The Women's Lib' movement was an idea who's time had come, with the advances in the modern world it was well past time many inequities were righted, and women's "rights" were certainly at the head of that list.
Now it's the 21st century and most, if not all, those inequities have been dealt with, there are no major battles left to fight. Most of the perceived remaining prejudice against women is just that, in the eye of the beholder, not real. For example, the "glass ceiling" doesn't stop women from achieving whatever they wish, it's an invention of the die-hard femnazis who can't seem to accept that most women just don't WANT to be CEO's or to pay the price for that success and/or lifestyle.
Feminism claims to support choices for women, yet like most ism's it has a very narrow definition of those choices, woe betide any woman who chooses to be a traditional wife, mother, and home-maker, she will be harassed and belittled at every turn.
Domestic violence has similarly been dealt with, there are laws and processes in place to protect and assist women in all First World nations, and the only reason they are ineffective at all is because the women themselves won't avail themselves thereof, and/or keep returning to the offenders or those just like them.
Violence is our genetic heritage and a societal problem, NOT a gender based one, and cannot be dealt with by punishing and restricting men alone, that way lays inequity and resentment, exacerbating problems rather than alleviating them.
If all those staunch feminists were truly concerned with repression and abuse of women then they would be attacking those places, societies and religions that actually DO do such things, rather than staying safe in their protected security here and whining about non-existent or minor details that affect only a very few, if any.
What passes for feminist "activism" these days is akin to those left after a battle, running around stabbing the dead and trying to hold onto influence and power by declaring the battle not yet over.

What passes for feminist "activism" these days is akin to those left after a battle, running around stabbing the dead and trying to hold onto influence and power by declaring the battle not yet over.
G'day Bruce,
Brilliant statement !

G'DayBruce > I have to wonder if the real intention of this post is only to annoy Foxy, Poirot and Susie first thing in the morning. Otherwise I can't see what purpose you think it serves to say such things. Surely you can't honestly believe that 100% equality exists in the workplace; or that the domestic violence problem has been sorted out; or that men are the real victims in 2014.

While your post contains some truths and half truths, the insinuated conclusion that women have nothing to complain about (and those that do are man-hating feminist agitators beating a dead horse) is seriously flawed.

Maybe if you provide an example of the 'staunch feminist activism' that has got up your nose, we can understand better what you are on about.

Dear Bruce,

A great deal has certainly changed over the past
decades. Women today have the right to vote,
they have access to education, to jobs,
to careers and the prospect of economic
independence, to sexual freedom. All these things
because feminists of earlier generations fought on
their behalf.

For their part, Australian men, after some hesitancy,
have generally reacted positively to the growing
equality of women. In fact, their own roles, being
complimentary to those of women, have also changed.

Men are now permitted a more gentle and expressive
personality than would have been considered appropriate
a few decades ago. Like the feminine role, the masculine
role is now more ambiguous, more flexible, more subject
to interpretation by the individual.

Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part of the challenge
of social and cultural change.

Today many alternative lifestyles and roles are acceptable
for both men and women. Our society today is individualistic
and men and women can explore a wide variety of roles.
Choosing what suits them.

Yes, we have come a long way.
We've had a female Lord Mayor in Sydney. A female Premier.
A female Prime Minister. A female Head of State in our
Governor General. And the richest person in our country
is female.

But there are still gaps in salaries between genders.
There are many government policies that need fixing.
There are still not enough female MPs in our Parliament.
And the list goes on. Changes need to occur regarding
these things.

True liberation from the restrictions of gender will
only happen when all possible options are open and equally
acceptable for both sexes.

Then a person's
individual human qualities, rather than his or her
biological sex, will be the primary measure of that person's
worth and achievement.

That is something worth aiming for.

Bruce, as you already know I'm sure, you will have many 'manly allies' on this forum to sing anti-feminist songs with, so I will leave you all to it.

Suffice to say that ConservativeHippie and Foxy have said all that needs to be said in answer to your opening post, so good luck with that.

Cheers,
Suse.

Yes....one imagines that any cool-headed serious discussion on this issue is automatically negated once the term "femnazis" is inserted into the opening spiel.

On subject, we should not overlook the necessity of late-capitalist societies to require the contribution of women in the workplace. Our system relies on consumption, so having women out there working, earning and spending is part and parcel of the deal.

As I've mentioned a few times on this forum, if Mrs A pays Mrs B to look after her child, then GDP increases. If Mrs A looks after her own child then GDP stays the same.

So it's all geared to push women out there...and men who feel uncomfortable about the growing autonomy of women can't have their cake and eat it too. Women earning and spending are fulfilling the role capitalist society demands of them.

Regardless of any long-term warping of traditional social balance, it's a dual gender arrangement designed to produce "growth" in the economy.

That's Capitalism, folks....

<<Yes....one imagines that any cool-headed serious discussion on this issue is automatically negated once the term "femnazis" is inserted into the opening spiel>>

LOL when has anyone been able to have a cool-headed serious discussion about any issue the movers and shakers of feminism have bought into?

The lack of any prospect of a cool-headed serious discussion came first --and the term "femnazis" came second coined to describe their antics.

....says SPQR...as he stirs the pot.

Don't know if you've noticed, but I'm not the type to get on the feminist bandwagon.

I recognise collective societal arrangements when I see them.

The reason women have gained autonomy is because capitalist/consumer society has ordained it - in the service of consumption and growth.

The fact that some men feel uncomfortable about the peripheral freedoms women have enjoyed as a consequence...is kinda tough.

I repeat...can't have your cake and eat it too.

....says Poirot ...as she has another puff of pot.

It wasn't so much a comment on you as the antics of the feminists firebrands -have you ever attended one of their "debates"?

And I'm not so sure many men feel "uncomfortable about the peripheral freedoms women have enjoyed as a consequence". Rather, I think what a lot have taken umbrage at is some who play the i'm-as-good-as-a-man card one day and the Ï'm-only-a-woman card the next.

Dear Foxy,

<<There are still not enough female MPs in our Parliament.>>

Nor in bikie gangs.

Are you complaining that women are better natured than men?

<< Yes....one imagines that any cool-headed serious discussion on this issue is automatically negated… once the term "femnazis" is inserted into the opening spiel. >>

Poirot is talking about a cool-headed discussion!?!?

<< The lack of any prospect of a cool-headed serious discussion came first --and the term "femnazis" came second coined to describe their antics. >>

Agreed SPQR.

I’m all for the basic principles of feminism. But just as with anything, it can be blown out of proportion and some people can be too extreme and some reactions can be too polarised… sort of like the Rolf Harris thread, eh.

<< …if Mrs A pays Mrs B to look after her child, then GDP increases. If Mrs A looks after her own child then GDP stays the same. >>

No, you can’t assume that. If Mrs A pays Mrs B, then she doesn’t have that money available to spend elsewhere. So that would amount to GDP foregone elsewhere. Ultimately, the contribution to GDP would be about equal, and indeed the contribution towards job creation would presumably be about equal as well.

<< Regardless of any long-term warping of traditional social balance, it's a dual gender arrangement designed to produce "growth" in the economy. >>

Nope. The ‘dual gender’ arrangement is about the realisation that women should be treated more equally with men and that the general acceptance of this in our society continued to increase throughout the ‘feminism’ era, and has now been pretty much stable for quite a long time.

It is also about the lie of continuous economic growth being the answer to all our woes. For all our fandangled economic growth, things have declined markedly, to the extent that people needed two incomes to get by more and more so through the ‘feminism’ era, whereas prior to it one income-earner and one home-keeper was easily achieved.

Ludwig,

"I’m all for the basic principles of feminism. But just as with anything, it can be blown out of proportion and some people can be too extreme and some reactions can be too polarised… sort of like the Rolf Harris thread, eh."

Lol!...have you ditched your thread...and decided to transfer you disaffection over here?

"No, you can’t assume that. If Mrs A pays Mrs B, then she doesn’t have that money available to spend elsewhere. So that would amount to GDP foregone elsewhere. Ultimately, the contribution to GDP would be about equal, and indeed the contribution towards job creation would presumably be about equal as well."

Yes!...you can "assume that" as any economist will tell you.

"Nope. The ‘dual gender’ arrangement is about the realisation that women should be treated more equally with men and that the general acceptance of this in our society continued to increase throughout the ‘feminism’ era, and has now been pretty much stable for quite a long time."

Lol! again, Ludwig...it's an economic imperative - nice though that a knock-on effect has been more autonomy for women.

"It is also about the lie of continuous economic growth being the answer to all our woes...'

I didn't say it was the answer "to all our woes". It's just as destructive of some aspects of communal existence, as it is an enhancement to others.

My point being that a Capitalist system relies on "growth" or it dies.

We operate under that system.

Consider these questions:
If there aren't equal numbers of women in government is it because of prejudice or simply that not enough women have the desire or political talent to get there?
Why automatically assume prejudice?
The same applies to big business.
Why assume prejudice affects pay equality?
Could it not be something as simple as the type and numbers of jobs that women prefer?
I never claimed that women have nothing to complain about, humans complain, that's just the way it is, women are certainly equal in that department.
Foxy:
individual human qualities, rather than his or her
biological sex, will be the primary measure of that person's
worth and achievement.
As it stands the only gender bias is actually toward women and it's actively pushed, thus being a male is a distinct disadvantage.
I used "femnazis" as a commonly recognised term for the extremist feminist purely as an aid to communication, isn't it interesting how it causes such reactions?
My point is that feminism has become obsolete in Western society, it has been reduced to the extremists scraping for issues.
I ask again, if all those extremists are SO concerned about women's issues why are they NOT even attempting to change all the places where very real and often brutal repression of women occurs, Saudi Arabia just for one?
Perhaps because their concerns are more focused on their OWN advantage and power, rather than any real concern for women in general?
Why do those same extremists feel the need to abuse and belittle any woman who CHOOSES to live a more traditional life, is it perchance that they feel threatened by them?
Why do the extremists feel the need to look, dress and behave as if they are men, it serves no appreciable need surely, other than their own sexual orientation perhaps?
FYI: I raised a daughter as a single father, she and her friends are the worst critics of the modern feminists that I know , they are confident and successful and actually resent any claims that they need assistance, from anyone!

<< Lol!...have you ditched your thread...and decided to transfer you disaffection over here? >>

You do jump to silly conclusions, don’t you Poirot. The Rolf thread is far from finished.

<< Yes!...you can "assume that" as any economist will tell you. >>

No you can’t. And neither can any REAL economist.

<< …it's an economic imperative - nice though that a knock-on effect has been more autonomy for women. >>

Yes it is largely an economic imperative, as I said because the economic growth mantra has failed us. But the achievement of greater equality and autonomy for women is certainly NOT just a knock-on effect. It is much more of a primary achievement, which has been hard-won by the good side of the feminist movement.

<< My point being that a Capitalist system relies on "growth" or it dies. >>

It depends how you define ‘growth’. If we keep striving for endless rapid growth of the sort that we now have, our whole society will die!! And we won’t be too worried about equality… we’ll be worried about our very survival on a personal level.

Angela Priestly, Editor of "Women's Agenda,"
wrote an interesting editorial recently giving
us the following statistics:

1) The gender pay gap, still sees women working full-time
earning an average of 17.1 per cent less than men working
full-time, according to the ABS.

2) Only 18 per cent of directors on the ASX 200 are female
and 40 ASX 200 companies still do not have a single woman
on their boards.

3) Women still only account for a third of federal, state,
and territory MPs, even though its been 92 years since
Edith Cowan entered the WA Parliament.

4) Since the election of the Abbott government, the
proportion of women's representation at the senior end
of politics has actually gone backwards with 6 women in
Abbott's 42 Member Ministry and 1 woman in Cabinet.

Priestly tells us that "some of the leading feminists of the
past would be shocked to learn Australia has less women
represented in Federal Cabinet than countries like
Afghanistan and Zimbabwe and they'd certainly be
disappointed to hear that on some measures of female
representation in power we've actually gone backwards."

Preistly sums things up rather well:

"If we believe feminism is done and dusted then we open
future generations of women to the possibility of
living in an even less equal society than the one we're
living in today. And if we fear being branded as
"extremist" due to a belief in gender equality, then we
essentially accept assumptions about what women can and
should do, as well as the lopsided power structures of our
institutions, the prevalence of violence and discrimination...
and continued economic desadvantage for one half of the
population."

"It's the individuals who don't believe in feminism at its
core that both genders are equal who should be branded
as "extreme" because they're fighting to retain something that
really should exist only in the history books."

That's the point Bruce, non feminists treat their daughters the same way they treat their sons, we teach them practical skills and expect them to pull their weight, which is the exact opposite of Feminist theory.
Feminism has nothing to do with equality it's about gynocentrism, making women the centre of society.
We could go on for hours giving examples of what Feminism is or is not but at it's most basic it teaches that female sexuality is innate and has no moral dimension while saying that men have to be made accountable for their sexual behaviour.
Never mind that they're right on the money, that women are as a rule not able to control their emotions and that their sexuality is primal and dictates their behaviour it just goes to prove that Feminism is not about equality or equal opportunity.

Ludwig,

"It depends how you define ‘growth’. If we keep striving for endless rapid growth of the sort that we now have, our whole society will die!!"

I agree.

Capitalism, unless strongly restrained by wisdom and moderation (which it isn't), is a spiral to degradation - of return to whence we came.

"No you can’t. And neither can any REAL economist."

A REAL economist will tell you that GDP, measured by statisticians as rising - will not necessarily translate to the experience of people.

Btw, I like this quote by E.F. Schumacher:

"....In the current vocabulary of condemnation there are few words as final and conclusive as as the word "uneconomic". If an activity has been branded uneconomic, its right to existence is not merely questioned but energetically denied. Anything that is found to be an impediment to economic growth is a shameful thing, and if people cling to it, they are thought of as either saboteurs or fools. Call a thing immoral or ugly, soul-destroying or a degradation of man, a peril to the peace of the world or to the well-being of future generations; as long as you have not shown it to be "uneconomic" you have not really questioned its right to exist, grow and prosper."

This is where we're at in human experience - especially in the modern West.

Our system affords women more autonomy.

We're all along for the ride....for as long as the ride lasts.

(I'm merely giving a commentary...not promoting our system as the be all and end all)

another cry of misogyny from those embarassed by the atrocious performance of the feminist Human Rights Commissioner last week. After being found out to use the truth very loosely (and that is kind) the sisterhood have tried to use the misogyny cry to cover her deceit and bias. Thank God we have competent men like Scott Morrison at the helm.

Foxy sweetie, you do your argument no good by mentioning our experiments with lady politicians.

There has not been a single lady premier who has not been a complete disaster. Granted there have been some male premiers not much if any better, but ALL the ladies have been catastrophes to their states.

As for PM, we have never had one anywhere near as bad, [even Billy McMahon], nasty or vindictive as Julia, & I believe we never will.

Probably the greatest failing with todays media is so many lady reporters with no real idea of how the world, or anything else, works. I'm afraid the majority of ladies have a long way to go, before they become competent in things practical.

There is hope. There was Maggie, & Gina is pretty damn competent. Although she did get a huge start from her dad, she has done a great job of turning a small fortune into a very large one. Most second generation rich kids, male & female manage to turn a large fortune into a small one.

If you don't believe that most ladies are still dizzy blond types, go check out the Pistonheads.com web site & have a look at a thread "Classic from the mrs!", it really is hilarious. It is now up to 474 pages.

I have only managed one entry from my ladies. That was when my youngest daughter told me I must have bought the wrong oil when I was changing the stuff in her car. She told me her oil was not the honey coloured stuff I was using, her oil was black.

Of course it was. I was changing it for her, because I noticed she had not done it in 24,000 kilometers. No wonder it was black.

Foxxy, quoting statistics proves nothing.
My question was and is, why do you and others decide that those differences are entirely due to prejudice, and can you offer any supporting evidence to that?
I offer the thought that those stat's reflect women's choices rather than any supposed prejudice. Can you disprove that?
The top of the tree, in both politics and business, is reached by those that are good at back-stabbing, brown-nosing and good delegation, avoidance of blame and theft of credit where-ever possible, and it requires the sacrifice of any sort of a normal life, so I ask again, is it not likely that there simply aren't the numbers of women that are both suitable and willing, not to mention skillful enough, to attain those positions?
You and others seem to be suggesting that we should promote women above the level of their competence, just to balance dodgy at best numbers, surely that can't be a good thing, for Government or Business?
Too, if prejudice against women is such a bad thing then how can prejudice against men be any better?
As was mentioned earlier, there are all too many women who demand "equality", yet are all too willing to similarly demand considerations and concessions simply because they are women. You can't have it both ways. surely?
Most feminist cant seems to be setting up strawmen with statistics, without any supporting proof, and hence are still fighting battles long won.
I notice too that you, like virtually ALL feminist types, totally ignore and avoid ANY discussion about the plight of women who really ARE repressed, in many countries, concentrating instead on grasping power and affluence in the West, to me that casts a harsh light indeed on your alleged principles. They appear to boil down to..
Stuff all the women suffering around the world, let them rot and die, I want power, money and influence for myself, here, now, and if I can't get it it MUST BE because you repress me, not because I lack the ability to achieve it for myself.
Please read and critique THIS:-
-http://i1237.photobucket.com/albums/ff467/Carshotts/Illumi.png

Dear Hasbeen,

I'm afraid that we see things differently.
I prefer to judge people on their talent,
not their gender. And the most significant
barriers to female leadership to me are -

1) Being taken seriously and handling 3 jobs
simultaneoulsy. That of CEO, wife, and mother.

The biggest challenge for the next generation
of women I see as being:

1) The ability to multi-task as life and careers
demand more.

runner,

haha!...Morrison was splitting hairs over whether a detention centre is a prison.

well, Lol!...at least prisoners in prisons have had recourse to a trial - and are there for punishment.

Not too many kiddies in "prisons" either...so maybe Scotty has a point.

.....

Hasbeen,

Love the patronisation of "Foxy Sweety"!

Hasbeen, cutesy.....do you think women are really hopeless with "practicalities"?

It takes a fair bit of practical nous to run a household, juggle children, housework and a job/career - I wonder how all those women manage it since they're so hopeless?

The other odd thing, is that 95% of the families I know, the woman appears to run the show.

Why is that, I wonder?

"I have only managed one entry from my ladies. That was when my youngest daughter told me I must have bought the wrong oil when I was changing the stuff in her car. She told me her oil was not the honey coloured stuff I was using, her oil was black."

Just because your daughter doesn't know new oil from old, doesn't mean we're all that thick.

Foxy sweetie to have talent, first you have to have understanding. If you don't understand a problem, or a product you can not report on it, or manage it.

One of the reasons I gave up on the ABC was the number of lady reporters being made fools of on air, because they did not know enough to see when they were being sold a pup. [Yep that PUP too, some of them are still falling all over the fat man].

It is a problem with both sexes today, as those trained in the old copy boy tradition disappear, & more literary types abound. After never leaving school, primary, high & university, they are expected to report on things way beyond their knowledge or understanding.

This whole procedure attracts the more impractical types, who are never going to understand many things, as long as their backside points to the ground. Yes some can string words together as well as the best fiction writers, but that is what they produce, fiction.

To save our civilisation we really do need one of those space ships from A Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, to send the chattering classes off to another planet, before they destroy our ability to survive on this one.

Dear Hasbeen,

Talent, understanding, initiative, leadership,
and other skills are not restricted to only one
particular gender. Some people try discounting
statistics. However, I find that's rather difficult
to do in a population of 22 million and counting.
Stats are more likely to give us meaning and we
can use them to better understand the complexity
of human behaviour amongst other things.

Foxy,

You're so polite!

That patronising clown with whom you're interacting doesn't deserve it.

: )

Not surprising Poirot that you ignore the imaginary guns that the Commissioner made up in her head. So desperate to demonise and yet totally exposed for making up fibs.

G'dayBruce, love your innovative spelling "Foxxy"

I will have to start spelling it that way too, or perhaps FOXXXY or FOXXXXY.

LOL

Sorry to disappoint SPQR but the double x in that post was a typo only.
I do notice however that the good lady hasn't responded to my questions nor to the link I posted, bit of a give-away or what?
Anyone interested in this debate should read that link, it's extremely illuminating!
The oft-quoted wonder of women running a household, multi-tasking et. al. is highly over-rated, and this I can attest to from personal experience. I was a single father of three kids for nearly 20 years and held down various part-time jobs throughout, often more than one at a time, including running a specialty cake supply and a gardening service from home, plus serving on every school committee etc, and while I won't claim it was always easy it was NOT the great and amazing effort that women seem to believe it to be.
My kids all ended up professionally qualified, and successful too, so I must have been doing something right.
Considering all the support/resources that single mothers have available and which were denied to me because of my gender, not to mention the social pressure I faced in that role, especially with a daughter, I take no little pride in their success.
The worst of it was the fact that all her life my daughter faced almost constant probing and questioning from teachers, friends mothers, and others, as to whether I was molesting her, it seemed that it was almost expected that it would be so!
Try and imagine how THAT made her, and I, feel? There were MANY tears shed because of that, and not just by her!

At the time when housekeeping was a 14 hour a day job there was greater communal support and children pulled their weight from a very young age.I grew up in the transition from that era to the present and from the age of about seven I had numerous chores like feeding the dog, bringing in the briquettes and lighting the fire, doing the dishes, bathing and dressing my little brother and so forth, which was probably half the work my dad was doing at that age.
Now housekeeping is at most a four hour a day job and most chores are automated, a healthy dinner of fresh food now comes pre packaged at a moderate price and nobody is keeping a chip heater running for their water or drawing said water up from a well like my granny did.
I too held down a full time job and did all the running around for the kids plus kept the house when my wife was working in an executive position and not getting home until 9 or 10 at night.
It's not that hard these days, I normally had the kids in bed and my feet up by 8 PM, now that the kids are in their teens it's hardly any work at all.
None of these advances in material conditions of the houskeeper had anything to do with Feminism, did Feminists march in the street to demand tumble dryers, central heating and microwave ovens or pre cut and packaged veges and disposable nappies?
Noooo, feminists advocate placing women in easy jobs and on boards of directors which incidentally don't have the prestige or earn the respect they think they do.
Politics and high profile corporate jobs are onerous tasks and everyone hates you, that's why they pay so well, most men like most women have no desire to throw their lives away working 90 hours a week and coming home to an empty house or a sleeping family.

Foxy, a quick check on how much you really believe different choices don't contribute significantly to different figures for the genders. I've not managed to find official figures but a figure that tallies with my impression from http://www.theaustralian.com.au/archive/politics/non-paying-mums-will-be-spied-on/story-e6frgczf-1225863378034

"In June 2007, 82,034 - or 10.9 per cent - of parents paying child support were mothers."

If that was just about the numbers and none of the other factors that go to making up the mess that is the child support system by the logic you appear to be using here it should be evidence of massive discrimination. Personally I think an element of gender discrination, rules that don't reflect peoples real lives, and some different choices between the genders in regard to child rearing make up that figure.

Without discounting the role of stats as a check against popular naratives it's rarely as simple as just the stats.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

Of course stats are only part of the story.
There can be so many other contributing
factors in any given situation. However let us
think about the importance of stats in general.
Stats allow us to make sense of and interpret a
great deal of information. By using stats we can
organise and interpret information in a meaningful
way. That is why statistics are a vital part of
one's studies when studying subjects like Psychology,
and of course - Sociology.

With the study of human society and social behaviour
the sociologist's subject matter presents research
problems of a kind that natural scientists rarely
have to deal with. The sociologist's subjects are not
inanimate objects or unreflecting animals. They are
people who are self-aware, who have complex individual
personalities, and who are capable of choosing their
own courses of action for both rational and irrational
reasons.

All sociologists recognise these problems, but not all
are agreed on how to deal with them.
Some favour "quantitative" methods; they focus on
refining statistical and mathematical techniques.
Others favour "qualitative" methods; they rely on their
own subjective descriptions and interpetations of
behaviour, even when these may be difficult for others
to verify. They concede that some precision is lost
by their method, but they claim that it provided more
insights, a better "feel" for the texture of social life.

Debate between the more zealous advocates of each approach
has at times become heated.

I believe there is a valid place for both approaches.

<< A REAL economist will tell you that GDP, measured by statisticians as rising - will not necessarily translate to the experience of people. >>

Absolutely Poirot.

That’s a great quote by Schumacher. It resonates enormously with the Rolf Harris thread, where many people would consider anything, no matter how minor, that could possibly fall under the banner of pedophilia, to be utterly condemnable, end of story, despite the fact that Rolf’s actions were indeed very minor indeed when one looks at the full spectrum of pedophilia / child molestation / child touching offences.

‘Uneconomic’, ‘pedophilic’, No doubt we could come up with a few other such terms which can just stifle sensible debate straight away, and send some people off into the realms of vicious personal attacks on those who dare to even try to debate such things in a sensible and level-headed manner!

Now, if we really want to applaud the feminist movement and uphold the much greater equality for women that has been achieved over the last ?three decades, then we should be looking very closely at what is good for our whole society.

And the most fundamental thing in this regard is to get the bejeezus away from our crazy worship of continuous growth and start embracing the OPPOSITE to it, which is a sustainable society.

Dear Foxy, I still await your responses.

As for child support, I missed out entirely, as a male before the current program began I got nowhere, and was even threatened with the removal of my children if I made a fuss about that.
The ex' was an accountant and everything she earned and owned was ignored. Unlike the single mums I knew who had their ex's chased down and investigated I was told to find her myself, prove she was earning, and how much, take her to court myself and then IF, repeat IF, I won there the Gov' dpt MIGHT refund me SOME of the costs, but wouldn't attempt to enforce any court rulings themselves, that too was down to me and the civil courts.
Admittedly, this was in the 1980's and things have changed for the better since then, I'm very glad to say.

Let me assure you Poirot, you don't have to fear me ever addressing you as sweetie.

You see I reserve such terms for very special people.

While I can think of many adjectives that suit people such as yourself, sweet is about as far away as it is possible to get. Obviously I will not use any of them, as it would be sure to get me suspended, or probably banned.

You wouldn't be Julia would you? I sometimes wonder.

Hasbeen seems to be constantly giving Foxy some 'special' attention with all his patronizing endearments.....is there something else going on there Hasbeen?

G'dayBruce feels humble in his own presence as he extols his many single parenting virtues.
There are far more single mothers around than fathers, and many have done just as good a job with their kids as you say you have.
Just what are you trying to prove?

While single mothers and their kids are pilloried by mainly male observers as being the scourge on our society, GdayBruce seems to think single fathers are some sort of saints.
There are good and bad parents in all different sorts of families.
Gender has nothing to do with that fact.

"That’s a great quote by Schumacher. It resonates enormously with the Rolf Harris thread, where many people would consider anything, no matter how minor, that could possibly fall under the banner of pedophilia, to be utterly condemnable, end of story, despite the fact that Rolf’s actions were indeed very minor indeed when one looks at the full spectrum of pedophilia / child molestation / child touching offences.

‘Uneconomic’, ‘pedophilic’, No doubt we could come up with a few other such terms which can just stifle sensible debate straight away, and send some people off into the realms of vicious personal attacks on those who dare to even try to debate such things in a sensible and level-headed manner!"

Go take a funny run, Ludwig...and confine your whinging about your Rolfy thread to your Rolfy thread.

(Where you have failed to post any of my (fictitious) abusive posts - even though I've asked for proof numerous times)

<< Go take a funny run, Ludwig...and confine your whinging about your Rolfy thread to your Rolfy thread. >>

Actually, I do go for a run most days. But no, the very important subject that is being ‘discussed’ on the Rolfie thread needs to be taken to a wider audience than just the small band of complete hardline knockers that are left there along with poor old Luddie. I intend to keep mentioning it far and wide on OLO.

So Poirot, I guess you would totally agree with my sentiments that the need to achieve a sustainable society is very closely linked to basic feminist sentiments ?

.

Haaahahaha Hazza. Love your last post!! { :>)

What a bunch of boring silly old farts comment on 'feminism' here. None of you would know anything about feminism. Bitching among each other about these uppity women and coming up with the most pathetic cliches is not in any way credible argument about any aspect of feminism.

Bruce, if your daughter is indeed only capable of blanket criticism of feminism than she knows nothing of and understands little of feminism. Tell her she can just be quiet and let the men do the talking. Plenty of men on OLO to tell her what to think and what is right.

Hasbeen, if your daughter is stupid, that's either because of your poor genes or your lack of teaching her, it's not because she has chromosomes resulting in a vagina rather than a penis. I hope it's your lack of teaching and she's not just dimwitted. Or are you a bit like Runner and ascribe to 'the natural order of things' and that there are manly jobs and womanly jobs and neither can do the other's? Bruce would have a bit of trouble with that, he was mum and dad both, a single parent.

Foxy, these emotional old guys don't want to deal with boring data or stats. Too hard.

You know fellows, when a person disagrees with what you say and has different information or evidence on an issue make an attempt not to immediately focus on whether this person has a penis or vagina. That fact should only matter in your bedroom.

Gee, Hasbeen,

I'm heartbroken.

Imagine the thrill of being referred to repeatedly as "sweetie"...and then being talked down to as if I'm a bloody idiot.

......

Ludwig,

"..... But no, the very important subject that is being ‘discussed’ on the Rolfie thread needs to be taken to a wider audience than just the small band of complete hardline knockers that are left there along with poor old Luddie. I intend to keep mentioning it far and wide on OLO."

There are rules.....

"Keep responses on topic."

.....being one of them.

You shouldn't "deliberately" derail this thread (or others) merely because you've dug your hole too deep on the other one.

Yvonne, you display the standard feminist response, unfortunately.
If a woman doesn't agree with you then obviously she's stupid and/or knows nothing.
My daughter went through a feminist stage at Uni, as most young women today do. She reached her own conclusions based on the evidence and her own experiences. She is far from alone in her opinions, in fact I'd hazard that she's amongst a majority of her peers.
The thing about cliches is that they are based in the common experience, that's how and why they arise.
I raised my personal experience merely to establish my source for my opinions about another cliche, that of women being naturally better homemakers/housekeepers, although as a parent I naturally enjoy any opportunity to brag about my successful kids, yet another cliche.
Even the style and content of your post is a feminist cliche, as I said at the start.
Anyone with any interaction with the modern young professional woman can only be aware of how confident and independent they are, exactly what the women's movement wanted to achieve and a credit to them all.
The fact that that very confidence and independence of thought means that they see the feminist movement today for exactly what it is, and largely ignore it, is also surely a compliment to those who fought to change our society, and succeeded.
A LOT of women fought to change an antiquated and unfair society. They managed to achieve that in ways that no-one ever thought they could at the time. However, change they got and society and the world has moved on, evolving in good and bad ways, yet the leftovers of the feminist movement still seek self-justification by trying to fight that same, long gone, society.
They have become a caricature, a cliche, and it's only the media who keep them alive socially or politically.
What an irony that they are being used, used to make money for the very establishment they tilt at, and yet they clamour for this privilege as their pimps dole out the drug of publicity, a drug they are addicted to.

I have always believed in the need for equality in society. Gender equality is one aspect of that concept. Discrimination needs to be opposed in all its forms. To say all that can be achieved, has been achieved, so lets give up the fight is defeatist and manifestly untrue. There still is much to be done to remove discrimination in society, and instigate true equality of opportunity for women, and others in the community.
If anyone doubts that prejudice does not still exist, and ingrained arrogance is not rife, then just read many of the posts from our band of 'Usual Suspects' on OLO whenever an issue concerning any of those they perceive as a danger to their existence is raised. Feminists are just one of a long list of those they fear.

Imagine the thrill of being referred to repeatedly as "sweetie"...and then being talked down to as if I'm a bloody idiot.
Poirot,
what is your problem with honesty ?

<< "Keep responses on topic." >>

Wow Poirot. One set of rules for you and one set for everyone else eh! You wrote this in a post which completely failed to address the topic at hand!!

Extraordinary!

Neither was there anything on topic in your previous post!

And no, there is nothing wrong with mentioning other threads or other topics or stuff which doesn’t relate to the current thread topic. You’ve created a rule in your head and you’re trying to impose it on me. Go jump in the lake ( :>)

Now, you avoided answering my on-topic question. So I presume you agree, but are just reluctant or completely loathe to just simply say so.

It’s a crying shame that the feminist movement in years gone by didn’t address this whole sustainable society aspect. I consider that to be a fundamental and profound flaw in the whole movement.

And yet another cliche trotted out!
Still fighting old battles, with no enemy in sight so lets invent one, made of straw.
Claiming that there is fear of successful women is also a cliche long discredited, it's standard feminist tripe and attempts to forestall serious consideration of the facts.
So, any of you defenders of the oh-so-caring fem' brigade willing to answer as to why all these "fighters for equality" are perfectly willing to let millions of their sisters suffer and die world-wide without so much as a raised eyebrow? Why they go rabid about their own pay and prospects, demanding unearned privileges while tens of thousands of other women and girls are repressed, starved, beaten, raped and killed every single day?
Priorities? Perspective?
Also, as an aside, if there's so much prejudice to overcome how is it that there ARE so many successful women these days, or are they just sleeping their way to the top?

many successful women these days, or are they just sleeping their way to the top?
G'day Bruce,
makes you wonder what male bureaucrats do to achieve the same ranks ? I know how some of the labor cronies do it is impossible to proof anything in such closed circles.
The greens well, let your imagination run wild & you'd still be way off.
The point is that the terms integrity & competence are nowhere to found.

Ludwig,

I addressed Hasbeen in that post - on topic - concerning his penchant for patronising women on this forum when it suits him...because I have yet to hear him addressing any of the blokes as "sweetie" and then talking to them as if they are 5 years-old.

Here's what you wrote:

"..... But no, the very important subject that is being ‘discussed’ on the Rolfie thread needs to be taken to a wider audience than just the small band of complete hardline knockers that are left there along with poor old Luddie. I intend to keep mentioning it far and wide on OLO."

Intentionally planning to disrupt threads, because you have been out-debated on another thread is bad form. Your Rolf Harris thread is specific in its subject matter.

And I note you appear to have jumped on this thread with the specific intention of trolling Poirot, with particular reference to your Rolf thread.

Not a particularly good look, especially in the wake of your performance over there.

.........

G'dayBruce,

You appear to have quite a snout on feminists.

"femnazis"

"oh-so-caring-fem-brigade"

"....So, any of you defenders of the oh-so-caring fem' brigade willing to answer as to why all these "fighters for equality" are perfectly willing to let millions of their sisters suffer and die world-wide without so much as a raised eyebrow?..."

As you know, it's a complex world.....who says no raised eyebrow?...who says their in no concern or action for women other countries?

And while you're at it - who does all this?

"..... while tens of thousands of other women and girls are repressed, starved, beaten, raped and killed every single day?"

It's not feminists.

It's men and their power structures...ably abetted by tradition, religion and ignorance.

Why don't you have a go at the root cause of these atrocities?

Let me assure you Poirot, should you find me talking down to you, it most certainly won't be "as if" you are an idiot.

Then we have Yvonne giving the prime example of feminists. She intentionally misinterprets my comment to suit her argument. When I point out that the ladies in my tribe have only once made a funny mistaken observation in many years, she accuses me of raising a moron.

Typically she then complains that men won't discuss subjects intelligently with them. Feminists & the left both share this behavior. I can only assume that when you have no logical argument for your point of view, you have to look for point scoring opportunities, even if only by intentional misinterpretation.

Yvonne such puerile point scoring makes you no better than a Poirot.

Hasbeen,

"....When I point out that the ladies in my tribe have only once made a funny mistaken observation in many years, she accuses me of raising a moron."

You used that example to display what a lot of air heads are women.

Now you're defending "the ladies in your tribe" because your own honour has been impugned.

They are of "your tribe" - so now you seek to inform us that they're actually quite a bright bunch (which I'm sure they are!)

Interesting, isn't it...this whole man vs woman thing.

Apparently it's okay to sledge women - to make an example of their gender. However, once they're linked to a particular tribe or collective, different values come into effect.

Which may point to a reason so many women in the developing world are put upon. Ethnic and religious loyalties far outweigh any collective power woman might have to better their lot.

<< I addressed Hasbeen in that post - on topic - concerning his penchant for patronising women on this forum when it suits him >>

Erm… no. That was not on-topic.

<< And I note you appear to have jumped on this thread with the specific intention of trolling Poirot… >>

Erm… no. I have joined this discussion with the best of intentions. I have introduced new stuff relevant to this subject. I have tried to engage with you in a meaningful and proper manner. Have another look at my first post on this thread. And the second, and third…

As is your wont Poirot, you see everything in the most negative possible manner.

Ok, so you agree with me that the push for sustainable society is closely linked with the philosophies of feminism and that the whole movement was critically flawed in not having this as a major part of the overall push.

If you didn’t agree, you would have come back very strongly saying so.

Over the last four years, during which we had a good rapport on this forum, you have agreed with most things that I have said. Damn pity you went and blew our good relationship away over one point of disagreement, and did it so emphatically… and over which you were just so so wrong.

The feminist movement, as with just about anything of that sort, is and always has been a total mixture of good and bad. And it has been taken out of context and abused like crazy by various commentators, just as my comments have on the Rolf thread. That’s just the nature of things like that.

You can’t just drop the whole movement into one pigeonhole and either celebrate it or condemn it. Life ain’t that simple.

I gather from some of the posts here that
there's a strong feeling amongst some that
feminism need to stop being such an uptight
shrew and ruining everyone's good times ...
That the big fight is over, and women need to,
well, get over it. Which when put that way is
rather hard to argue with lest one gets branded
as some sort of whining feminist with an
irrational attachment to the concept of unfair.

Goodness me - look at what's been achieved for
women. We can leave the house, own property,
rub contraceptives all over our bodies if we
wanted to, heck, even sleep our way to the top.

Perhaps we also need to look at the fact that because we
seldom see doctors solving big problems like smallpox -
they now deal with common colds and as anyone knows
colds are easy to overcome, we can therefore conclude
that medicine is not longer necessary.

Interesting - who knows where that sort of thinking
can lead.

Ludwig,

"Erm… no. That was not on-topic."

It was as much on topic as some other posts on this thread...or have you a negative critique of Hasbeen highlighting the fact his daughter doesn't know her oils?

"Erm… no. I have joined this discussion with the best of intentions. I have introduced new stuff relevant to this subject. I have tried to engage with you in a meaningful and proper manner. Have another look at my first post on this thread. And the second, and third…"

Very funny....what you actually did is pepper nearly every post you've directed to me with a references and commentary relating to your Rolfy thread.

You started your commentary on this thread thus:

"Poirot is talking about a cool-headed discussion!?!?"

And followed it up further along with this:

"..... No doubt we could come up with a few other such terms which can just stifle sensible debate straight away, and send some people off into the realms of vicious personal attacks on those who dare to even try to debate such things in a sensible and level-headed manner!"

Which was directed at Poirot - and in keeping with your "accusations' that I have "abused you" or engaged in "vicious personal attacks" to you on that thread.

You are shameless - (and I invite anyone to read that thread to see just who was spraying around the abuse.)

If you believe in equality you're a Liberal, not a Feminist.
In Australia in 2014 Feminism sits in the same space as conservative Christian tradtionalism and Islam, it's a gynocentric political movement like the other two.
All three gynocentric movements seek to place women and their children at the centre of society, they see men as disposable and promote the view that female behaviour is innate and has no moral dimension whereas men are accountable for not only their behaviour but also the behaviour of women.
Examples:
Rape is never a woman's fault, no matter how she behaves or neglects her personal safety, the onus is always on the man and he's responsible for determining whether the woman can consent or not.
Domestic violence is about males controlling women, when that control breaks down the man inflicts pain to correct her, so he's responsible for her behaviour.

I could go on but we can all see that a Muslim man or a fundamentalist christian man are in the same position of being totally responsible for women's behaviour as well as his own where the women in those societies are not held accountable for their own actions and when they do err it's seen as a failing of the family, the husband or the father, hence honour killings.

I'm lost, I can't see how conservative Christian traditionalism and/or Islam could even remotely be labelled gynocentric movements.

Definition of GYNOCENTRIC: dominated by or emphasizing feminine interests or a feminine point of view

I despair of you, Ludwig.

>>If Mrs A pays Mrs B, then she doesn’t have that money available to spend elsewhere. So that would amount to GDP foregone elsewhere. Ultimately, the contribution to GDP would be about equal, and indeed the contribution towards job creation would presumably be about equal as well.<<

We have had this discussion so many times, and still you insist on misunderstanding it.

If Mrs. A does not pay Mrs. B, there are a number of possible scenarios.

One is that she spends it elsewhere, in which case it is the alternative destination of her spending that will determine its contribution, or otherwise, to GDP.

If she buys something from overseas on the internet - say, a book on Amazon - she is paying directly for an imported product. Which transaction, as you know, reduces our GDP number, because the money is spent overseas, and does not contribute to "the monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country's borders". Which concept you previously claimed to understand.

If she saves the money "for a rainy day", she is neither contributing to, nor subtracting from, this period's GDP.

I am certain that you will challenge this simple and straightforward concept, as you always do. The only interesting aspect will be the manner in which you insist on adding your personal layers of complexity and confusion.

Poirot:
"Why don't you have a go at the root cause of these atrocities?"
Surely that's exactly what feminism is supposed to be about and for?
We see and hear endlessly about perceived discrimination in the West, and anyone who says anything they deem offensive, even if they have to misinterpret it or take it out of context to achieve that, is pilloried and abused, apologies demanded etc, but I have yet to see or hear one single thing about action for all the women repressed and suffering under Islam, or in Africa, or in South America, or Asia
As for "who says etc", I do, and others, so where is this action being taken, and by whom?
Foxy STILL hasn't responded to my questions and assertions, one can't help but wonder, why not?
Perhaps like most feminists, unpleasant truths are anathema and best ignored, or the source decried as either brainless or patriarchal?
Using ridiculous comparisons to doctors is just that, ridiculous, there is no possible comparison to be made, that's just obfuscation, another tactic much used by feminists when confronted by the real world.

Bruce, good for your girls realizing they can be and do anything their abilities and skills allows them to.

My kids, both male and female, range between 25 and 20. Both genders are wrestling with actualizing their potential and striving for their goals and fitting these in with partners who wish to do the same. We have one 25 year old who has started a family.

The gender discussion of how we are to negotiate our society didn't just end because girls can and do get access to any university faculty, can wear whatever they want and take out a bank loan in their own name. It is not just about 'women can now choose to be a home-maker or a CEO of a fortune 500 company'.

The raising of children, for instance, is still overwhelmingly seen as only a woman's issue. 'All these demanding women wanting time off from their careers and have companies keep their jobs open.' A male employee doesn't get pregnant and is not expected to participate at all in decisions of raising a family. Why should any company even want to employ a woman?

Many uni faculties have a higher percentage of women. So what's next?
Is it just really interesting that your daughter got a university degree and than just gives up to raise a family? Part of her degree has been paid for by the taxpayer. It wasn't done so she could fill in her days while waiting to find Mr Right. Should she juggle working part-time and care for her children, maybe not getting satisfactory results for either endeavour?

Just raising one aspect, that at least my kids, of both genders, are wrestling with and why they are all feminists

Hasbeen: 'If you don't believe that most ladies are still dizzy blond types, go check out the Pistonheads.com web site & have a look...' and then you proceeded to demonstrate your own daughter's ditziness.. Even the women of the Hasbeen tribe are not immune!

Conservative hippie,
To put it another way, fourth wave Feminism in my analysis is closer to a neo traditionalist movement because it negates female agency in exactly the same way as fundamentalist religions do. Feminism subordinates the state and the whole of society to the interests of women, in Islam and Christianity there's no state so for want of a better word the "patriarchy", the society of men plays the role of protector and provider.
I'll re phrase my first example, if a woman is raped according to Feminism she's not in any way responsible for her plight, saying that women's behaviour cannot contribute to this outcome negates any concept of female agency and reduces them to mere objects.
Fundamentalist religion and Feminism are the same idea except for their signatures or gimmicks if you will, with religion it's womanhood cursed by Eve's weakness, with Feminism it's "Patriarchy", both concepts discount female agency and depict women's behaviour as innate, primal and lacking any moral dimension.
I'm describing two schools of thought which are essentially the same,like Hitler the "Fuhrer" and Stalin "the man of steel", they were both socialists of exactly the same character they just used different gimmicks, Race for Aryan Man, Class for Soviet Man.

In practice gynocentrism is expressed as "women and children first",this is a mainstream view in all Western societies, in Christianity and in Islam, I don't know anything about the other religions and they're not really relevant to this discussion since I don't see them playing any major part in the future of this society.

Dear Jay,

<<If you believe in equality you're a Liberal,>>

No, you may well be a Communist then.
A Liberal believes that everyone should be free to live their lives as they wish, whereas under the assumption of equality, everyone can be expected to make the same choices.

Or you could simply be blind: because for anyone with eyes to see, it would become obvious that every human looks different, that no two look the same (well, perhaps identical twins, to a certain degree). Similarly you would also need to be deaf and have no sense of smell, for no two humans sound the same or smell the same.

Sure, deep within in our true essence we are all the same, for there is nothing but God, which we all are, but having taken on the persona of a human, for that while that we wear a human body, all our personae are apparently different.

<<I don't know anything about the other religions and they're not really relevant to this discussion since I don't see them playing any major part in the future of this society.>>

To the extent that Christianity and Islam are not Liberal and do not allow free choice, to that extent they are not worthy of the name 'Religion', to that extent they despise God. In their own words, they agree that "God has given us free choice", yet if they seek to take away what God has given, then they are apostates.

Religion will continue to intermittently guide us and our societies just as the sun will continue to rise and set, but if the Abrahamic traditions are not going to mend their ways and respect God's given gift of free choice, then they probably have had their day and better ones will take their place.

Yvonne, I suspect you've mixed me up with someone else, I never said any such thing about my daughter (28).
The facts are that she went to Uni to do Veterinary Science, specialising in genetics, working part time in an accountants office and also behind a bar on weekends. The accountants were so impressed with her they persuaded her to qualify as an accountant, just like her mother and grandmother before her, and her sister-in-law, curious coincidence or what?
She's now an accountant working in International Finance for a major multi-national , and section head to boot. She is in a relationship but isn't married and has no kids, as yet, if ever, she's ambivalent about the prospect.
I only have one grandchild so far, from my younger son (30) who married the accountant, just like his daddy did, lol.
Both my boys are professionally qualified too, the elder (37) is a robotics programmer, qualified chef and specialist welder, and holds degrees in Japanese, and also Korean, language and culture.
The younger has degrees in various areas of CGI and programming, and already has major screen credits and awards to his name, it's almost certain you've seen his work on TV as the company he works for does ads as well.
All my kids HECS debts, and their cousins', were paid in full by the estate of my younger brother who died when they were sub-teens, he had no children and left a trust-fund for exactly that purpose, he was their favourite Uncle and a wonderful generous man who's still sorely missed.
I also dispute your assertion that "The raising of children, for instance, is still overwhelmingly seen as only a woman's issue", that is far from true these days, it would appear to be another of those instances of trying to fight a battle already won.

yvonne, "..my kids, of both genders, .. are all feminists"

LOL In your company that might be, but would they have any say in it?

However it does remind of the feminists of the previous millennium, who were forever claiming 'partners' who allegedly worshipped them for their feminism etc., and (the partners) were totally submissive to and controlled by the said womyn, naturally.

About claiming street cred as a feminist. Not just last century, but last millennium as well.

Any wonder that young women flee screaming from the dinosaur feminists who are forever telling them how to live their lives and demanding that young women genuflect to them as well. Fat chance!

In order to have a well reasoned, intelligent
discussion about feminism we need to try to avoid
generalisations, sweeping statements, and arguments
on an emotional level. Feminism
is not - one size fits all approach. Its complexity
means that each individual has to find its
meaning and relevance in their own lives.

Feminists do not come from a single group or are
defined in terms of age, colour, religion, or socio-
economic status.

It would be great to address the attitudes and the
limitations that exist for both genders.

Hey Fox-Lady, how about starting that dialogue by responding rationally and honestly to my points?
You seem to be great at "motherhood statements" yet you avoid any discussion of the situation as I propound it.
Get down to the nitty-gritty, please?

Al Bundy started an organization called "No Ma'am".............the chicks won...............

So the fact that the fourth wave idealogues are overwhelmingly Jewish or Anglo Saxon women from the U.K and U.S.A is irrelevant then Foxy?
Feminists don't really come in all shapes, sizes and colours, in the Third World they're almost all women's auxilliaries to male dominated Marxist Leninist parties.

I'll give you some more examples.
Angela Gossow the lead singer of metal band Arch Enemy earned the respect and admiration of her fans in a male dominated field through her hard work, talent and perseverance, this is why she was able to pull crowds of 10,000 in staid, patriarchal Japan. She's an anarchist and presumably calls herself a Feminist but she puts her money where her mouth is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6KuvVYnklhM

Anita Sarkeesian is a Feminist parasite and rent seeker in a male dominated field, she has no talent, could never write or programme a video game yet she seeks to earn a living from creating and propagating bogus controversies surrounding the gaming industry and it's online community:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6p5AZp7r_Q

Who is more deserving of our respect?
Which of these women represents the true face of ideological Feminism and which embodies it's spirit?

G'dayBruce,

"Foxy STILL hasn't responded to my questions and assertions, one can't help but wonder, why not?
Perhaps like most feminists, unpleasant truths are anathema and best ignored, or the source decried as either brainless or patriarchal?
Using ridiculous comparisons to doctors is just that, ridiculous, there is no possible comparison to be made, that's just obfuscation, another tactic much used by feminists when confronted by the real world."

Perhaps she doesn't like your tone?

It's certainly a mystery why she wouldn't clamour for the opportunity to listen with baited breath to your braggadocio - and your critique of all things feminist.

No doubt you're a tad frustrated that she hasn't reacted to your most charming style.

Perhaps she's got better things to do?

Heh, as if sent by providence some particularly egregious Feminist claptrap, a group of clever men come up with a clever personal security product for women and the author of the article still has to suggest that rather than women taking control of their person on a night out men need to "you know, not rape":

http://www.dailylife.com.au/dl-people/a-team-of-college-students-have-invented-a-nail-polish-that-can-detect-daterape-drugs-20140826-3ebh4.html
Got it girls? Slip on the hot pants and halter top, tease up your hair and get stuck into the tequila because it's up to guys to decide if you're sexually available or not and heaven forbid that you should have to be bothered with such things as making sure your drink isn't spiked.
Gee, professional athletes are held personally responsible for everything they ingest, their health and future prospects depend upon it, maybe holding young women to the same standard is a better way to deal with drink spiking than education programs for rapists, because we know that it's really only hardcore criminals and serial rapists who spike girls drinks.

LOL, braggadocio.
He can't hear you Poirot, he's speeding along the coast road in a Mercedes convertible, his white scarf flapping in the breeze, a pipe clenched in his teeth and a 20 year old actress sitting beside him swigging Krug out of the bottle.

Sorry Bruce, must have confused you with another bloke. So many men on this thread telling women that their experiences, knowledge and insights are irrelevant and wrong I must have got you mixed up with someone else.

Isn't it great when the children you're responsible for raising fly out and do well. My eldest is working for BHP. He's got a double degree and loving the challenge. Not only because of the changing conversation happening within mining. My other son is with the ADF, a combat engineer. One is married with a little boy, The others are all still at uni and living away from home fending for themselves.

Though starting the thread, you clearly believe that feminism is now irrelevant. I don't agree. The reason as I tried to outline is because there are still issues within our society, neither men nor women, have quite worked out how to deal with yet.

The raising of children is one of them. Marriages/relationships don't only end because people 'fall out of love', but because there are incompatible expectations on one or both partners on the role and responsibilities of the other.

It sounds like within your family these are non-issues and that is how it is in mine. But that is not always the case and I really think that rather than focusing on the nuclear family, which is a rather modern concept anyway, we need to get back to the idea that it takes a 'village' to raise a child. I know the whole motherhood vs loving a career is a huge conflict and struggle for some women.

The discussion Motherhood or career, or can women have both is quintessential a female discussion. Men can have both without too much navel gazing. This is a good thing. Women should too.

Otb, in your family do the women all toe the obedient little woman line and wait until you tell them what to believe? Suppose that means it's nice and quiet at least in your house.

I was with you right until the end Yvonne, but that's ok, you gave me a good laugh.
No, all the women in my family and circle are exceedingly independent and quite forceful about it, as is my daughter and as was my ex', which explains why she decided that my career as a chef was putting too much strain on her and she walked.
The fact that the Family Court eventually gave me custody was mostly down to her playing silly-buggers and also not trying to fight it overly enthusiastically, to put it a tad simplistically.
I raised my daughter, and the boys, to think for themselves, to question and seek data, and to think things through. I supported them as best I could, from an early age they could ask for changes within our household and if they could present a cogent reasoning and it didn't interfere with anything I would accede, deliberately building their self-belief and sense of control of their own lives.
As they reached 14 I informed them each that from then on any requests for permission would be refused, I expected them to TELL me what, where, when, how, etc, and if I thought it wise I would ASK that certain limits or conditions be accepted.
It worked well, to the horror of my friends and family, but I had trained them and I trusted them, what better way to prove it?
(and by so doing I neatly undercut the rebellious phase virtually all teenagers go through.)
I'm sure there were things I never knew or heard about but then there always are anyway, and I truly believe they behaved less riskily than they otherwise would have, simply because it was up to them and not ME!

Oh, and Poirot?
Are you suggesting I should take a more gentlemanly tone with the lady?
Or that I mustn't disagree with her or raise uncomfortable questions?
Otherwise, I may express myself a little bluntly but I feel I'm communicating more effectively thereby.

G'dayBruce,

"Oh, and Poirot?
Are you suggesting I should take a more gentlemanly tone with the lady?
Or that I mustn't disagree with her or raise uncomfortable questions?"

Do what you like.

I'm sure we're all enthralled....

Dear Poirot,

You've hit the nail on the head.

I am enthralled.

Goodness me - how could I not be.

The man is a virtuoso.

A glitterbomb of glory.

One simply wants to orbit around his splendour like
a satellite.

Is it any wonder that I feel inadequate and unable
to answer any of his questions.

I am truly over-awed.

Nothing is as frustrating as arguing with someone
who knows what he's talking about. ;-)

Poirot, have you no shame?

Your last post addressed to me was again completely devoid of anything related to the thread subject!!

<< It was as much on topic as some other posts on this thread. >>

Hahaha. Yes! You are not the only one who is posting entirely off-topic posts. It is common practice. But you are the one who picked me up for doing it… which I haven’t done.

You’ve told me not to bring comments about the Rolfie thread over to this one… but here you are going on about it at length. Hells bells!

<< You are shameless >>

As I have said to you quite a few times now: right back atcha on that one.

<< (and I invite anyone to read that thread to see just who was spraying around the abuse.) >>

Um….. YES, what a great idea.

Now, if I can just get back to the thread subject:

( :>|

But… um… there’s no point, because you’re clearly not interested in debating or in any way discussing the points that I put to you.

I will just reiterate that you apparently agree with all that I have said here. And that the greatest flaw of all in the whole feminist movement, from the start right up to the present, it is lack of realisation that it is not just about equality, or a better deal for women, but it has surely got to be about maintaining a healthy society overall…. and that planning for a sustainable future is of paramount importance in that regard. If we don’t do that, then equality or the lack of won’t matter, because we’ll all be suffering a far lower quality of life.

Yair yair I know, you'll just roll your eyes at this and say to yourself; 'there goes Ludwig trying to hijack the thread across to his sustainability hobby horse again'!

Go away, Ludwig,

As far as Poirot is concerned, you've morphed into a boring puerile troll.

It surprises me how many of my gender on here feel threatened by feminism. The true feminist is a well educated, articulate human being. Such a person is fighting for equality. All the true feminists I know, do not simply fight for the rights of women but are intelligent to the point where they fight all forms of injustice in society.
Like all oppressed groups, there are few within the group that have the courage and or ability, to firstly question the oppression, and then secondly do something to help overcome it. Feminists should not feel too badly that they are attacked for their stance by some reactionary sections of society, male and female its not all that personal, because these same people attack anyone who they perceive as a threat to their dominant position, or it may be caused through ignorance of the unknown on their part. When you are involved in any struggle, one important aspect is those who oppose you do not ignore you. Some lively debate on this thread.

feel threatened by feminism.
Paul1405,
threatened not so much but an annoying nuisance for sure. Feminism is a pointless thing that does nothing beneficial in society building.

And there you see it, clear and obvious to all, the Feminist style of "discussion".
Harangue and sneer at anyone that questions feminist orthodox ideology, don't discuss unpleasant truths, endlessly repeat vague "motherhood" statements but never attempt to apply such to real world situations.
And never ever enter into any discourse about all the millions of women who suffer daily abuse and death around the world, concentrate instead on money, power and influence in the West.
Let's face it, a man opening a door for a woman is far more dangerous than any honour-killing, rape is only important if it happens in the West, and what possible relevance does the torture and abuse of women all around the world have when there are less women than men in Western boardrooms!
Priorities clearly and demonstrably established, I'd say.

And there you see it, clear and obvious to all, the G'dayBruce style of "discussion".

Home in on one poster - and when they refuse to play your game - ensconce them under the banner you're railing at - and pillory them.

Nice one.....

Fear not Po' my declaration was all-inclusive, if I'd intended it for just one I would have said so, as in this and other posts.
Interesting how feminist defenders are SO VERY threatened by anyone pointing out the uncomfortable truths, isn't it?
I note too, not one single response defending or explaining the total lack of action by feminists on the suffering of women outside the West.
"Let them eat cake" perchance?

G'dayBruce,

If you're ignorant of the outreach by Oz feminists to people like Vandana Shiva and Arundhati Roy (to name only two) then perhaps you should go and do a little research.

http://www.lankastandard.com/2011/06/arundhati-roy-on-exclusion-feminism-and-resistance-movements/

http://www.smh.com.au/news/Opinion/Roys-full-speech/2004/11/04/1099362264349.html

(The 2004 Sydney Peace Prize lecture delivered by Arundhati Roy, at the Seymour Theatre Centre, University of Sydney.)

http://www.spinifexpress.com.au/bookstore/author/id=129/

http://www.theage.com.au/environment/climate-change/sowing-seeds-of-hope-and-change-20101029-177fc.html

There are plenty of connections between activist women representing the developing world and like-minded people in more developed countries like Australia.

As I said, why don't you address the root causes of female degradation in developing countries - the issues people like Shiva and Roy are exposing and rallying against?

Doesn't fit well with a quick spiel in a post, eh?

causes of female degradation in developing countries
Poirot,
We can't really do much about that in those countries bu we can prevent the feminists from doing here if we really wanted to. The problem are the feminists, they'll stop at nothing from pursuing their dream of destroying society.

Dear Poirot,

Just to jog some memories of - "been there, done that."
Here's a link that may be of interes:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5874

Check out my comment on page 2 (as Lexi) and the link I
also gave at that time:

http://www.independent.org/pdf/tir/tir_11_02_06_cohen.pdf

Cheers.

Paul,
None of us are the least bit threatened by feminism because it does nothing, achieves nothing and represents nobody except paranoid old spinsters and their equally demented granddaughters.
The counter argument is that none of the advances in material conditions for women have had anything to do with Feminism unless you choose to frame Feminists as a sort of capitalist women's auxilliary.
All of the advances in "women's rights" have been as a result of innovation by men, whether it be in technology or political and economic strategy.
I'm not threatened by wild conspiracy theories like "one in three", 'patriarchy' or the "wage gap' any more than I'm impressed by the Bilderberg conspiracy theory or the one about the queen sacrificing children on the altar of St Martin in the field.
Feminism is based on lies and falsified statistics, it's no threat to anyone as long as men refuse to support it with violence and coercion of dissenters.

Thanks Foxy....I'd forgotten about that.

I wonder what G'dayBruce makes of one of us starting a thread along the lines of this one?

After all, apparently we're ".... SO VERY threatened by anyone pointing out the uncomfortable truths..."

So much that "not one single response defending or explaining the total lack of action by feminists on the suffering of women outside the West."

Lol, G'dayBruce...seems Poirot was singing your tune on that thread...and many OLOers were contributing to it.....in the interests of discussion - not point scoring.

Dear Poirot,

I wonder if we should give him some cheese to go with
his whine?

Sorry, I read the thread you linked and as far as I can see there were a lot of the same generic motherhood statements.
Too, speeches from ten years ago had virtually no impact then and haven't matured well.
This thread, as in all attempts at discussing feminism, has been full of misdirection and playing the person, a virtual cliche in and of itself.
I have never said there weren't brave local women trying to change things in the aforementioned hell-holes but I have questioned what the Westerners who so loudly espouse feminism are actually DOING about it.
I offered my own life experiences to demonstrate the source of my opinions, and to show that I had put my life where my mouth is, apparently unlike the majority of staunch feminists in the West.
Feel free to criticize me all you like, it's irrelevant to me personally and to this thread as well, it only highlights the paucity of your intellectual position.

The following link may help clarify things
for you:

http://rightnow.org.au/writing-cat/article/australian-feminism-in-third-world-countries-beneficial-or-problematic/

G'dayBruce,

"This thread, as in all attempts at discussing feminism, has been full of misdirection and playing the person, a virtual cliche in and of itself."

For some reason you appear to believe that the tone you adopted towards the women on this thread was conducive to a meaningful discussion.

For the most part, it wasn't.

As for "playing the man"...

"[To Foxy] I notice too that you, like virtually ALL feminist types, totally ignore and avoid ANY discussion about the plight of women who really ARE repressed, in many countries, concentrating instead on grasping power and affluence in the West, to me that casts a harsh light indeed on your alleged principles. They appear to boil down to..
Stuff all the women suffering around the world, let them rot and die, I want power, money and influence for myself, here, now, and if I can't get it it MUST BE because you repress me, not because I lack the ability to achieve it for myself."

"I do notice however that the good lady hasn't responded to my questions nor to the link I posted, bit of a give-away or what?"

"Yvonne, you display the standard feminist response, unfortunately."

"Even the style and content of your post is a feminist cliche, as I said at the start."

"And yet another cliche trotted out!"

"Foxy STILL hasn't responded to my questions and assertions, one can't help but wonder, why not?"

"Hey Fox-Lady, how about starting that dialogue by responding rationally and honestly to my points?
You seem to be great at "motherhood statements" yet you avoid any discussion of the situation as I propound it.
Get down to the nitty-gritty, please?"

It's your type of derisive, sneering and arrogantly provocative attitude that's more likely to polarise discussion and stifle healthy debate.

You came out with all guns blazing and proceeded to herd any opposition under a banner various titled "feminist" - femnazi" - "extremist" - and "oh-so-fem-brigade".

Now you're lamenting the fact that your thread "...has been full of misdirection and playing the person..."

Respect is a two way street...

Dear Poirot,

I've stated many times on this forum - reasoned,
intelligent argument is a skill not easily
acquired. Sound reasoning will conquer
unreasonable generalisations every time.

As you stated - respect is
indeed a two way street.

See you on another discussion.

See you on another discussion.
Holy Crap !
Is this the beginning of new phenomenon in the battle within the Lefties ?

I can see that I wasn't properly respectful of the fem's, I didn't agree with all they said and I questioned the lack of real discussion or responses, how un-gentlemanly of me, and all you do is highlight the disparity between words and actions, you're all for discussing feminism et. al......as long as praises are sung and stereotypes are acknowledged as truth, and the real world is denied.
I questioned, and that is a major sin to any 'ism, isn't it?
It's easy to describe my "derisive, sneering and arrogantly provocative attitude", but go back and read all the contradictory posts with those same glasses, I was merely responding in kind.
All my criticism was focused on the content and style of feminism and the replies herein, the fact that I specified individuals was related to their own individual posts and lack of meaningful communication or debate yet it was used as an excuse to criticise me for my life and opinions, and as I clearly opined, THAT is so standard a feminist tactic that it IS a cliche, whether you like to admit it or not.
Now, that being said, I feel that this thread has run as far as it's likely to go so let's agree to disagree like civilised persons and move on to pastures new, it's entirely up to you.
I'm hoping that you both won't fall prey to the common habit of 'ists, to label me an antagonist and continue to criticise me on every occasion, no matter the subject, I will wait and see if you're capable of disagreeing on one subject and still being civil on others, that is surely the mark of a mature and rational mind. I believe I can do so, can you?

Most of the people actively fighting back against Feminism are Leftists and Liberal Humanists:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qk3beajVbzg
This girl was one of the first and the best and the death threats, the stalking, the attempts to get her fired from her job made it impossible for her to continue:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IT9jeK30yH8
There's no reason for right wingers or no wingers like me to be "Anti feminist", because we never believed in it in the first place Feminism has no bearing on our worldview, it's the Leftists, Liberals and the Humanists who are angry because they're the ones who've been sold out and whose legitimate political movements are being paralysed by Feminist wreckers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4r7cwWegXCU

Dear Bruce,

Go back to your opening post and then re-read
your other posts on this discussion. -
Your attempt to rationalise
your obvious bias right from the start -
is simply not believeable. - Your words
from the very beginning with derogatory terms such as
"faminazis" and other sweeping statements betray you.

As Poirot pointed out - if you want a rational discussion -
you have to contribute to it as well. You didn't. And thus
were subsequently not taken seriously.

I am beginning to suspect that you may have a problem with
people (especially women) who don't
"play the game" so to speak, according to your rules,
and that you shall always find fault with them.
Shifting the blame (especially to women) - is nothing new.
I guess for some men it is a way to bolster their
feelings of power, superiority, and masculinity.

Well, good luck with that

Sorry Foxy, my OP was an opinion piece and only that, and not remotely the way you describe it.
I'm afraid the rest of your last post was just more feminist rationalising, cliches to the bitter end.
All things change, the world has changed, young women as a loose grouping have changed, society has changed, young men as a loose grouping have changed, only the feminists and their mantra (and tactics) remain the same.
Here, I'll put up a mirror for you to consider, please do so.

"I am beginning to suspect that you may have a problem with
people (especially men) who don't
"play the game" so to speak, according to your rules,
and that you shall always find fault with them.
Shifting the blame (especially to men) - is nothing new.
I guess for some women it is a way to bolster their
feelings of power, superiority, and masculinity."

Recognise yourself?

I'm a supporter of women and their aspirations, and I laud those who achieved that change that women today enjoy as a birthright. But that does NOT mean that I therefore must "toe the party line" eternally, and my contention was and is that feminism must change with the world and times to stay relevant, a change it has so far singularly failed to achieve, which is why it now has so very little support among women themselves. Unless or until it can accept and embrace a changed society and redefine itself and it's goals in that context it will continue to wither and be a risible caricature of a once important social movement.

Problems of Western feminists

Problem No 1 and first order of business: Beyonce promoting feminism while grinding on a pole and singing 'Bow Down Bitches'.

She took HIS name too and...

LOL, any wonder that young women run screaming from the bossy, carping, entitled, disagreeable feminist dinosaurs of the previous Millenium.

Bruce, the last paragraph was not directed at you but to Otb (onthebeach). This poster has such a steady rant against women I can't help but try to goad him now and then. Mostly I just ignore, like one does to any troll.

Also, I don't quite get why you think Foxy wants you to agree with everything feminist discourse proposes. There are so many voices within the movement/discussion. There are worlds of differences between Germaine Greer, bell hooks and Jessica Valenti, to name but three published feminists.

One of the reasons I want to keep coming back to a very conservative thread like this forum is because if I were to only exchange ideas with very like-minded people I would never be challenged to reflect on my take on things. Within feminism, too, there are voices that can be confrontational. And the point with that is I suppose, is to reflect why. I'm sorry, but you haven't made the case for an affirmative answer to your question

OTB
Beyonce is the most egregious example you can think of?
Boy you lead a sheltered life, google "Yhivi" or Miriam Weeks aka "Belle Knox", just make sure the littlies are out of the room before you open the links. That's the circus Feminism has become, Ms Weeks was recently recruited to some advisory panel for young women prompting one of the other Feminists to resign in disgust.

One of the reasons (I think) that feminism will not die a dignified death is that some female feminists find it to be a useful tool to put the dominating patriarchal men in their rightful place.

Feminist dogma is a useful front for the 'Dissing of men'.

There is also the 'Fear mongering' that was used with great effect during the great cold war and the communist under the bed mentality.

Like a cancer feminism is something that will never go away, but rumble away in toxic little pockets to burst forth every now and then

I assumed the fight for feminism was long gone. And would have deemed it past its used by date also.
I have only been discriminated in the workplace in regards to income with one company. Family run truck business. 'You get $2,50 less an hour because you are a girl' I was 42 and this came from a Woman, still pretty blatant. Of course working in a male dominated industry I do get the occasional look or grunt of disapproval from some men. Then again males choosing to become air hostesses or hosters? probably receive as just many looks or grunts from disapproving men. So it balances out I guess.
But then last but by no means least the long suffering women and girls from Middle Eastern communities. By tradition, culture and religious beliefs they have had to endure the toughest battle of all. Being born into a life of oppression, learning that life is as the 'bible' commands Im not sure of what freedoms if any they may have been allowed, but none that those in the free world experience.
Despite there being no shift in how they are regarded or treated by their people, individually, almost certainly at the risk of their own lives, grasping the stolen but life and soul saving opportunity to freedom. Finally able to speak and speak freely as should have been her right from birth

I've always thought feminism is about womens fight for equality, and that within the group there are a small slice of fanatics just like there are in any causes for equality. One of those battles is for what jodielie has just pointed out when refering to the discrimination at the truck company - equal pay for equal work no matter what lies below the belt. People scoffing at the difference of others and using that as a means to oppress are people who are insecure in themselves. As for the plight of women in the Middle East, it is truly horrifying the violence they endure by the hand of men in the name of religion. Rape of supposed "loose" women, female circumcision, physical violence for any percieved wrong or honest mistake, and the use of acid to permanently, horrifically ruin her, physically and psychologically, are brutal, cruel crimes, plain and simple.

HereNow, well said. A bit of irony to report. My partner who is a union rep and in her own way a feminist, had to intervene in a dispute involving discrimination on the grounds of sex. The person discriminated against was a male. Seems he was asked if he would transfer to a different position, he agreed, but the person in charge in that department, a female, went back to the blokes manager telling her she wanted a women in the position. This was overheard by another person also a woman who told the bloke, who as a union member went to "T" and complained. "T" took it up with her usual gusto, and to cut a long story short the bloke was reinstated, but then declined as considering what was said, didn't think he could work with that department manager, and the pays the same,but there is a bit more o/t."T" has asked HR to arrange counseling for the manager, as clearly she had breached "policy" and to let "T" know when its been done.