"In the attributes beneficial in a modern society, men and women are on generally equal terms". I am afraid that is not the case Matt. I'd bore you with my personal experiences but must rush on. For ponderance: "The latest figures for the public sector show that, among full-time employees, women’s average earnings lag 12% behind those of men, according to Incomes Data Services, an independent research organisation. The gender pay gap in the civil service actually widened by 3% in the year to April 2004, despite a large-scale auditing and pay restructuring programme during 2003-4. It will be little consolation to underpaid women in the public services that women in the private sector fare even worse, with a 23% gap between the pay of women and men. The widest gap is in the finance sector, where it stands at a cavernous 43.8%." http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8543-1761556,00.html Surprisingly it persists in the academic sector: http://www.thes.co.uk/current_edition/story.aspx?story_id=2015491 It is heartening that 2 (?) women may be a part of the next US presedential election. Hilary Clinton can surely not be as bad an example of the 'gentler' sex in power as our first female Prime Minister. Have you seen 'Hunting of the President'? Very interesting film looking at the 10 year witchhunt of Bill Clinton. If I was Hilary I might have been tempted to steer clear of power in the States - it is an opressively dirty game. She is either extraordinarily brave or a bought up lizard or both. Sexual equality is another elemeent, which is quite definitely lacking. It is still more acceptable to be a male 'lad' than a female one, if you know what I mean. Women have not attained equality yet in any of our so-called democracies. But that does not mean we are not on our way, or that we cannot get there. You are right sexism is being eroded, but I fear you underestimate to what extent it persists economically, culturally and politically.

I see Matt. Perhaps the question might be capable of what? What does it take to succeed in our modern society? I think the fact our societies are still determined largely by violence and power means females, and non-violent males are less likely to have equality. This is not just in terms of actual violence, but also in terms of its justification and advocation. Males and females are still raised very differently, in that the former are encouraged towards violence and the latter are encouraged to covet softness and maternalism (and or superficial beauty). Action figures vs dolls in prams. Thus adult males are more likely to be pre-disposed to the traits that seemingly govern one's place in society. (Add to that of course the historical legacy and the difficulty or changing things within and entrenched patriarchy). I think it is not the physical differences between the sexes (if one accepts females are physically weaker) that is the major determinant in prevailing inequality, but the way modern society is structured to coerce them in directions that maintain our basically aggressive and hierarchical system. p.s. I really did start to reply to your response on what I said about abramsky but ended up spending the whole night researching iraqi history (as you do). You can be assured i read your post and was suitably impassioned and annoyed by what you said - i just haven't had time to do it justice :(

Matt, "Sounds like Anarcho-feminism. Have you ever read any people like Goldman? She wrote at the end of the 19th, beginning of the 20th century, but still seems pretty relevant". No I haven't read Goldman. I will try. Remind me. I am an optimalist, not a feminist (I believe in the optimal occupation of the human species, which usually means equality, with the omnipresent mitigating component of choice for all, dependant on appropriate norms). Actually I am not really an ist.. i just made that up. I dont believe in istism, to be honest. As for the anarcho factor - I do not have a problem with hierarchies per se. I have a problem with the dynamics and means by which current hierarchies are maintained. I feel our present system distorts markets, erodes natural selection, avoids efficient division of labour and means that the most able do not command the positions that could solve the problems humanity faces, but rather those privelidged with wealth and power have an undue advantage. I believe it is aggression as a mechanism in relation to our hierarchies that determines the unproductive system we are currently lumbered with. Message was edited by: maz2003

Emmanuel (aka Irgun II), you are testing my patience....... r u running some kind of psychological experiment? I have seen couple.... just to let you know, its not workin at all....I suggest you take your nonsense some other place.......