<< 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.