<<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.