According to Tee Lin Dee, a man who is emotionally abused by a woman "has been quite a spineless person" for "he hasn't been firm at all with her unreasonable and insensitive ways"; that a man should not whine about her "plaguing him for money and comparing work promotions" because her insecurities were a result of men's chauvinism and patriarchal values in the first instance ('Why are men whining now?' Dec 8).

So men's suffering in the hands of insecure women are now blamed on them for being both spineless and chauvinistic at the same time! Somehow it is difficult to reconcile the image of a domineering and chauvinistic man who is spineless at the same time - but never mind! It appears to be the cornerstone of extreme feminist ideology to buffer cold reality and to salve life's inevitable wounds by heaping the entire blame for all women's as well as men's ills on men alone.

I totally and unreservedly agree with Dr MS ('Extreme feminism destabilises family system' Dec 7) that it is precisely this kind of infantilism of "'women versus men' ideological wars" perpetrated by extreme feminists which "destabilises, disrupts and even destroys families" to the detriment of innocent children.

While some men tolerate emotional abuses from women because, as the writer says, they are "spineless" to take such unreasonable behaviour, many others do so to maintain an easy truce for the sake of and compassion for their children who, at a young age, still need the presence and love of both parents including the emotionally marginalised mother.

Far from being the "spineless" invertebrate, such men would sacrifice personal autonomy and happiness for duty to children and that is something that ought to elicit understanding than sneer from the writer!

Commemorating the International Day Against Violence Against Women on Nov 25, we rejoice in the milestones achieved to accord women human dignity and equal rights. The government had amended the Federal Constitution to entrench gender equality and appointed a women and family development minister, women attorney-general and central banker; women MPs have now advanced in number from 15 to 20; non-government organisations in promotion of women causes have proliferated - to name a few, the Women's Aid Organisation, Sisters in Islam and All Women Action Society.

In short, Malaysian women are shaping to be a politically organised force as judges get rebuked for gender insensitive remarks and politicians go out of their way to make politically correct statements to canvass women's votes. Even DAP publicity bureau secretary (Gobind Singh) is lobbying now for an amendment to section 375 of the Penal Code to make marital rape an offence ( The Sun , Dec 9).

Although the goals of the abolition of economic and sexual exploitation of, and violence against women are laudable by all standards, and inevitable with the onward march of civilisation, there is however one aspect of feminist ideology as espoused in the West that we, in our rush to gender equality, have to be on guard against.

And that is the feminist rhetoric of Tee Lin Dee that women are not receiving their full share of the "good life" - money, prestige and physical indulgence, in short female autonomy - because of some nefarious plot on the part of chauvinistic males within a patriarchal system to enslave them.

Adjunct to this thinking is that the goal of female autonomy is so supreme that it overrides even the traditional division of labour and specialisation of roles that men "bring home the bacon and women take care of the kids and home".

True, women have had an equal opportunity to education, and wives do come out to work and many husbands will help in the house but by and large, when it comes to the crunch - as when the domestic help or nanny or baby sitter is not available - someone has to assume that primary responsibility.

I would suggest that the arbiter in such a situation be still that traditional demarcation of responsibilities - that women take care of the kids, and men, the bacon.

Women by and large are more adept at that function of child rearing because of their nurturing qualities.

Though it may not be politically correct for me to even hint that there is any intrinsic biological and emotional difference that bears on this division of role and function, yet, at the risk of condemnation, it must nevertheless be categorically affirmed. A denial of differences arising from reproductive function as it relates to child rearing and nurturance will be a triumph of mindless ideology over logic!

In addition, it is also questionable whether this unbridled quest by women for autonomy, power and prestige from careers and sexual freedom (this interpretation of equality being sameness as what men do including equality in marital infidelities) - to the extent that they override family, homemaking function and even the institution of monogamy - ultimately serves women's higher interest in the long run.

I say this for the following reasons:

First, the pursuit of equality as equated to sameness in all respects with men ought logically to lead to the abolishment of all the following traditional patronages accorded under the "patriarchal system" to women such as:-

men's exclusive paying for ladies on dates, opening of doors, popping the marriage proposal, defense of women's honour or modesty;

society's glorification of marriage and motherhood as women's destiny;

traditional legal protection for women in matrimonial laws relating to maintenance and division of matrimonial assets.

The removal of that last patronage in developed countries has caused many a woman, saddled with children to be destitute.

The demystification of marriage and motherhood, as female autonomy takes precedence, has led many women, especially from the educated middle-class, being alone and lonely in the evenings of their lives.

If a woman were to reject her traditional primary role as homemaker in preference to career advancement, what then remains as a reason for a man to marry her or remain married to her? If it were just for companionship or, as the writer puts it for sex, these could be abundantly procured in relationships outside marriage and family.

Basically, a man marries to set up family and home and this raison d'etre is entirely subverted when there is no homemaker around when the need arises!

This itself is a social problem as the Singapore experience testifies, and the Singapore government is trying to match-make graduates through the Social Development Unit with insignificant results.

Of course, every woman is entitled to her choice and respected for it. But to remain single as the biological clock ticks louder and louder until the ticking stops with deafening silence, is a real price to be paid that cannot be reversed by wisdom of hindsight and the weight of regret in more mellow years!

In this connection, Gloria Steinem, the American feminist icon of the 70s and co-founder of Ms Magazine is one of the lucky few. She sounded the war cry that "Men were not husbands, lovers, employers, or friends, they were "PJs" - patriarchal jerks", and that a woman would no more need a man than a fish, the bicycle. Having influenced a whole generation of women to this line of thinking with many remaining single, she recently, at an age of 66, secured herself a man and married!

But generally for the rest, one cannot have the cake and also eat it in the sense that one wants personal autonomy and yet would also want to have the benefit of children, home, legally and socially sanctioned sex and status of marriage, and when one conflicts with the other, a woman places more importance to her personal autonomy in this age of equality than duty to children and homemaking responsibilities.

No one could compel a modern woman to accept homemaking and child rearing responsibilities. If she rejects such a role - and that is a woman's prerogative - then the proper stance for her to take is to forsake and abjure that "patriarchal" institution of marriage to our "chauvinistic" men. At least innocent children will not suffer from women's syndrome of wanting all, and not making a success of it all.