Militant feminists such as Harriet Harman, remind me of the Amazons, no men at all except once a year to reproduce, boys of no use so discarded.
I suspect that Harman only feels comfortable at home if Jack is running around in a blonde wig, pink dress, stockings & high heels like he's one of the sisters.
Please don't start me on Harman, who imposed all women short lists but then couldn't make the meeting were her husband was appointed the candidate for a safe Birmingham seat.
Back on the general subject of feminism. I remember as a 17/18 old ('82/83) having a discussion with my then girlfriend about it. And I said, be careful what you wish for. Because even at that age, I said that, women wanted a man/husband to be a provider and a protector/someone to look up to. Something that had been built in over many thousands of years.
Now, much as the press goes on about metrosexual man, I don't believe that many women really want that. They mainly (in my mind), want a strong, assured man that can look after them both physically and financially. The trouble is that with equal pay and feminism, that was something that was not going to continue.
Now, it is a bit of a conundrum, women deserve equal pay, but that then makes it harder for the man to be the provider. I look back at feminism now, and wonder how much was actually about women's equality and how much was about breaking up the family unit.
The problem is, that where as in the '60/70s, women could stay at home and the man could provide for the family, now, if takes two salaries to pay a mortgage, so both partners must work. Which is why so many women are not having children anymore, because to hold down a job and bring children up is a monumental task.
I wonder how many women actually enjoy the drudgery of a job in an office, reporting to some idiot of a manager/manageress. I wonder how many would like to have a family in comfort and be able to watch the kids growing up.