to be a bit sickened by the apparent 'feminism' under study in the Women documentary?

[mrsbean78]

Dad staying at home to care for kids = househusband
Mum staying at home to care for kids =
full time mum

Each man challenged about how much housework he does, yet "househusband" also challenged about how well he does the housework by a wife who is irritated that he shrinks her cashmere jumpers and doesn't clean the bins, when clearly, as she says, she couldn't be expected to work and do housework.

All participants apparently comfortably well off enough to make the 'choice' about who works and who doesn't, living in beautiful leafy-suburb/rural pad type homes.

I don't feel it is at all representative of my life and am finding it terribly patronising to the men, don't know how others feel?

LuBenT - I agree with all of what you said about units in the market place and that women at home looking after DCs are invisible. I made my earlier proposal to put something called 'familism' alongside 'feminism' because parents (both men and women) need fairer treatment by Govt, business and society.

For example, if the employer I applied to for a job today turns me down because I have children then I will not have the same legal protections and recourse to compensation that a woman would. Likewise, very few men take parental leave even if entitled to it because they fear the consequences for their career.

I accept of course that women bear the brunt of and suffer far more discrimination of course than men and of course that feminism covers a whole range of issues that go far beyond the family.

I think people like Lord Melchett, Porritt and Goldsmith are the elite.

I agree about Goldsmith, I agree that the other Etonians are not really top level. Disagree about Davos and Bohemian Grove, most of those are the politicians, chairmen and other puppets and apparatchiks. But certainly important decisions are made at Davos and the Grove.

I'd put Rupert Murdoch and his ilk way above posho greens in the power stakes, meself.

Murdoch is influential, more so than some of those posho greens, but I only mentioned the poshos to demonstrate some of the influential green leaders. There are probably more influential ones that we are not aware of. But even Murdoch is at the mercy of the markets. There have been times when News International has struggled.

I don't know who the real elite are. I don't think the posh ecos are in charge. I don't think that here today gone tomorrow politicians or CEOs at Davos are in charge either.

I don't flatter myself that I am able to discredit the green movement. I just find it odd that many influential people in the green movement, which seems to be a movement which aims to reduce growth and international trade through flights etc., are Etonians and privileged people, whose wealth was built up through capitalism.

Not sure how we got to the 'Green Movement' but it is well known that many eco-activists were once members of the Communist Party when they were younger as were members of the Labour Party

A lot of eco activism is about anti capitalism and imposing rules that control the minute details of peoples daily lives through a faceless bureacrcy (eg monitoring what people put in their bins and ID cards) while the elite swan about in chauffeur cars and private jets trying to design ways to control the weather.

Sounds more like the Soviet Union to me - where women were not exactly well treated despite everyone apparently being equal.

Never noticed many women in the Politburo and that is for sure.

good point ABetaDad, I agree with that. It's all about control, and a centralised system of control suits those in charge. That way a handful can manage millions of people. A diverse capitalist system, with competition and innovation from all sides, is more difficult to control.

Slight aside but Murdoch has joined forces with the pharmaceuticals so he is a mover and a shaker in very influential circles. From the standards of the media recently it would appear that he does what he is told though.

agree he is very influential amd wields a lot of power. Interesting comment "it would appear that he does what he is told though", in what way?

With regards to how medical science/issues are reported.

I'm now lost. Claig, are you suggesting that we should be worried about the advent of authoritarian rule under cover of environmentalism? It all sounds very 'reds under the bed' to me.

good point Beachcomber, he toes the party line, but I don't think that he is unique, I think that most of the media does.

'Reds under the bed' is a con tactic used to create a scare and then implement policies on the basis of that scare. I think we need to beware of authoritarian rule under any guise, we should beware of the sugared pill, administered to us for our own good. We always need to ask cui bono?

I think it is harder to create authoritarian rule under a real system of capitalism. I think it suits elites to use communism/environmentalism to lead us willingly into captivity.

It was you who said that what we have is "socialism for rich people" and that it is not "pure capitalism". I agree with you. I think the "eco activists" are only one of the many arms of the powerful. They are not at the top of the pyramid.

I agree that the UN, IMF, World Bank, Davos etc. are the visible entities in power. I think the question is what agenda do they really follow? You think it is "unbridled rapacious capitalism", I am not so sure.

I am with you that capitalism has many flaws, I just think it is better than the iron boot of communism.

The elites care about nothing but power. They will use all the arguments and tricks in the book to keep it. They play one side off against the other. Their objectives are not to make more money, they've already got more than enough. Their aim is power over us and to prevent us from prospering and challenging them. They are against anything that helps us to grow and develop. I think that capitalism gives us a chance to prosper. They are looking for the easiest and most efficient way of controlling us.

Practically everything that we are fed by the media is against "rapacious capitalism" and is pro environmentalism. The media are part of the Davos crowd, they are not an island. When all of the Davos crowd line up to tell you something, when the G20 turn up on our TV screens singing from the same hymn sheet, I think it's worth questioning it.

I agree that we need to think in wider terms than capitalism V communism, and remember that both these models have always played out in the wider context of patriarchy and the seemingly inevitable human (or possibly patriarchal) inability to resist power through corruption.

I have the feeling that until we move on from a patriarchal system based on male privilege it will be impossible to develop a fair and humane socio-economic system.

We saw a bit of it with the development of the Welfare State (in which feminists played an important role) but capitalism seems to have eaten away at that.

no I'm not American. You misread me, I am not in favour of unbridled capitalism. I think governments are responsible for putting reins on capitalism and using the wealth created by capitalism to try and fix society's problems. I know that not everyone can benefit, but when I look at China, I am impressed with the progress that has been achieved and I hope it continues for their entire population.

It's interesting that it is precisely so many Americans, the capitalists par excellence, who are against the Davos crowd, the UN, the World Bank, the G20, the IMF etc. They see these bodies as a threat to sovereignty, who are trying to put a brake on capitalism.

I think we are all exploited to some degree, but the mixed economy that we have is probably the best system.

I think in many ways we are close to agreement, but we see other aspects through different glasses, so we are unlikely to agree totally.

I also think capitalism encourages a short term view overly individualistic sense of entitlement even in the nicest of people.

I think you could be right that capitalism may go the same way. I think it may suit some to reduce our level of prosperity, slow us down, stop us getting too uppity, make it tough for us. If that happens it will be a shame.