Of course feminism should not belittle those brave women that choose the hardest job of all....staying home fulltime with several children! The point that feminism makes is that women should have the choice to do this, or not, whereas back in the good old days women were expected to stay home with the kids, and not work at a paid job.

JayB and others trot out the other old myth about feminists, by suggesting that lesbians started calling the shots in the 1960's. Really?
Lesbians make up only a small percentage of the female population, and there are large numbers of women out there who believe in equal rights with men, so I can't see how these few lesbians can make much difference. Mind you, many men call any woman who isn't attractive or attracted to them, lesbians....even if they aren't.

Feminism doesn’t care who you sleep with. Feminism has nothing to do with sexuality other than wanting women to be free to choose who they have sex with and under what circumstances. Despite the fact that many lesbians are feminists, there are far more heterosexual feminists, so you should not confuse the two things.

Dear Suse,

I'd like to Thank You and everyone who contributed
constructively to this discussion.

I look forward to our next one.

This one for me has now run its course.

Cheers.

Feminism is the selfish self-entitled behaviour and demands of the educated middle class women who ARE feminism.

They are almost always in public employment, including in academia and NGOs where they were always advantaged by excellent employment conditions and entitlements.

They are well off and have remained so for the whole of their lives. They are advantaged by affirmative action and have been so since Whitlam at least. They are adept at managing the media, especially the taxpayer-funded ABC.

Now that many of them are reaching the end of their long taxpayer-funded careers, they are rather looking forward to a leg-up to similar sinecures on the Boards of private companies to match and exceed what they already enjoy in the public sphere.

These are the womyn of the leftist Emily's List doing what they always did, advantaging the mates of mates, the Grrls Club and playing favourites.

It is outrageous that these women who spend their time shopping for chic designer shoes and would probably take their second and third choices in the shop, 'just because', have the gall to market themselves as being concerned about women generally, let alone the women of those 'Struggle Streets'.

Since when (never!) did any of the leftist 'Progressives', the educated, middle class feminists who are so demanding in respect of their own selfish needs, ever express interest in any of the key issues that affect women? What about transport and town planning? What about aged care and mental health affecting elderly women? No, nothing heard, ever!

Feminism is only relevant to the exclusive already advantaged set, to maintain and extend their self-entitlement and advantage.

If only those 'Progressive' feminists were as demanding for public infant nursing and change facilities (or safe clean public toilets, or for covered clean places with seats and some cold water for mums/carers to use) and better, innovative public transport, as they are for Islamic prayer rooms, a big space to be used one person usually.

The super, dooper advantaged feminists like Labor's Senator Wong must be smirking at the number of useful idiots who carry them on their backs.

Penny will never be worried about waiting on a hot nature strip to catch a council bus. Maybe she could get the limo driver to go past some real women in one those 'Struggle Streets' that Labor doesn't have any time for. Penny could ask them what is wrong with them.

Hi OTB,

Well, there's 'radical', and there's 'progressive', in all social fields. I think of radicals as people who are very active in their own interests, and progressives as people who are also, perhaps even more so, active in the interests of groups other than their own.

For example, in Aborignal affairs, 'radicals' are those who are very active, strident, even violent, only in their own interests. 'Progressives', including non-Aboriginal people, are those who are dedicated to the best interests of Aboriginal people, AND those of other people, i.e. for justice and equality for all, wherever, and for whomever, it applies to.

It follows that some people can be radical but quite anti-progressive - concerned about nobody but themselves, on all sorts of confected issues of manufactured grievance, and to hell with anybody else. In fact, that's politics-as-usual, nothing extraordinary or worthy about it. So principle means nothing, winning is all that counts.

And that's about where politics is across the board at the moment.

Joe

SOL: JayB and others trot out the other old myth about feminists, by suggesting that lesbians started calling the shots in the 1960's.

You & your ilk like to push that it's a Myth but unfortunately it's not. It's well known that the Vocal Radical Gay Feminists took over in the 60's & pushed the Progressives out of positions of influence. There were many punch-ups on Campus over this. Something which is purposely forgotten.

Loudmouth is right about the Radicals & the Progressives Feminists. The biggest Punch-up was at the World Women's Conference in Rio in the early 70's & the one in Beijing in the 90's between the Radicals & the Progressives. The Chinese kicked them out of the Country before the Conference finished. Ha ha. Don't tell me it's not true. A friend of mine was at the Conference & came home with a black eye. My wife & I got the whole story from her first hand.

Well said OTB you are correct in every respect.