I wouldn't necessarily agree. However, in large part there wasn't much need for men and women to work. The 'liberation' of women probably has less to do with changing technology and WWII / WWI as it does capitalism. The simple fact is that once women began working and owning their own money, they became consumers. Look at the main hallmarks of the 60's revolution - nothing to do with equal female rights at the workplace, instead you see cosmetics, fashion and similar industries going orbital. Nowadays a household surviving on a single income is pretty much impossible.Eogan said:
Probably owes more to the more militant feminists to be honest. Mind you, I don't know many people who consider previous societies as mysogynistic. Patriachal certainly, but I've never heard an accusation of mysogyny outside of radical feminism.
Already here to a large extent, in fact I wouldn't say there's much of a role left for either gender. These days it's based more around prosperity, or at least it's perception.
Sounds pretty much like a Republic rather than Democracy.
To be honest it rather depends on the government itself. Here in the UK one party completely overturning the work of another is pretty rare. Hence the huge furore over promises to support/scrap the ID card. Then again, part of the idea of a multi-party system is you need at least part of the opposition to agree with a policy in order to enact it. Apart from those rare situations when one party has a clear majority thanks to a landslide your dependent on non-party votes to secure a majority (unless your Mr Blair, in which case you need non-party votes to make up for the rebellion in the back benches).
Course, I suppose if someone has actually looked into what it is they're *****ing about they might have a different opinion.
