Why 'War'?
Why not 'Suicide' instead?

Without a doubt, the biggest change to the Australian workforce/economy in the past thirty years is the inclusion of women. Not only did it add to the unemployment queues and confuse a generation of economists, it required the reorganising of domestic work. New industries have arisen in child and aged care, and quite a few millionaires have been made - some bankruptcies too.

It's reshaped demography, politics and the way things are done in this country. You could say it's an evolutionary shift as big as theone where we replaced the 50000 year old technology of the stick with the shovel and the quarry.

Is it at all possible that this is the sole work of a handful of rabble rousing feminists?

Just wondering. I could probably go either way.

But Honky is right. Social change (progress) can't stop at a bit of wealth redistribution. This is because the work still needs doing when someone puts their feet up. Disposable nappies may have done away with women, their coppers and their washing lines, but assembly lines of women need to cover the dollar a day shifts over at the outsourced Huggie plant in China.

Wealth redistribution requires labour redistribution, and vice versa. Economic change facilitates social change - you can't avoid it.

Soon, all those Chinese women are going to want a bit of help too, and on it goes.

Unfortunately, the order of things has not existed for a billion years. The only thing that has existed is change, and a constant reordering of who does what. We can now do the work of millions of men with sticks in a very short time, but someone needs to change the old boys' bags and bring them their dinner before Today Tonight.

Karnal wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 7:42pm:

Unfortunately, the order of things has not existed for a billion years. The only thing that has existed is change, and a constant reordering of who does what. We can now do the work of millions of men with sticks in a very short time, but someone needs to change the old boys' bags and bring them their dinner before Today Tonight.

Ahhh sigh  Karnal.  Sad isn't it ?  that money is the real game: the economy

Now of course  MONEY makes the world go around the world go around.

So, p'haps you'd philosophically agree with 'slavery'??...  but someone needs to change the old boys' bags and bring them their dinner before Today Tonight.


Seems to me thats what economists/banks/govt's do........  create wage slaves. Great for the overseers/owners...not so good for the rest.

Emma wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 11:53pm:


Only since we gave you pockets and a few dollars to put in them, dear.

Or, it could also be said: only since Katies opened up and you convinced Hubbie to let you get a job.

As Bolshie pointed out, these things are dialectic. You need to look at both sides to get the full picture.

Life_goes_on wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 9:43pm:


Pardon me for wanting to my son to grow up in a world where he is free to be a man.
I know it'd be hard for someone like you to understand - you know, actually caring about something?

I come here to check the Light's new posts on Consciousness.

Karnal wrote on Feb 13^th, 2012 at 9:04am:



There's more to feminism than the need to fill the labour market and to grow the economy. This is part of it no doubt, but not the entire scenario.

Its roots lie at least as far back as the French Revolution where there was the overthrow of the monarchy, aristocracy and religious authority and the introduction of the principles of equality, citizenship and inalienable rights. In the 20th century, though, it gets a great help along from the neo-Marxists. What was unfortunately dragged into the feminist movement here by the neo-Marxists was the whole rage against the machine thing: Hatred of capitalism, hatred of men, hatred of whites, hatred of European history, and the projection of an untainted utopia where all will be good with the world if we just act and think as the Marxists say so.
Feminists are better off discarding all Marxist influence in their doctrines and start using the classical liberals who emphasized individual liberties.

The ideology of the Political class dictatorship.

Lies...Lies....Lies