What is your take on this article from a famous British Feminist?

Question

http://feminist4fathers.blogspot.com/2006/12/feminism-was-going-to-liberate-both.html

- founded the feminist magazine Spare Rib.
- co-founded Virago Press, which catered to women's writing.
Along with a long history of professional work.

You're right Vitner.

Correction: This is a blog by a woman who founded the feminist magazine "Spare Rib", co-founded Virago Press for women's writing, was editor of the men's magazine Esquire, published 4 books, and more.

Why the ad hominem(against a famous feminist)? Some are not answering the actual question...
J Maverick: Blogs(and articles) usually have a section underneath that tells who wrote it. For example: By ROSIE BOYCOTT. You can search that name which usually a few seconds or maybe several minutes or never for others.

Ellesar: Just because I'm a man doesn't make me a woman-hater. But that remark towards men on here is not uncommon.

Answer 1

I'm sorry, but it suggests that men (and women) are too stupid to be able to handle a choice. It also uses change to generate fear. It's a good article for it's audience; but intelligent people prefer to be given choices, and don't fear change for the sake of change.

Answer 2

Giving women the means to support themselfs and even outearn men is the greatest contaceptive one can think of. If you work in an officine and she is unemployed, you are an potential hubby and father. If you work in an officine and she is a lawyer you are a slacker and she will rather not marry or have kids than having children with a "slacker" she needs to support.
Women with money are like men with boobs, they don need no MAN !!! The sad part is they do, its just that they want to feel provided and protected and a man who earns 1/4th of what she does does not fit the bill, so SOME women will spend their days looking in vain for that perfect match which also has the high powered income. Of course not all women are of a status and income that they feel "no good men" are left, but the goal isnt to kill off humanity, it is to reduce birth rates so only a % of women needs to be affected.

Answer 3

I think that it is a very good article and makes many salient points. You have selected something worthwhile, which , considering your usual level of woman hating is quite impressive.
I will comment on the following:
"My father's generation defined their wives: nowadays, the role has completely reversed and men are defined by women. As a result, their definition of themselves has faltered and society has been cruel towards their attempts to redefine themselves."
As Boycott goes on to explain, the intention was NOT to do this - most women in the movement wanted things for men and women to be equalised, not reversed. If you don't believe that intentionality counts for anything then so be it, but I consider it to be important.
Edit: Boycott does have a good reputation as a writer in the UK, her credibility is OK. It is an opinion piece after all.

Answer 4

Which British feminist wrote these entries and how do you know who he or she is? From what I could find, this is clearly an American blogger. The links are all to American conventions and organizations and the spelling is obviously American. The article isn't really good or bad. Everyone has an opinion and he or she has given his/hers. There are, however, a lot of stats given without citation. That, along with the author not providing their own credentials, makes it simply a piece to think with - It's not going to change any minds.

Edit: and I could create a blog by Abraham Lincoln. I have looked but must be missing the verification that this is "the Rosie Boycott".

Answer 5

The author is WAY too arrogant about her assertions.

She has the "men are unnecessary" attitude even though she implies that she'd like to see men helped.

She completely fails to realize that men still have natural abilities & strengths aside from brawn that women do not have.

She fails to realize that men are extremely important to our country's success & women cannot do it alone.

All of the ego-stroking & self-serving articles like the ones she writes will not make men unnecessary nor their contributions to society unimportant.

This article is another attempt to marginalize men due to the fact that women are successful in the workforce.

Newsflash: Men are ALSO successful in the workforce.

My advice to the author:

Lose that arrogance & open your eyes.

Answer 6

Her undercurrent is a message to feminists. "Do you think women have gone to far?" is what she is asking.

Rest assured, feminists don't care. They simply don't care. Most of the men who are starting to wakeup to the feminist nonsense that has infested our society, still believe that feminists will bend once men display to them the illogic and hatefulness on which the feminist creed is built.

This is a mistake. Feminists hate men.

Answer 7

good read. interesting points. i think the main point though is the need for material validation. before the feminist movement it was common for men to complain that their wives duties were in fact not work. those attitudes still exist but in women now. and why shouldn't they when we continue to push for money as the holy grail?

Answer 8

Lots of good point. But fortunately, with artificial womb, men no longer need women in order to reproduce.

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,648024,00.html

Answer 9

She makes good points, and every sane person figured that out by now.

Answer 10

Just another " be carefull what you wish for..." article, Fairly well written though.