.

Sorry ol' friend, 'she who must be obeyed' is summoning me to go shopping - speak again soon. Cheers.

I really feel sorry for feminists. They are living in an artifical world of ther making-- I think some call it a goldfish bowl. Women have always being in charge. That is about 30% of the alpha females and with the help of about 20% high performing males to do much of the dirty work. That"s nature, which is there for all to see.

o sung wu,

I imagine the crime on public transport is usually down to the same offenders the police visit in their homes every week as almost a routine.

You could map the routes and times. For a start, they wouldn't be using public transport to go to work.

Why must we the honest citizens, continually have to change what we do and live behind security screens so these ferals can roam free, and be paid by our taxes to do so? Honestly, put the vandals and violent mongrels to work cleaning the verges of country roads with warders on horseback to make sure they get the work done. Have them grow and prepare their own food and clean their own camp. They avoid work and responsibility, so give them some to be going with.

There are many good things that came with the feminist movement. I won't get into the definition of a feminist as I have long ago forgotten what that is and it means different things to different people. To some it clearly means world domination.

Women were once told not only via societal expectations but their priests that they had to endure constant beatings until some feminist decided that women do not deserve to be beaten or to be treated as property and built the first women's shelter, and before that, some feminist fought for the vote.

Don't be too hard on feminism. What irks about some aspects of modern feminism is it has become as dictatorial as the claims about the patriarchy to some extent. That is, dictating to other women how they should live their lives, what choices have value, which female centred activities deserve funding etc. Feminism like the patriarchy suffers from exclusivity rather than inclusivity, even considering it's origin of righting wrongs.

Governments are best when they provide frameworks that allow for choices based on varying beliefs and values without socially engineering outcomes for some economic imperative which implies a judgement.

I can't help think that people who think only women break up relationships based on their own limited experiences, thus branding women the same are no different to the feminsts they lament. When women categorise men in the same way verbal wars break out. Men also do bad things. Shouldn't we all be about what individuals do, what people do, rather than stick with the same gender stereotypes. Debates about feminism that revert into 'women do this', 'men do that' really don't serve any useful purpose.

Yup, you're on the money there ONTHEBEACH. If governments provided public facilities, transport, parks and conveniences that were safe for ALL to use, rather then taking measures, gender specific, then I believe we'd all be far better served.

But there again, it's the same old question - Do they have the will to ensure sufficient protective measures are undertaken ?

I notice down in Victoria, the newly elected Liberal government, as a firm election promise, has determined they would place two (armed) PSO's (Protective Service Officers) at every suburbean Railway Station, until the last Train of each night.

Apparently crimes of violence, occasioned against females while waiting or alighting from trains, during silent hours, was inordinately high ? Thus the new government made good their promise, hence the PSO's. The measure was applauded by the public, but met with decided derision from Labour ?

A far better outcome than special, dedicated carriages for females ? What's your thoughts on the Victorian initiative, ONTHEBEACH ?

G'day to you too PELICAN...

Thank you for your superb contribution ! I believe you're right, when you observe that some women may join the feminist movement purely as an inclusive measure - to demonstrate to their female friends that they share their beliefs and ideals for a better 'deal' for women, rather then being converted to hard core feminism per se.

Perhaps too, they feel they 'have' to become (notionally) a feminist in order to be accepted and become inclusive with their peers, as I stated herein.

And I reckon you're also spot on PELICAN with your views; apropos governments may be engaging in a tiny bit of social engineering ? The gals Vs guys ! Look no further than Nicola Roxon, Penny Wong, and ors. in Federal Parliament (if misspelt, I'm sorry) ? The hammering they handed out to one, Anthony ABBOTT together with accusations of his misogynist opinions, as well as his alleged chauvinism etc ?

I still can't get this notion out of my 'thick' head, that a real, 'cast iron' feminist, more than likely is a lesbian ? Where there're many women who claim to be involved in the feminist movement ? In fact, they're simply only 'part timers' if you like ?

I must confess to you, I've had the immense misfortune to have arrested a number of REAL feminists over the years, and I'd like you all to understand, they are by no measure, ever to be confused with being 'straight' ! Please, don't ask me how I know this, just believe me ! Suffice to say, straight after putting the individual through the 'Charge Book' I immediately went for a long, hot shower. Thereafter soaking myself liberally with a powerful eau de toilette ! Perhaps now, you may've gathered my drift ?

Thank you for your contribution PELICAN.

Thanks o sung wu
I wasn't talking so much about indivduals joining the feminist movement to feel included or to give support to other women, but more that the goals are hazy and they are exclusive to women and fail to include the rights of men in the mix as well. Which is the way I think feminism should now direct it's energies.

Looking at issues not from specifically a gender perspective (although sometimes this might serve a good purpose in some cases in relation to men/women or girls/boys) but from the point of what is fair for everyone.

As for lesbians. They are a broad church and I don't think anyone can generalise. (Houlley will chide me for using 'broad church' but I can't put it any better) :)

Sorry there PELICAN, I misunderstood you. You're referring to a public swimming pool being set aside for the exclusive use of women ?
Or a nightclub venue with admittance limited only to ladies ? Or similar ? I think the issue of the swimming pool, is based more on an Islamic imperative rather than purely on gender.

Though, these days there's nothing that would really surprise me. Everytime one picks up a newspaper, there's some 'crackpot' with yet another, even more divisive measure, in order to further separate the sexes ? Aren't we all supposed to live together in an equal, and harmonious existence ?

Thanks again for your imput, very much appreciated my friend.

My old eyes are getting tired, so it's probably time to 'park my pen', so to speak !

It is always nice to say 'Never you mind' and 'But there are other "crack pots" around'.

But that avoids any transparency, scrutiny and accountability. Nice if you can get it.

There has to be responsiility taken for the trumped up 'research', extremism and self-serving greed of the feminist elite in Australia who have been in cosy sinecures in academia and government for decades and have taken lead roles in advising policy.

Politicians come and go and they are always answerable in Parliament. That accountability doesn't apply to the feminist academics, bureaucrats and other middle class professionals who duck and weather the changes in government. Yet they should be as accountable as the parliamentary ministers who trusted them, took their advice and in some cases (the politicians) were white-anted and embarrassed where they did not.

There are tight networks of feminists who have played favourites, helping one another, through various government appointments for years.

Hi there ONTHEBEACH...

Ain't it the truth already ! Feminists AND many others, pushing some weird causes, somehow manage to get a 'leg up' from governments ?

Thanks everybody for contributing to this modest little topic, I certainly appreciate all your efforts, very much indeed !

'There are tight networks of feminists who have played favourites, helping one another, through various government appointments for years'

onthebeach
To be fair, in the early days this was probably necessary to allow for equal opportunity. I can't see the difference though between that and the old boys networks which actively worked to keep women out of organisations and other activities.

Men never had to establish an Emily's List type organisation, they already had their own unofficial Emily's List which excluded women. (I am reminded of the Yes Minister episode when Humphrey and the Minister sought to actively put a women in as head of a civil service department to win favour and be seen as progressive, despite her obvious suitability which should have been enough, and then played insulted and outraged because she chose instead to work for the community sector where she could actually achieve stuff.)

There are more men in Senior Executive Service (SES) and heading departments than women. Personally these sorts of issues don't concern me as there are many reasons why women may not aspire to these roles as long as they have the opportunity to do so, that's what counts. In the public service, the greater concern is the unwarranted growth of the SES at the expense of workers on the ground, than gender balance (which is often ignored due to self-interest).

What I don't like is this idea that equality of equality of opportunity has to be measured by a notion of 50% or an even 50/50 split. This assumes gender assumes a more important place than other factors. There may be other reasons why there is a dominant male/female presence that has nothing to do with active gender discrimination or favouritism.

pelican, "[re favouritism in appointments] To be fair, in the early days this was probably necessary to allow for equal opportunity. I can't see the difference though between that and the old boys networks which actively worked to keep women out of organisations and other activities."

There is no excuse, no justification for cronyism. It is corruption. If anything it is more prevalent than ever. The favouritism has been raised to an art form in some agencies. It is systemic.

pelican, "Men never had to establish an Emily's List type organisation, they already had their own unofficial Emily's List which excluded women"

What utter garbage and an insult that is to men when you generalise from a few presumed instances. In fact the (previous) Public Service Board of the federal public service had tight scrutiny of appointments and selections. Appointment and promotion were tampered with for the purpose of affirmative action and devolved to heads of agencies. There were unexpected negative consequences of devolution and affirmative action.

(TBC)

(contd.)

pelican, "There are more men in Senior Executive Service (SES) and heading departments than women"

The federal public service always maintained very detailed records of staff movements, previously on its old Burroughs computer. Women always outpaced men up to the meddle management positions. They presented better in interview (gift of the gab) and had more varied experience because they changed jobs more.

Above that level knowledge and practical expertise in managing the full range and cycle of events bore heavily on promotion prospects. Men were more likely to possess those. 'Positive' affirmative action saw the criteria manipulated to put generalists in higher positions to advance women regardless. But even so, women do not like to remain for long. Their choice, self selection, not discrimination and certainly no 'glass ceiling'. For example, while women like to be advanced to be managing engineers they do not want to be one. That would be a drag.

Cohort analysis proves the opposite of what you suggest to be the case. In fact any women who is prepared to stay in the federal bureaucracy are very greatly advantaged in training opportunities, and in advancement. It is career paradise for educated middle class women.

Pelican "In the public service, the greater concern is the unwarranted growth of the SES at the expense of workers on the ground, than gender balance"

Agreed and the numbers show it for the middle management positions as well. It is a wonder who works where all claim 'people management' as their most responsible and time consuming role. it is the usual complaint of contractors that there is always a host of 'managers' who refuse to make decisions but are always demanding 'information' and 'reports', constantly hampering the contractors' work.

[quoting myself] "Women always outpaced men up to the meddle management positions"

As a previous sometimes contractor to public agencies, "(public service) meddle management" could be right. But it should be "middle management" instead.

onthebeach
"What utter garbage and an insult that is to men when you generalise from a few presumed instances"

You do yourself a disservice when you call another person's views utter garbage.

There has been positive discrimination for many groups including the disabled and Indigeous groups. It is not cronyism when there is a real need to redress the balance. That is what I meant by "in the early days" in relation to opportunities for women. You are choosing to misrepresent my words as suggesting the present day - whether on purpose or not I cannot tell.

It is a fact that men excluded women throughout history in various sections of society, you can pretend they didn't if you like but history reveals otherwise.

The boys network acted to exclude women from many aspects of society (I was not talking about the public service in that context although men do outnumber women in senior roles - I have no problem with that although I disgree that the public service has a strong merit selection process. If you have worked in the APS you would know this is not always strictly the case).

In find you very defensive and unreasonable when it comes to any criticism of men (even if only perceived) but you are quite content to kick into women without a second thought. Read your own comments on many threads and swap the genders around when reading it out. If I or any other female poster had written in such a way, you would be out guns blazing.

I'll leave you to your own thoughts but I disagree strongly with your perception that women were never disadvantaged in terms of employment opportunities. It is just plain wrong to accept cronyism for men as perfectly okay while criticising the same of some women's groups.

If you are going to be critical you need to be fair in your judgements which should be the same for both men and women. If not it is just hypocritical

pelican,

Your whole defence is based on a strawman and an adhominen. To give an example, this is what you pretend I am saying, (to quote your words),

"It is just plain wrong to accept cronyism for men as perfectly okay while criticising the same of some women's groups"

Whereas this is what I actually stated and it is there in black and white,

"There is no excuse, no justification for cronyism. It is corruption. If anything it is more prevalent than ever. The favouritism has been raised to an art form in some agencies. It is systemic".

For the rest you continue in the same vein.