Good post Teri!

Ive lost the plot somewhere here, I am me I am Vivienne. My sexulaity was decided for me before I was born. Luckily enough I had brothers and swapped my dollies with my Cousin who was gay.
Hence I have always striven to do (possibly) what has been concieved as "male lead" jobs.
I have worked in a bank, left because men were promoted before me!! then a zoo keeper dont ask! next a librarian - loved it.
Mum - could not escape that label and fpr me my two boys are and will remein my greatest achievement. Next Local council's from home as a single mum. Worked up to Town Clerk, retired when politics got too radical, Director of a Construction company.

I dropped the Mrs bit in 1975 when my first marriage went t--ts up.

I have felt less than a man in the past (mainly due to being unable stregth wise to do their job, until OH and I made a partnership of life and I completed myself. Im the money person, I have a design flair he freely admits he is a box man, I am also good at manipulating men now I am in my 50's because I am too damn old to try anything else than female wiles. But my family do not make the mistake of underestimating my willpower or that I will get something done come hell or high water, BUT thats my personality trait, hence 3 marriages I fear - or if Im honest Im proud to be a stubborn unpredictable person Im just me and what you see is what you get.

I hate pink, I like shoes many many shoes, I dont wear frocks at all, but I use heaps of face cream, face packs, nail varnish, pamper days and perfume I want to keep what i was given face wise as long as I can.

Am I a feminist - reading the posts yes I am. We stereotype our children with pink clothes, dollies, long hair ect from Day 1, would I do that different - possibly but with sons I did not have the chance to try, and maybe that was a good thing.
Now persons as Michael Winner says Calm Down, great topic though

Has their been a woman president?  Prime Minister?  Etc????  Maybe, one or two in the history, but more often than not, its men.  Why?? 


Well Hilary Clinton almost got to be President, she went for it, and had supporters - I think we will all agree she was beaten by the better man.

In the UK, we certainly had Margaret Thatcher, as our Prime Minister extremely strong leader

Who rules our country, erm.  The Queen

And even further back when women did not have equal rights, we still had Queen Victoria

Women although they may not have always be treated as equal, have certainly when shown to be a good leader been revered and celebrated as great women leaders.

Queen Boudica also, there are many, many, many more. Women have and do have their feet firmly placed in history and in the future too.

The term Feminism will only exist until all members of society consider both sexes to be of equal worth.

There is no male equivelent to the word Feminist, so when it is no longer appropriate to the user - it will fall out of the language.

It's when women feel that they have nothing to prove that the word will be obsolete.

I never use the word personally.

>have certainly when shown to be a good leader been revered and celebrated as great women leaders.

Elizabeth I was an incredibly powerful and capable leader as well.

>Every professional sport is still divided into sex.  Why?

Because men and women are naturally different. Male bodies have more strength than female, so to compete directly against each other would be about as fair as an adult competing against children. In pursuits where no physical strength is required (chess, for example - although there is a women's chess federation, women can also freely play against men in tournaments) there is no gender split.

It's when women feel that they have nothing to prove that the word will be obsolete

I would go even further and say it is when some women feel they do not need to be women any longer that it will become obsolete.

We have women ruling their Countries, MP's, Doctors, Judges, Solicitors, Teachers, Engineers, Electricians, Mechanics, Footballers, the list goes on, how do women today not feel equal.

Perhaps it is the mere fact that many women still prefer to be what our instincts tell us, mother, maker of the nest and carer, it is not a weakness, it is who we are, we are one of the only species that steps out of that role, not complaining that we do and many of us have happily done both, but most women don't want to rule the world, we really don't, I think that many feminists don't get that and don't like us to be what our instincts tell us.

And with regards to the arguments that TV and play brainwashes our children to act a certain way one of my brothers has two children, the girl is the one who plays football and the boy is the one doing dance classes :-D we are what we are and we can be whatever we wish to be. Fact!

JG, totally agree.  History has always been FULL of powerful and respected women.  Catherine the Great of Russia was another (had a thing for toyboys).  One would also ask the question if the powerful men in history would have got to power without the support, advice and confidence of the women in their lives? Mothers, sisters, wives, mistresses etc.  We all have roles in life and as Carrington has said we can pick what suits us best.

really? you don't have a name or a title or a job etc?

yes, like you said, i have a "name" and a "job title".

and like i said, there is a difference between descriptions and political labels, espesh when someone insists we should have them, and then insists we do but arent aware of this aspect of our own natures.
thats very condescending, and thats where the social engineering comes in.
sounds like an attempt at fascist brain washing to me.

i withdraw the term fascist brain washing, bit OTT.
its do feel a sense of 'enforced education' going on though

I wouldn't pre-suppose I had the permission or inside knowledge to speak for anyone else

I appologize. 

Each post made since I last visited this topic is IMO excellent.  The points are valid, opinions well put and regardless of personal opinion all worthy of due consideration - none have come across as arrogant, dictatorial or condescending.  

When posts are written in such terms they are useful and thought provoking and so serve a purpose.  I applaud those who manage to keep a cool head in response to what has become a heated topic, quite unnecessarily if truth be told, and something I'm working on ;)

Fundamentally men and women are different - they always have been and, barring scientific meddling with cloning, they always will be.  We were born that way - created that way (depending on your belief system) and IMO should accept the differences which is quite different from failing to celebrate them

The male of the species, with a few exceptions in the animal and aquatic kingdoms, is the hunter gatherer - protector and provider.  It has been so since the cave man.  The woman, smaller, lighter framed, physically weaker in particular when pregnant and following childbirth is programmed to be the one who nurtures and supports - hormones dictate these basics behind us all, not people of either gender whether in aprons or suits.  That is not to say that any woman cannot be every bit as ambitious and successful in her chosen walk of life - but that has nothing to do with physique and, as whistler has pointed out so well, more to do with attitude and strength of will.

The argument of pink for girls and blue for boys, dolly -v- tank, dancing class -v- football or media influences doesn't hold water with me.  The first time a cave man shaped a flint for his spear and his female mate used hers to spark a flame our roles were determined.  We've moved on and evolved and IMO the women of today in the western world have to their credit managed to largely do, have and be what they want - but strong willed, indepent, self confident and still very much feminine women do not have to achieve at the expense of anyone else.  Therein lies our strengths :)

Equal opportunities - where realistic - are already with us.  Absolute equality is where the clones would come in. 

Show jumping and three day eventing are sports that are not divided by gender also.

I work in a very male dominated environment. We all have our strengths and weaknesses in many different fields.
I have found that women who are promoted tend to have a dimmer view on other women below them and many are treated badly by other women, why is this?? It is bullying in my eyes.

Anyway i have no drama about saying i am weaker than the men i work with, its the truth. Though i can be better at communicating with people in certain situations compared to them. We are all people at the end of the day who need to accept our strengths and weaknesses.

I saw a programme last night(think dragons den) about a woman on a crusade to get women into the building industry, thats all fine and well if they want to do that, though i have to say in many areas you need to be so physically strong to do that work, that to be honest many women wouldn't be able to do.. Hands up to that for me..
We should all be treated in the work place on our own merits not our gender.

As for the home, well i live with my father who is very old fashioned and has this conceived idea that women should do all the housework and cooking etc and then men should work and then do nothing.
I work full time over a 24hr shift pattern, so working a stressful job with stressful hours and then being expected to do all the house work,, hmmm i don't think so, share and share alike if the adults in the house all work full time.

I've a hunch that there are a number of exceptions to the hunter gatherer/division of roles by gender theories. I believe one example is the Aeta people from the Philippines, where both men and women hunted with dogs, with the women doing a much better than the men. However, the best job of all was done when they all hunted together!

Interesting too that in other animal groups it is the females that are the best hunters- canines being just one example. 

I also wonder if we might consider differentiating between women and femininity? A woman might be termed an adult female member of the species Homo Sapiens, her biology is a given but would some agree that femininity is a social construct? After all, we are not born in high heels. A feminine woman and an unfeminine one may be equally capable of bearing children and equally maternal. 

I suppose too all this can be further muddled by the persuasive look, and yes, success with the opposite sex, of some transgender people. I don't know how many of you remember Tula the transgender model who used to advertise Smirnoff? A more feminine looking person, you could not hope to meet.

I suppose it's interesting to reflect on what it is about being feminine that many of us so love? Men generally seem to prefer feminine women, but then many say they like us with no makeup and isn't it the pheremones they are really attracted to?

I also think that there is growing evidence that the brain is a very plastic organ and whilst there are differences between male and female brains, these can also be mediated in the womb by, for instance, the amount of "stress" a woman is exposed to in pregnancy. Stress hormones, so the theory goes, elevate a woman's own testosterone levels and this in turn will have an impact on how the foetal brain develops. So you might have a more driven girl or a more passive boy. I should add this is a gross simplification of very complex territory. But you get my drift. We might also consider that prolonged periods of elevated stress hormones in an adult can shrink the hippocampus- affecting memory and concentration. My point is that the brain and its development are endlessly flexible and much of that may be about social conditioning- creating and adhering to certain confines of environment and culture.

Anyway, end of stream of consciousness. I find all of this fascinating and an endless source of food for thought.

Havent had time to read all the thread - will do later when i have more time but i am going to stick my neck on the line and say im probably not a feminist. I dont believe in men and women being equal and have no problem with it. There are some things men are better at, and some women are better at - thats just life

> I've a hunch that there are a number of exceptions to the hunter gatherer/division of roles by gender theories

I completely agree - I don't believe any of us can be categorised entirely and had hoped that was evident from my various responses.  The example of early humans given was simply that without any form of social structure being advocated, enforced or brainwashed into us, i.e. *people*, roles were assumed and, to varying degrees, accepted on the basis of what was possible due to the physical makeup of the species. 

There are thankfully no hard and fast rules and for those that would like to lay them down we can surely all quote exceptions.  I know of several women who are physically more capable than many men of 'hard labour' for example - I'm certainly not one of them BTW!  - and others appearing to fit the real 'girly' stereotype, dainty, pretty, refined, almost doll like who are lesbian and couln't be further removed from the stereotypical female.  Also I'm sure many of us are aware of great physical strength coming to women who have been known to lift a car sufficiently to save their child trapped under it yet such a woman may in every day life struggle to lift more than 20 or 30 kilos.

Perhaps the topic is branching further still without acknowledging the differences between being female / feminine / feminist.  Clearly (to me) there are very wide ranging differences.

As to the science bit, I have no knowledge in that area so will not pretend that I do.  It makes interesting reading however and is yet another facet to this subject which is worthy of deeper thought.