A post by me in response to John Pilger's recent article 'there is a war on ordinary people and feminists are needed at the front', in which he contributes to the debate around a 'crisis of masculinity'.

In it I address his misrepresentations of feminists, which display not only poor journalism but also an echoing of common sexist left responses to feminism, and suggest better ways for leftist men to solidarise with pro-women struggles.

I also discuss the ideological terrain which shapes both these common left responses and this 'crisis of masculinity' discourse in which men are portrayed as victims of gender:

http://www.zcommunications.org/leftist-men-arent-born-to-lead-radical-struggles-by-ginny-brown

Welcome Ginny.
I have been walking around your thread not sure I want to get involved.
I am a believer in equality of the sex,s, and totally uninterested in radical feminism.
Believe SOME men fall victim to it.
But while not going to hang around thought I would rattle the rock and see what you are trying to say.
A PS history is full of storyes about women being our front with their men in fighting for a cause.

Oh Ginny you poor lamb, it must be so taxing being a First World woman in the 21st Century. How dare men whinge when it is you girls who bleed heaviest in this misogynistic world?

You must hark back to the good old days of your great grandmother….now that woman knew what housework was. When she said that she had made you dinner, she really made your dinner, no microwave for that girl. When she said she washed your clothes……..she washed your clothes….no middle man technology.

She probably lived in a house whose deeds were solely in her husband’s name, and if she attempted to claim what was rightfully hers in court through the matrimonial contract, she had to prove that she added “monetarily” to the household….housekeeping and mothering duties were not given any monetary or other value back then.

If great Gran was intelligent and studious, academia awaited with a chalk ceiling and limited places.

I could go on and on and on about how great it was for you girls only three or four generations ago. But it will only make you sadder regarding the current abysmal situation in regards to women’s rights and probably a bit narky over men demanding anything.

As Alice Cooper said "only women bleed."

Dear SOG,

Here's something I know you'll appreciate:

http://www.newstatesman.com/2013/05/my-crisis-masculinity-and-how-feminism-set-me-free

Yes Lexi, the myth of masculinity. It rather depends on the testosterone for physicality…..but the psychology doth engender both nature and nurture to my mind.

Because of the stereotype societal paradigms that we are nurtured in, there are expectations, and those expectations are valid for the interpersonal relationship system to work. We have to have an expectation of social position rather than social anarchy.

Modern society has identified rights by group…the rights of women, the rights of the child, and the rights of the unborn etc.

I believe that to some formidable percent that when enacting the rights for individual groups, you must disenfranchise others.

Lexi I take the wider Trotskyite view of self emancipation and mass democracy. Whichever rights pertain to one group, so they do to all.

Feminists have outlived their usefulness in the First World, as have cavemen.

Lexi, I enjoyed the article in the link you provided.
The author sounds like a wonderfully intelligent man with incredible insight.

I imagine that such a man, and his insightful thoughts, would be somewhat threatening to some posters on this site.

I would hate to think that feminism, in its purest form, would drop the ball now, with so much left to do...

Suseonline>> I would hate to think that feminism, in its purest form, would drop the ball now, with so much left to do...<<

What do the femista have to achieve in the first world Suse?

I don't know about your 'first world' Sonofgloin, but in my world I would just like to see all women in all countries being able to live without violence in their own homes.
That's not too much to ask really...

Dear Suse,

Thanks for that.

There's an interesting article in the July issue
of The Australian Women's Weekly (page. 58),
"The Women Who Shape Melbourne." It's worth a read
if you haven't read it. I'll quote just a little
from it:

"At a time when terms such as 'misogyny' and 'glass
ceiling' are being hotly debated around the country,
Melbourne is just getting on with the business of
being the breeding ground for the country's best
female minds and the women who run Melbourne are a
power pack so influential that, collectively, they
manage billions of dollars worth of public and
private assets, employ tens of thousands of people and
set the policies that shape the future of the city."

As I said - it's an interesting read.

Dear SOG,

You ask about feminism and why is it necessary in
First World countries?

The following link may help answer your questions:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/how-the-pms-gender-took-over-the-agenda-20130624-2oson.html

So the radical feminists have ruled that Pilger is a 'rape myth promoter' and a 'rape excuser', while all Left men are 'sexist' and weak?

Pilger is especially foul to radical feminists for supporting Assange.

It is the 'purest form of feminism', lauded by Suseonline.

Any wonder young women run screamimg from the feminist dinosaurs who always presume to direct them how to lead their lives?

In in my world I would like to see all people in all countries being able to live without violence in their own homes.
That's regardless of their gender or the gender of any potential assailants.

I'd also like to see people of both genders and most of the other groupings we seem so fond of be treated equally both in the letter of the law and in it's application.

I'd like to see just what the definition is of feminism is in it's purist form.

When critics of feminism attempt to address specifics a lot of feminists seem pretty keen to assure us that there is no purest form, the broad church approach is the defence for claiming the name feminist.

There appears to be a big range in the scale of what feminism could be, few seem willing to want to be tied down to what that purest form is exactly.

Whilst I disagree strongly with a lot of the analysis I can agree in principle with those seeking genuine equality of opportunity.

I'm strongly opposed to those seeking different rules for men and women. Eg Susie's support for abortion whilst maintaining that men should have no choice in regard to their ongoing liabilities after the initial sex act being a recent example which I've noticed none of the equality feminists seem to be willing to challenge.

R0bert

Suseonline>> I would just like to see all women in all countries being able to live without violence in their own homes.
That's not too much to ask really...<<

Absolutely not Suse, I whole heartedly agree.

>>The relentless persecution by senior male journalists, the vilification, the sexist mockery, the personal abuse and the contempt with which she would be treated<<

Lexi, this quote from your link needs some qualification.

When I consider other political leaders such as Angela Merkel and Maggie Thatcher, and both have welded on detractors, I note that the gender card has never been a part of their detractor’s arsenal. These girls are hated as if they were genderless, hated as individuals, a genderless vilification from the media and the constituents.

But Julia Gillard for whatever reason has evoked a disdain that permeates every plane of her being, her voice, her hair, her attire, her persona,… her gender….those who hate her, hate the lot, an almost schoolyard mentality.

The only issue I have with Julia are the words that have left her mouth.

Dear SOG,

As one political commentator stated:

"The sexism was not imagined by Gillard, and it
was not isolated. Her time in office revealed
the shameful depths of some people's fear and
loathing of women. Much of her treatment in
office has been breathtakingly foul. What can
be possibly said to women who roiled in
disgust at the open sexism designed to demean
Australia's first female prime minister and
leach her legitimacy?"

They are valid and important questions.

Political ommentators continue to tell us,
"a great part of modern
Australia - in the media, the political class, and
the general public - clearly cannot cope with
having a female leader."

Of course others things also came into play
with Gillard.
However, although Kevin Rudd may have to wear the
same condemnation for his long-term destablising
actions. None of it will have anything to do
with his gender, because as commentators agree,
"Some things never change."

RObert, I like the way you think.

Lexi>> Political ommentators continue to tell us,
"a great part of modern
Australia - in the media, the political class, and
the general public - clearly cannot cope with
having a female leader."<<

How do we gather perceptions?
From the media as a mass but we also interact with each other. I have never heard anyone say words to the effect of “what,…. now we have a female PM”.

Lexi I have heard the demeaning and discriminating term “stupid woman” said by those who not say “stupid man,” but as I said they wanted to throw everything at Gillard so all facets of Julia were targeted. Do I believe that misogyny is at the core….not for most.

I truly believe that all politicians have the innate ability to “not get hurt, but get angry, then even,” and Julia is a tough cookie. In saying that the stab to the ego is demoralizing and if pollies hurt, they hurt because of ego.

I did mention *rock* in my other post here.
Yes rude but I fancied the subject came from under a rock.
A bait.
Intened to bash anyone who took it on.
We are not divided by sex in this country.
Some rampaging militants, on both sides try to start bush fires but that about is it.
This morning in goggle news or the SMH a well put together story about young girls, talks of a new woman *Selfies*.
I have noted them else-ware, and think more of them exist, than our author is or seems to be based on this threads title.
The Gillard debate is as expected going no place.
Yes men do not want some types of women to lead.
Surely , come do not avoid it! polling proves women too did not want her.
Her actions persona, inability's, nothing else saw her go.

It is not surprising the OLO posters who have come forward to support the strident and bent radfem idealism of the OP and article.

What is regretable is that others who claim to be feminists have not come forward to correct and balance its woeful take on both genders, or to criticise the OLO posts by women who obviously support the noxious creed and lies that are radical feminism.

One wonders if there always a measure of the dreadfully twisted Dworkin in all feminists? Any wonder young women flee from the feminist harridans who would control them?

By generalising all men as violent and rapists, and by refusing to address:

- the issues of women who are violent and rape, and

- rape and violence committed against men;

the radfems promote their lesbian ideal of separatism. They also throw a concealing blanket over the victims of female violence and rape affecting lesbians, gays and men. By constantly denying that lesbians beat and abuse their girlfriends, that gays can be victims of partner violence too, and violence and rape of men is prolific, the radfems deny those victims a voice and ensure their plight continues, their screams for help being unheard and ignored.

That is what enables violence and the 'rape culture' to bloom, not some article by that old Lefties in the traditional sense, John Pilger. The denial and separatism of radfems and the feminist elite ensures division of the limited resources available to fight violence of all descriptions and perpetuates the turf wars and lack of cooperation between the various government-funded, make that taxpayer-funded, agencies and professionals.

How are we meant to address the problem if no-one knows about it?

Radfem ideology damages all of society because it denies issues affecting most women, and demonises and alienates half of the population, even infant boys.

I do not usually go along with the views of John Pilger, but no-one should be standing aside allowing this offensive and divisive radfem attack on him. It is a personal attack on him, ad hominen. It is tripe and should be dismissed as such.

And this from a poster who gives us Larry Pickering's
disgusting attacks on Anne Summers?
A bit of a double standard here.
Practice what you preach old chap.

Lexi,

There is no double standard just because you with your radfem goggles on say there is.

Pickering is just as well known and authoritative as a social and political commentator as any you would offer.

Now what about commenting on the OP?

onthebeach,

Ah, but I don't go around finger-pointing and condemning
the female gender for some supposed "crimes,"
while giving support to males - who do much worse.
As in your earlier Pickering citation.

As for Pickering? His reputation as a fraudster is well
documented. He is a liar and a con-man of the worse kind
and his attack on Ann Summers was written not in
a newsworthy, in depth, or literate style - but was vicious
and vile. And the language used was abhorrent.
Yet you supported it and cited in an
article discussion, and then you've got the gall to act all
righteous blaming some "feminists" for their attacks on pilger.
Tsk. Tsk.

That is just more diversion.

BTT

"The mind ought sometimes to be diverted
that it may return to better thinking."
(Phaedrus).

Or

"It is a narrow mind which cannot look at
a subject from various points of view."
(Albert Einstein).

YSVW.

It is courteous to respond to the contents of an article rather than what one imagines it to contain.

I wrote a marxist feminist analysis of these dynamics of oppression and discourse surrounding them.

Thank you, Lexi, for trying to ground the discussion in really-existing dynamics of oppression.

Those others who prefer to bang on about 'radical feminism' - seriously, do you want this to be your life?

Marxists do regard themselves as radicals, Ginny. But if you want to be a bit precious about your Marxism, no problemo. No foot stamp required. It is easy to see why you and Lexi regard yourselves as peas in a pod.

You are dinosaurs though. That you need to 'diss a geriatric male Leftie to get attention shows how desperate Western feminists must be for attention.

It must be lonely though, the feminist elite are more concerned about the winding up of the Lisa Ho label and what about the Z4 in Monacoblau.

Well Ginny I was right.
As a life long activist nothing to keep me here.
And the chances of me reading anything you wrote are zero.
Like it or lump it the whole thing came out from under a rock.
Not just for me but many men and equal numbers of totally uninterested women.
Lenin would be amused.

Dear Ginny,

Thank You for your kind words.

As I've written in the past on this forum -
true liberaton 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 human qualities,
rather than his or her biological sex, would be
the primary measure of that person's worth and
achievement.

That is your self promotion Lexi and of course you would want to give yourself a superior morality. But your behaviour is another matter. What about your support and Suseonline's too, for the opinions expressed in the OP and the article linked to therein? There is no disguising that is there?

This is what you support without criticism:

http://www.zcommunications.org/leftist-men-arent-born-to-lead-radical-struggles-by-ginny-brown

To be frank with both you and Suseonline, that is well representative of the very jaundiced views of men and of Australian society too that you have both consistently expressed on OLO.

You have finally come out of the closet to be up-front about your radical Marxist feminism and you leapt at the opportunity to do so.

Any wonder you have consistently stonewalled and exasperated OLO posters who have tried to reason with you in the past.

The geriatric Leftie John Pilger and Assange are grist for the mill when it suits the Sisterhood, eh what?

While I onthebeach am in the naughty boys corner [for some all men are]Lexi is just being nice.
She always is that way,and in my view no more a lefty than you.
Suseonline is not hurting anyone thinking as she does.
Now let us be honest, both lady,s are good posters, and have every right to think as they wish.
*However* my stated views are held by many men and women.
Rude? so be it the author may well have only posted that majinal stuff to stir up trouble.
No real man could avoid being upset by childish not existing wars of the sexes.

onthebeach,

You should be so lucky as to have the conversation of two reasonable and intelligent women such as Lexi and Suse to converse with around here.

Stop acting like a drama queen (as usually is your wont) and over-egging your pudding of outrage.

Poirot>> Stop acting like a drama queen (as usually is your wont) and over-egging your pudding of outrage.<<

Over egging your pudding P, that is a blatant sexist comment, OTB would not have a clue how many eggs go into a pudding, pudden.

As for myself I didn't know you used eggs in puddings. From my experience threepence and sixpences’ along with a bit of rum are the usual ingredients for a pudding, but I am no Nigella Lawson.

Yet again the OP has escaped Poirot's attention as he parachutes in for personal attention with the same worn-out sneers. It can't always be about you, Poirot.

BTT

onthebeach,

And it's obviously escaped your attention that for the purposes of OLO, this Poirot is not a "he".

I see you're following Loudmouth's practice.

Whenever you're pulled up for overdoing the drama or some such hysteria...you squeal "it's not about you" - and BTT.

Amusing....not original, but amusing.....

Thanks Poirot, Lexi and Belly for your kind words...and ditto!

I hadn't thought to post again on this thread after RObert's usual sneering comments to me.
In any case, we seem to go over and over this gender argument on OLO don't we?

I intend to mostly keep away from more than the occasional comment, and only after any particularly Neanderthal-like chest thumping comments from the usual offenders.

Otherwise, I may well end up in the sin bin... : )

Cheers,
Suse.

onthebeach! he? do you understand on form you get it quite wrong not often but nearly all the time?
SOG, now I like the Irish, truly.
But what are you on about?
I think the thread is rubbish.
But see nothing wrong with the women you seem ever willing to target.
Do you remember telling me in a thread you will target all sides of politics constantly?
Bloke some times you can not say both yes and no in answering a question.
I nearly giggled at your thought, defending them selves makes those you target radicals.

Sheesh, I go away for a couple of days and look at the place!

Ginny, I'm sure you're very sincere, but seriously mate, feminists are and always have been middle-class to their marrow. All your piece does is try to replace the mutuality of a life partnership with the pseudo-individuality of state support.

In effect it's no more than a demand that Dad should hand over the car keys and his wallet without being asked. As with the vast majority of feminists you're after a patriarchal structure that you can call on at will, but without any obligation in return for that unquestioning support - you just take it for granted.

You'll grow out of it. Or not. Either way doesn't really matter, Dad's nearly out of money.

Belly>> I think the thread is rubbish.
But see nothing wrong with the women you seem ever willing to target<<

I honestly was not having a shot at the girls, S, P, or L.

I was simply pointing out that female emancipation has come a long way in three or four generations….but feminists do not appreciate what they have achieved….they cry forever downtrodden. A little relativity is all I asked for.

Re the sledging of both sides of politics.
To start bagging Abbott and his team has a limited base to work from, other than conjecture because they are not governing. In all fairness china, have I not regularly given Barry O’Farrell a serve for lying and failing to deliver on his pre election promises?

Individual>>As with the vast majority of feminists you're after a patriarchal structure that you can call on at will, but without any obligation in return for that unquestioning support - you just take it for granted<<

Yes Indy, well put...feminism today is very much "to have your cake and eat it tooish."

Good to read another comment directed at the OP.

The shame for the Ginnys is that the general public, who are usually too busy working to raise their families and enjoy life some as well, have had cause particularly in recent times to question the malicious, plumb wrong discourse of feminism and its far left and poisonous lesbian rump.

It doesn't help that some of the most vocal examples have been highly advantaged educated middle class women who have waged class and gender wars from their elevated positions of status, while enjoying all (and more!) of the privileges of their status, and then retired young to enjoy large superannuation and other benefits for the rest of their lives. Fifty to sixty years living off the fat of the land, courtesy of the silver gouged from ordinary taxpayers. A radfem Marxist's ideal it seems.

One could be forgiven for believing that the whole aim of feminism in the West in modern times is to be catapulted into choice political and governmental positions, and from there to the boards of private companies. OK, make that guvvy quangos while waiting for affirmative action targets for company boards.

At its root, Ginny's strident demand is for a continuation of victim status and special pleading for women, with educated middle class womyn first into plum jobs through their Grrls' networking and favouritism of course. The hope is for the gravy train that has provided so handsomly for the feminist cargo cult since 1972 and Whitlam to continue indefinitely. At the same time radfems snarl at mothers for breastfeeding and wanting to raise families, and they deny counselling and support for vulnerable men, despite Australia being a world leader for male suicide.

That is why John Pilger must be scourged. Ginny and the Sisterhood are doing very well out of their victim status and hope for a lifetime riding the gravy train that has been so comfy for over forty years.

The taxpayer can't afford it. Absolutely not where ambulances are ramped outside Emergency entrances at hospitals.

Dear SOG,

Regarding your take on feminism?

Yes, a great deal has changed. 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 have not
simply traded their housework for a career; many
that I know have taken on two jobs - one at home,
and one at work.

Surveys show that most working women enjoy their job,
for economic and other reasons.
Yet for many women the experience of
a career has involved finding out that the rigors
of pursuing their careers, maintaining intimate
relationships, and raising children, are difficult to
balance.

Some, who put their career before marriage are finding
out that they have hit the 'invisible ceiling.' 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.

Also many post-feminist generation of women today take the
benefits of women's liberation for granted, yet are
dubious about the burdens of being the perfect wife,
mother, and executive.

Changes in women's roles has had an immense impact on the
family. A generation of Australian 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 the Australian experience. Additionally, women's
new independence has made it possible for them to contemplate
leaving unhappy marriages or raising children on their own.
Partly as a result, there has been a sharp increase in the
number of divorces, of births to unwed women,
and of female-headed households.

One in every two married women is now likely to get divorced,
and one of every five mothers is single.
Yet many of these women have found themselves highly vulnerable.

Masculine roles are 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.

leftist Men are not men they are frustrated females. just as leftist women are mere frustrated females.
It takes a lot more than that lot has to offer to be either Man or Woman.

individual,

According to Pablo Picasso -
"There are only two kinds of women -
goddesses and doormats."

And as Kathy Lette said about men:
"Men only call themselves 'feminists'
in the hope of getting a more intelligent root."

and both parties end up disappointed...

Lexi,

You are a follower. You have choice equal to men and arguably greater in many respects through the affirmative action assistance to women that has been applied for the past forty years and rigidly so in State and federal public agencies.

Yet again you follow the dictates of the very narrow careerism of the educated middle class feminists who have hijacked the women's movement in Australia for their own benefit.

The one destiny, the one track you promote for women is career, with child support as necessary for the trophy child. You would likely have children raised by the State if you could. You see nothing wrong with the diminishing role and even alienation of fathers. You would likely wonder about women who were concerned.

You and the egocentric, materialistic, educated middle class feminists you serve cannot see what is so obvious, that women go through many transitions in life and they CHOOSE to do so, WEIGHING the pros and cons and more often making the deep meaningful and rewarding choices of marriage, family and children.

That is an area where Western feminists such as yourself deny benefits and support to women who (say) see work useful for economic benefit and may choose to move in and out of it but do not consider that consumerism and career is the best life worth living for them. You are hopelessly stuck in your very narrow conception of women, imagining they are all the same as yourself and not tolerating any difference. That is why you are seen as dinosaurs and it is also why women from other cultures resist your 'advice', choosing more varied, productive and loving lives themselves.

Young people have choice and accept responsibility. They do not need excuses and they certainly do not need the direction of feminist dinosaurs who bounce between such narrow rails. But of course those feminist dinosaurs are after what what suits them, aren't they? To swing from the taxpayers' teat forever, getting the inside running to their favoured senior roles. They embarrass able women who don't need or want such support.

Lol Lexi, I liked your two quotes : )
Naturally, I like to think that you and I are of the ' Goddess' variety?

Onthebeach, you need to lighten up.

Those thousands of darn middle-aged, well-heeled, high-income, man-hating, highly educated, rabid, radical , sexist feminists seem to be getting to you lately?
Hell, you are even frightening me!

If they are so not applicable to today's world, why on earth do you spend so much time ranting about them on this forum ?

I suppose one way I can put my perception of leftists is that they are devoid of integrity, devoid of sense of belonging, devoid of care, devoid of responsibility & saturated with nonsense & selfishness. In other words they're a cancer in society gnawing at everything that is of value in society & wrecking it.

Lexi>> But working women have not
simply traded their housework for a career; many
that I know have taken on two jobs - one at home,
and one at work.<<

Lexi my XX chromosome belle, I value the role of women in my life. But juggling a career and doing the manual chores that keep a household running is doable in modern societies because of technology. There are career bachelors who work full time and manage to feed, clothe, and do the household chores in a 24 hour period.

>> Yet for many women the experience of
a career has involved finding out that the rigors
of pursuing their careers, maintaining intimate
relationships, and raising children, are difficult to
balance.<<

The same could be said of males. I have a career, I do the vacuuming, I throw the washing in the machine, I cook the odd meal, I buy stuff at the shops, I listen to my children’s problems, ……I could say “I am woman let me roar,” because I juggle the career, the relationships, the family interpersonal and a bride with the expectation and mind set of a works foreman ….help me…..

TBC

>> especially if they did not
marry and now face the prospect of never finding a husband
or having children<<

Lexi there is certainly a percentage of XXers who have given one thing for another, but there is a plethora that seem to juggle the two. The term spinster was not conceived in the past 50 years, there are always the lonely. Reminds me of a Roy Orbison song.

>> A generation of Australian 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 the Australian experience.<<

All these social issues were there for the baby boomers as well. I recall many social commentators describing an Australia where women stayed at home and tended to the family, but where I was raised most women worked to supplement the income. So all the issues were there in the 1960’s. The issue is the quality of the nurturing not the quantity.

>> as a result, there has been a sharp increase in the
number of divorces,<<

There are many factors that have combined to increase the rate of divorce, but the most salient is the property rights that women now have in relationship to joint assets. Fifty years ago if you left your husband you were destitute in most cases.

>> Masculine roles are now more ambiguous, more flexible,
more subject to interpretation by the individual<<

I can’t agree with that. My brides expectation was that I support her, love her and the kids, do the heavy lifting around the house and be the one called on when something goes bump in the night and disturbs my slumbering goddess.

Lexi my belle, you paint a grievous picture of the life or modern women....like an endangered species. My point is that you girls have never had it better (in the first world).

Dear Suse,

That's because Australian men think feminism
means treating women as sequels.
(smile).

You need a sense of humour on this forum.

You need a sense of humour on this forum.
Lexi,
Yes. Problem for me is that I encounter those asexuals in my work & they ain't pretty in any way at all. If stupidity were a physical pain they'd be screaming 24/7.

Dear SOG,

Every revolution has its consequences, its benefits,
and its costs. The point that I was attempting to
make was that the revolution 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 the 21st century.

You cited your personal examples. I tried to cite
other examples. Women who
looked forward to "having it all," are finding that
the rigors of pursuing their careers, maintaining
intimate relationships, and raising children are
difficult to balance. That's not complaining. That's
stating facts.

Like the feminine role, the masculine role today is
more ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to
interpretation by the individual. You don't have to
agree with that - each of our experiences will be
different. However, under the old system,
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. There are fewer constraints
today, but the individual now has the liberty -
or the burden - to choose his or her own path to self-
fulfilment. Or stick with the old system.

What I see happening around me is that many alternative
lifestyles and roles are being acceptable for both men
and women. Whatever works for each of us.
And that makes sense in a society that is individualistic
and highly open to change and experimentation. Today we
can explore a wide variety of possible roles. Or not.
We do have more of a choice than we did in the past
under the old system. But as was the case in the past
so it is today - there are problems associated with
each of our choices. That's life.

Whatever works for each of us.
Lexi,
That I agree with. The problem there however is that the leftist control freaks-hangers-on will not stop interfering in our lives. They interfere by syphoning our tax dollars, they interfere via PC, they interfere with forcing their ignorant ideologies at every turn simply because there's no Law against stupidity.
If people were left to do what suits them without imposing upon others then we'd have a great society. But, because of the lefties' inability to keep to themselves & support themselves they're interfering in others' lives. The term leftist is akin to useless bludger.

individual,

Opinion polls repeatedly show large sections of the
population favouring cuts in welfare spending -
or favouring plans to "make welfare recipients go
to work."

These attitudes bear little relationship to
reality. More than 60 per cent of welfare recipients
are aged people, disabled, mothers with young children,
and less than 5 per cent are able-bodied men, most of
them unskilled workers in areas of high-unemployment.
Other myths abound. That welfare recipients have
many children (most have two or fewer). That they are
on welfare indefinitely (most receive it for less than
two years) and that welfare is a terrible burden on
the taxpayer (welfare represents 2 per cent of the
Federal budget).

There are fewer complaints, however, about how governments
pay out far more in "handouts" to the nonpoor than to the
poor. This fact generally escapes attention because these
benefits take the form of hidden subsidies or tax
deductions rather than the direct form of cash payments.

As for the Left/Right divide?

Your take is an interesting one and just goes to show
that sweeping generalisations really don't achieve
anything constructive in a discussion.
It wouldn't be fair for example for me to say
that the Right wing - is the politics of money and
power. An ideology of greed, filled by an unbridled
commitment to individualism - leaving no room for
social equity, compassion or the idea of an
egalitarian society.

Australians are far more diverse. We have voices of
all persuasions, city and country folk, very
young and very old, straight, gay, and everything else.
I'm beginning to see that it is wrong to decide to
put all concerns, issues, policies, and pre-occupations
of this counntry divided into a Left/Right dogfight.
And I'm not proud of myself for having taken part in it
either.

large sections of the population favouring cuts in welfare spending -
Lexi,
No-one is that way inclined. When the more level-headed speak of cutting welfare they don't include the needy in that. Why is it that those who claim to be so enlightened have to have every tiny little detail explained? Don't they have even an ounce of imagination ? Is that what ALP voters are all about ?
When there is talk of welfare cuts it is aimed at those who don't require welfare i.e. those who are rorting the system.
The real needy will get welfare & that goes without saying.

Lexi, 'lets forget left and right'

No radfem will be held responsible, ever.

When it is inconvenient for the Left to be held responsible, it is all lets forget left and right, while maintaining the Leftie slurs of misogynist, xenophobe, homophobe and so on, of course.

Old Leftie die-hard Robert Manne admitted that the Left got it horribly wrong on asylum seekers. He told Kevin Rudd so. Kevin Rudd wore his heart on his sleeve as the Left are prone to do and he did not consider the unintended consequences of his actions in abandoning Howard's policy.

After two terms of left politics, including the lunar left influence of the Greens and the social experiments that have been a part of that, of course there has to be accountability through review and attribution. Why waste more taxpayers' money creating harm?