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.