Both Thatcher and Bishop have showed that talented and driven women can succeed in a conservative environment.

The left's afirmative action has pushed some women ahead of their competence. One only has to look at the unmitigated disaster of Juliar, and the intellectual pinhead Milne.

Feminism is what feminism does.

Just two observations about Australian feminism:

- it is the exclusive gravy train of educated middle class white women, who were already privileged anyhow and use it to retain and extend their privilege. In both they have been unrelenting and very successful; and

- it bounces between very narrow rails of ideology that do not accept or even acknowledge the many transitions that women go through in life and usually do so by choice.

Australian feminism (Western feminism) is a caste system. Feminism is a problem in itself. Educated middle class women are the superior caste with entitlements, opportunity (and the $means to take it up) and buffed positive stereotyping that allowed them to soar well above white men (whom they need as a distraction from their own greed, insatiable sense of personal entitlement and excesses), and indigenous women are on the bottom.

The focus of Australian feminists is on careerism, the material things and conspicuous consumption. They measure their success in the game of life by the labels they wear and doubtless by the number of women they look down on.

Young women don't need feminists telling them how to lead their lives and they certainly don't want to inherit their baggage. Indigenous women need the safety and education, not nagging, men-negging feminists out to feather their own nests for yet another decade.

Poirot and Squeers offered some interesting comment in a thread running parallel. I would agree with them that change is needed for a fairer, more accepting society with genuine alternatives and a better quality of life (which does not imply increased consumption), and that feminism is not the way. Feminism is an impediment to social innovation and improvement. While on the subject, the feminists' rejection of femininity threw out the baby with the bathwater and stymied advancement of women and of society too.

Returning to the OP, of course Julie Bishop does not have to wear a label, she is her own woman and does not need feminist nags telling her how to lead her life, or else.

Members of a subordinate stratum in society
tend to accept the ideology that justifies their
own low statuses, because they see the existing
arrangements as "natural" and proper, and do
not question them. As long as members of the
subordinate stratum continue to take the status quo
for granted, this will persist. But if they come to
see their situation as socially created - and unfair
besides, they are likely to demand change.

This is precisely what happened in the early 1960s, when
a women'a movement arose and challenged traditional
gender roles. The results were profound, and still
as we can see reverberate through our society otday.

In the past women were isolated from the economic mainstream
and were utterly dependent on their menfolk for the
essentials of life. In this environment the inferior status
of women was widely acceptable as an unalterable fact of life.

The idea that females could contribute significantly to
public life (or even benefit from higher education) was considered
preposterous. In fact, for most legal purposes, women were
treated much like children: they were not allowed to vote,
to make contracts, or even own property.

The roles today of course are far more flexible. However many
traditional norms still exist, that structure the experience of
most men and women and their basic options in life.

Some deviance from these norms is permitted, but the woman
who is "too masculine" and more particularly the man who is
"effeminate" in manner or interests, still invites
ridicule. And the strength of the reaction to deviance
from the norms themselves is a good indication of the
strength of the norms themselves.

Clearly defined gender roles exist, no matter how we may
try to deny them and they are reflected in the personalities
interpersonal relationships and workplace experiences of
men and women.

As for denying "Feminism." Admitedly and unfortunately
to some people the image of "hairy-legged man-haters"
still persist - for most of us those were creatures
that existed in the "olden days," that left a generation
of women embarrassed to say they were feminists.

Shadow Minister, "Both Thatcher and Bishop have showed that talented and driven women can succeed"

I appreciate the point you are making, however I would like to borrow that example to reinforce one of the criticisms I made earlier of feminists, that they would measure their success in that way - narrowly.

However is that what a good life is all about? Because many women (and men) would want a richer life than that. Julie Bishop was right to quote another woman who sagely said that women can't have everything, although she did exclude 'superwomen'.

What feminists refuse to accept is that women move though many transitions in life and no, the career, power, (illusory)status and the $$ for discretionary spending until they drop is not what most women believe will bring value, meaning and joy to their lives. Julie Bishop also said that her choices are not for everyone and once the door closed at forty the die was cast for her. Women should think whole of life.

Young women can see what comes from the array of choices before them and they know there are long term consequences as well. The Eighties feminists were very short-sighted. Many have come to blame others for they choices they made and most likely boasted of at the time.

Hi there Folks...

I've never been all that sure what is meant by the term 'feminist' other than it's some derogatory term used to denigrate females who embrace and espouse views that some perceive are radical ? I suppose we live in a time where it's fashionable to apply 'tags' to nearly everything we either don't like or not agree with ? Still it's the Aussie way to render a tag or label to just about everything, it's the nature of our distinctive lingo, not dissimilar to that of the London Cockney with his rhyming slang.

In conclusion, the word 'feminism' has a rather 'nice' sound to my old ears at least, like the sound of the adjective, 'feminine' I reckon ! Imagine if we had a harsher word to describe the female gender, instead of '...she's very feminine...' as opposed to '...she's very 'blokie'...' !

otb,

Now be honest.

Would you, if you were a member of the Liberal
Party, and had been given the opportunity,
vote for a woman as leader?

And do you think Julie Bishop would make a good Prime Minister
and why?