The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Two women who were out of control > Comments

Two women who were out of control : Comments

By Brian Holden, published 18/2/2010

In the 1920s and 30s there were almost no women voluntarily performing physical feats which demanded maximum mental stamina.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
I’m wondering how Brian Holden thinks the world was populated, and how humans spread throughout the world, after starting from some place in Africa.

According to feminist theory, “Men” should have controlled "women”, and kept them behind.

Germaine Greer has contradicted herself on every word she has ever written, but the words that feminists choose to recite are of course those words that stereotype and denigrate men.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 18 February 2010 9:19:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Brian for writing about these women and for noting the 40th anniversary of The Female Eunuch (is it? gee).

Metaphorically speaking, I suspect there are many, many an "unmarked grave" of females who performed heroic feats or who lived heroically in a more mundane sense.

Very interesting article and information.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 18 February 2010 10:15:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women in the 20's and 30's became adults by default. The marriageable male population of Britain , for example, was reduced by one third and women had to look after themselves. Their spirit grew; their 'soul' developed. They created businesses, became professionals, they were adventurers and explorers, authors and public officials. There were as many famous women aviators as men.

But the whiners and complainers, the weak and resentful, outnumbered them. The women who could not find Mr Perfect blamed men for dying in the war that the women sent them to fight. Then they did it all over again in the 50's after WW2. By the time the Greers came around the female zeitgiest was blame, blame, blame. Men, of course.

Oh for a return of those 20's and 30's women that could have made such good adult partners for men. Now we are just left with 'dependants' again. Whining ones. Tantrum-throwing ones.
Posted by Amfortas, Thursday, 18 February 2010 10:16:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amfortas: <"The women who could not find Mr Perfect blamed men for dying in the war that the women sent them to fight.">

You're saying women caused WW1?

uh, seriously now -

I'd be interested in an elaboration on how that happened.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 18 February 2010 10:21:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is all the misandrist (anti-male) bashing necessary to laud the feats of these two remarkable women. The author has no idea how they thought about their world - please desist in overlaying your own prejudices on their situations.
Posted by Stev, Thursday, 18 February 2010 10:43:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"You're saying women caused WW1?

uh, seriously now -

I'd be interested in an elaboration on how that happened."

No, I didn't say that. No manipulations, mendacities or straw-women, please. I am sure most men would have asked for no 'white feathers' from their lady 'friends' either.

While the women were marching for the right to vote, 140,000 men died at the battle of the Somme, and most were unable to vote either.
Posted by Amfortas, Thursday, 18 February 2010 11:12:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have always hated these articles that attribute great bravery to people, of either sex, who do things a little different to the norm.

I have always been scared of motorbikes. They look very dangerous to me.

One easter, a while ago, after I had won the Forumuls one race at Bathurst, I was talking to an acquaintance I met down the town. He was telling me he thought I was mad, racing an open wheeler at Bathurst. Too dangerous he reckoned.

When I started laughing, he wanted to know why. Well you see, he had won 2 of the motorbike races held on the same track, 2 days earlier, & he thought what I did was dangerous.

We are all products of our history. Also some years ago, I met another yacht at an atoll somewhere in the Pacific islands. It belonged to a New Zealand couple, with a couple of kids, about 2 & 5 years old. I asked the 5 year old, how he liked living on a boat.

He looked at me a little strangely, when he said, "good". His mother explained to me that they were on their second time around, [the world that is], had been gone 7 years, & both kids, born along the way, had known no other home.

I don't think those kids would have been particularly impressed with Kay Cottee. She would have been another competent saillor to them. After all, they had met many of those.

I have found that people who do things a littld differently, are not anything special, just a little, & I mean a little, different.

Some times they may be wired a little differently, but often it is as simple as a book they read, as a kid.

I would never want to climb mountains, too much hard work for me. I have plenty of respect for those who want to, but no more respect than I have for the blokes, or ladies, who work their lives long, to provide a home, & education for their kids.
Posted by Hasbeen, Thursday, 18 February 2010 12:01:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian, don’t re-write human physiology and determination – the ultimate in being tough and durable is to be female. You have barely peeled back a veneer on the issue, which is far from a modern one.

For tens of thousands of years it was the stern old ladies of the tribe who fended off crocodiles from the rear, as groups of Aboriginals waded across infested watercourses up north.
The feisty Lysistrata led that women’s revolt against the fine upstand of Greek warriors returning from yet another war.
Boadicea, Joan of Arc, - warring, leading, in the thick of bloody action at their times.
Our contemporary, Tanya Streeter, mixing it with the men to ridiculous ocean depths of beyond 150 metres in the dangers of free diving.

In the general rough and tumble of life, while men generally have the gross muscle, it is the women who are at least as likely to receive the shocks, and more likely to survive them. For species survival, it would have to be so: man is more expendable.
Posted by colinsett, Thursday, 18 February 2010 1:36:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<"Is all the misandrist (anti-male) bashing necessary to laud the feats of these two remarkable women. The author has no idea how they thought about their world - please desist in overlaying your own prejudices on their situations.
Posted by Stev">

Oh this is interesting. Brian; you norty "misandrist" you. haha

Amfortas: You put these two images together: "While the women were marching for the right to vote, 140,000 men died at the battle of the Somme, and most were unable to vote either." and then have the cheek to say to me, "No manipulations, mendacities or straw-women, please."

Please don't use the deaths of WW1 soldiers to prop up your woman-hating agenda.

As to white feathers, the idea was started by a bloke who recruited the first 30 women. The government issued badges to identify people staying at home working in the war effort to counter the feather effect. That strategy also identified those who were not at home on war effort biz because they didn't have a government badge. So it's quite a bit more complicated than your nasty, "...blamed men for dying in the war that the women sent them to fight."

As to women wanting to vote - which country are you talking about specifically and which men?

If you're talking about Britain, do you mean men who owned no property, or men who didn't have a household worth 10 pounds, or do you mean men who weren't working men or agricultural labourers ? - because all of those got the vote through the reform acts of 1832, 1867, and 1884. Or were the only men fighting at Somme from none of those categories as well as being aged under 30?

It was in 1918 that women over 30 got the vote and all men over 21.
It was 1928 when that last limitation to equal voting rights in law was removed.

Throughout that time, the drive to extend the vote to poor, non-propertied men and all women was as much a class war as a matter of female striving for political participation.
Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 20 February 2010 1:54:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh this is interesting. Pynchme misspells naughty as "norty" and snickers instead of addressing the substance of my critique.

"an appeal to ridicule does not take the form of a valid or useful argument, because it brings no new information or concrete discussion into the debate"
Posted by Stev, Saturday, 20 February 2010 3:09:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hiya Stev. It's ok; I understand that you don't quite see why your comment would amuse me.

However, while we're here, would you mind showing the bits of the article where Brian shows that he's a "misandrist" ?

ta
Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 20 February 2010 9:13:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""As to white feathers, the idea was started by a bloke who recruited the first 30 women. The government issued badges to identify people staying at home working in the war effort to counter the feather effect.""

Ah well, what can I say in the face of such a well supported and referenced factoid that it was a bloke to blame.

It's amazing the effect that 30 women had - oppressed and enslaved to the will of 'the Bloke' - that the Government had to bring its weight to bear to counter them.
Posted by Amfortas, Saturday, 20 February 2010 9:46:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amfortus, I wasn't around during the world wars, but have nursed many Australian and British soldiers over the years.

Where did you get the idea that it was only women who gave men white feathers?
According to the old soldiers I spoke to about this subject, many older men during those war years made it their personal vendetta to send white feathers to any younger men they thought were cowards and avoiding fighting in the war.

I know this because I have spoken to men who were alive during the 2nd world war in both Australia and Britain who had suffered ailments previous to the war breaking out, such as polio (partial paralysis) and eye diseases (legally blind), who got the most flack from older men who thought they should have gone to war anyway!
Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 20 February 2010 10:02:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for an interesting article, Brian.

Both of your subjects were "disinterested in men", as you put it, which meant that as young women they excluded themselves from the complex social dance known as Courtship and allowed themselves time for more solitary pursuits. It also meant they had no children to divide their attention.
Many high-achieving women have done similarly throughout history.

The other thing the two had in common was wealth. Both were educated at the top private schools in Sydney, PLC and SCEGGS.

In todays' world, there is an expectation that all women can "have it all"; children and a career, adventures, travel, you name it. No one mentions the money, except in the context of the "women earn less than men" furphy. Young Jessica Watson, now sailing around the world, is a case in point: she is doing something which no amount of determination can achieve wothout wealth. Her gender is less important than her parents' wherewithal.

These women have much more in common with the wealthy male adventurers they shared their treks with that the ordinary women of today. No matter how much she might like to, a woman (or a man) from Woodridge, or Mt Druitt, or Elizabeth has little chance of ever achieving an ambition to climb Mt Everest unless they drop every other thing in their lives and devote all their efforts to raising money.

I doubt that either of them would have approved much of Greer. She is, after all, a somewhat twisted Marxist and I doubt that either of these women would have given her the time of day.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 21 February 2010 6:12:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pynchme, I wouldn't presume to know what amuses you, thank you for your understanding.

As for misandry, a simple test is to reverse the genders in a text and see if the resulting dialog sounds offensive, misogynistic, or even slightly off.

Let's apply the test to Brian's article:

"The author Geronimo Greer put forward the theory that men remain ultimately under the control of women - with the obliging men adjusting themselves to the female image of what women should be."

"It must have rankled the establishment that here was a man who could not be controlled....Away from the world of flabby women in dresses and shiny shoes, Mark found that there are no female barriers to males in wilderness activities where only ability and character are the measure of a person. It is a social environment free of manipulation."

"Mark was disinterested in women, and men who are disinterested in women tend to develop personalities as they age which the female ego finds alienating. My late friend Don Butler, who was close to Mark, informed me that Mark had this problem. While sleeping on his verandah in Sydney, Mark was bludgeoned. He spent months in hospital and was left with some permanent neural damage. Nobody was ever charged, but the wife of a man he was acting for in a legal matter was suspected."

"As Mark and Fred climbed with women, would this not mean that the women where just as outstanding? I feel not. The women did not have to draw on an extra strength to overcome the entrenched mental conditioning in men at the time - that alpine climbing was both emotionally and physically beyond men. The female climbers were well-read in the exploits of countless female adventurers throughout history. They did what they thought self-reliant and brave women do."

Hopefully, you get the point...
Posted by Stev, Sunday, 21 February 2010 6:54:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian Holden

Thank you for your article describing the heriocs of two extraordinary women. I had never heard of them and I always derive comfort when the actions of women are brought into prominence - women have a need for role models too.

I am sure than when you wrote this article, you would never have expected the anger this has caused for some few males. Apparently praising women, any women is an act of misandry. Which begs the question if praising women is anti-male, then what do I make of the continual and ever-present worship of men in our society, male writers, sports-stars, politicians and so forth. For example, I really admire Nelson Mandela, does this mean I hate women? Or white people?
Posted by Severin, Sunday, 21 February 2010 9:34:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme, Antiseptic and Severin

It was good to get your constructive comments. Unfortunately, some weird people use OLO's comments facility as a platform for what niggles them about life. Consequently they totally miss the point the author was making - because they don't care what that point is. What matters is the opportunity to go public.

The sole purpose of my writing this article was to inspire those who read it.
Posted by Brian Holden, Sunday, 21 February 2010 10:14:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<<<< The sole purpose of my writing this article was to inspire those who read it.
Posted by Brian Holden, Sunday, 21 February 2010 10:14:41 AM >>>>

Brian, you have been completely successful. And I am not being at all ironic.

Thank you
Posted by Severin, Sunday, 21 February 2010 10:22:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wilson: "some weird people...use...comments as a platform...what matters [to them] is the opportunity to go public"

You really can't help yourself can you, Brian? You just completely summed up my point in one comment.
1) You have a tendency to denigrate "the other" as a means to make your heroes/heroines more heroic, describing those who critique your article as "weird" and the "male establishment" in your article as flabby;
and
2) You have a tendency to attribute motives to others without having met them; so that those who critique your article are only motivated by "publicity" and don't really understand what you are saying just as the "male establishment" in your article is controlling and allegedly felt alienated by these women.

Wilson: "The sole purpose of my writing this article was to inspire those who read it."
Perhaps, but the way you chose to do this was to denigrate the "other", in this case, the "male establishment" of the period. To paint men as the villains of the piece. Although this is a lovely narrative device, it invites a backlash, and, more importantly, undermines attempts at equality and understanding.

Your stance is morally equivalent to those old westerns that painted the white settlers as the oppressed, the Indians as sub-human terrorists with no reason to oppose the passage of the Europeans across their lands, and John Wayne and the calvary as the heroes that save the day.

Severin: "Apparently praising women, any women is an act of misandry..., you would never have expected the anger...for some few males"
No, Severin, the act of misandry is praising women at the expense of men. And no, I'm not angry, just pointing out the moral double standard. Why don't we call it the Ray Romano effect?
Posted by Stev, Sunday, 21 February 2010 11:00:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amfortas: < pynch - "As to white feathers, the idea was started by a bloke who recruited the first 30 women. The government issued badges to identify people staying at home working in the war effort to counter the feather effect."

Amfortas: "Ah well, what can I say in the face of such a well supported and referenced factoid that it was a bloke to blame.">

Here is the name:

Charles Cooper Penrose-Fitzgerald (30 April 1841 – 11 August 1921).
Royal Navy Vice-Admiral.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Cooper_Penrose_Fitzgerald

I would say that he and anyone who distributed the white feathers believed they were being patriotic and supporting the soldiers who'd joined up.

Non-participants, however, well also identified by not having government issued badges identifying them as doing war work at home.

One fellow apparently said that he collected enough white feathers to make a fan. He didn't seem bothered by it.

Whether or not any of those actions and perspectives is admirable would be a matter of understanding people's lives and behaviours in the context of their time.
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 21 February 2010 11:16:14 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stev: Thanks for taking the trouble. I get the point of what you're doing because I do that myself. For example, if in a movie I see a woman slap or verbally abuse a man, I reverse the picture and decide that if it's unacceptable for a man to do it, then it's not acceptable for a woman to do it either.

The only little stumbling block in our self-testing, is that we need to be sure that we know whether or not the reversed image is an actuality past or present, or just a possibility. For example, "... with the obliging men adjusting themselves to the female image of what women should be."

Nobody wants that do they. However it is speaking of the 1920s and 30s - that is, it's an historical account of a time when women did adjust themselves to male dominance and had to be prepared to live as social pariahs for not conforming to the prescribed female social role. That was and is unacceptable. The vast majority of men were never in this position, but women were. You have therefore illustrated the point of feminism and one of the reasons that it came to be.
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 21 February 2010 11:46:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good info, Pynchme.

Well done.
Posted by Amfortas, Sunday, 21 February 2010 1:01:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'Whether or not any of those actions and perspectives is admirable would be a matter of understanding people's lives and behaviours in the context of their time.'

Well well well!

This is the first I've heard any of this sort of gear! There I was thinking all those nasty misogynist men who since the beginning of time 'enslaved' their wives just hated women or were just the naturally abusive gender pynch.

Or does this new generosity only apply to woman?

'I reverse the picture and decide that if it's unacceptable for a man to do it, then it's not acceptable for a woman to do it either'

That conflicts greatly with your comments on any topic to do with domestic violence.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 22 February 2010 9:27:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for your reply, Pynchme. I think we are very close on our thinking about this. I'm glad you approve of my technique.

You stated that:
"The only little stumbling block in our self-testing, is that we need to be sure that we know whether or not the reversed image is an actuality past or present, or just a possibility. "

Of course, Brian has no actual evidence that these women felt controlled, alienated, or anything else. It is a possibility not an actuality (to use your language).

Instead, he chooses to rely on a commonly-used rhetorical or narrative device that is designed to inflame the faithful's indignities and thus heighten their appreciation for the heroic achievements of the central characters. My simple observation was that this male bashing was unnecessary and unhelpful.

Brian only has to say: "Fair enough, mate, I'll tone it down next time" and we'd all be happy :-)
Posted by Stev, Monday, 22 February 2010 11:31:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ur welcome Amfortas; thanks for saying so.

Houellebecq: I take it this is your childish pot stirring again. Have you any examples of what you're alleging? (At least you give me and my oppressor a good laugh occasionally).

Stev: G'day again. Yes, I really like it that I've come across someone who does the same sort of mental-testing! It's kind of addictive fun once you get into it isn't it :)

I don't know if you have the patience for this and I apologize if it's a bit of a slog, but here is a tract by John Stuart Mill describing his observations of the ways the sexes were situated:

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/jsmill-women.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Stuart_Mill

It's not all indisputable but I've put it up for consideration because it's a bloke describing things at a time pre-feminism (more or less) and about 40 years before the accomplishments of the women Brian writes about. I chose him because I thought you might appreciate the male perspective; he was a very progressive person for his day.

Please bear in mind that even in my lifetime, women were pressured towards certain educational paths and occupations (in order: marriage, nursing, teaching, bank clerk, typist, shop girl or waitress or some sort of carer.). A F bank teller was not allowed to progress to branch accountant and despite doing the same work was paid 75% of a M wage. I couldn't get a loan without having a father or spouse as co-lender; I couldn't enter the university course I wanted to do despite achieving scores well above many male applicants who were accepted.... and so on.

I am not sure how Brian should tone it down - it seems to me that he has given a fair account of life as it was.

anyway,
see what you think and thanks for an interesting discussion,

pynch
Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 22 February 2010 11:57:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'..women were pressured towards certain educational paths and occupations (in order: marriage, nursing, teaching, bank clerk, typist, shop girl or waitress or some sort of carer.). A F bank teller was not allowed to progress to branch accountant ... and so on.'

Why did you stop?

Good to see you're back on message. None of this 'understanding people's lives and behaviours in the context of their time.' rubbish any more. Oh, that's right, it's because we're talking about those nasty men and how hard done by the women were!

You keep on draggin' up all those inequities of the past lovvy. I know they give you comfort, allowing you to hang on bitterly to all those grudges. Keep painting your picture of women the downtrodden. Make no mention of the present, or the context of the time pre-feminism. Make no mention of the men being similarly restricted by their gender roles. No, it was only the women, always at the mercy of men. None of them, NONE of them were happy with their lot. All of them desperately wanted to be bank managers. They all still do too! All the women were chattel in abusive relationships with no orgasms.

Well, I'll never buy it. I've talked to many older ladies who loved their husbands and kids to death, loved their lives and still think it's sad many women now just have a different pressure to NOT be the feminists so-called 'baby factory' no matter how fulfilling they find it and how much they'd love to be a guilt free housewife.

I talk to the old men who very much valued their wives contribution to the partnership, the family they made together. How their wives ruled the roost, had them twisted around their little finger, but oh how they adored them.

It just doesn't fit in with the downtrodden chattel generation you constantly paint, and it's certainly irrelevant to today unless you're a bitter old shrew.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 9:41:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme, I think Houellebecq made my basic point in a little bit more of a colorful way. :-)
Posted by Stev, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 10:15:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stev: If whatever point you were intending to make has been accomplished by Houellebecq's misinformed gobbledegook, then I overestimated your capacity for a civil discussion.

What neither of you understand about feminism 101 is that it is not whether or not women fulfil traditional roles, but whether or not the choices are available to them (and by secondary association - males) to be something else.

One of my daughters and her spouse have chosen that she leave work to be a stay at home mother in a traditional household configuration. However, as parents we ensured that she (like our other two children) was equipped via education to be economically independent - so that the choice for her and her family is a viable one.

My son is looking forward to being a parent and wants to stay at home some of the time with his children (as his father has, for our kids - and me). He is under no illusion that staying home or looking after littlies is easy work. I like that a lot of his friends think likewise.

I chose to stay at home with my children, but fortunately had acquired the professional qualifications to work nights and weekends.

How can advocating that people are not barred from working towards whatever goals they're suited to be problematic? Why do men perceive themselves as victims because women are finally surmounting many traditional barriers ?

I take it neither of you read John Stuart Mill to be better informed - but if you do take the trouble - just think about whether or not you would be ok living as a woman in those conditions.

Houellebecq, it wasn't that ALL women wanted to be bank managers (you drama queen); it was an organizational rule that women could NOT be employed as branch accountants or bank managers. This is not very long ago and while laws change, industry or the wider society don't necessarily follow at any great speed - as your views indicate.
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 23 February 2010 11:14:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme, what do you think the point of Houellebecq's post was? Are you incapable of seeing that structural barriers to life choices are not necessarily a barrier to personal happiness?

Of course, you might be a follower of Gramsci and argue that anyone expressing happiness in an oppressed condition is suffering from "false consciousness" and that personal happiness is therefore an illusion. Just let us know if that is the case.

Let us hark back to the the first world war. My grandfather's first cousin died in action in France in 1917. His whole service record has been scanned into the national archives, including a handwritten letter from his grandmother giving permission (as his guardian) for him to go to war, and several eyewitness accounts of how he died.

How easy would it be to create an heroic narrative for my ancestor? However, the reality is that I have no idea how he felt about the war or his motives for signing up. Several war movies have been made that play down the heroics and focus on the idiosyncratic details of each solder's life - their fears, their hopes, their dreams. Despite what social theorists purport, society is not one giant structural bloc where everyone has the same experience and motivations.

As an aside, my great great grandmother was also an interesting woman - an English missionary to the gold miners on the diggings at Ballarat in the 1850s, who married a Chinese missionary. Surely another heroic tale waiting to be told, but I'm more interested in her lived experience.
Posted by Stev, Wednesday, 24 February 2010 4:09:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stev,

I like it how you can sum up my post in so few words:-) Though I still think my post was entertaining. Even if only to me.

pynchme,

Why do you never get it? My objections to feminism begin and end with the 'drama queen' aspect. The woe is me, women are the downtrodden, and always were, always will be. Like I said, the most offensive to me is housework as a gender equality issue. The women always the victims, of magazines for body image, their husbands for leaving the toilet seat up, of employers for not spontaneously offering them pay rises.

I actually want the gains of feminism to go further and get my 1 year paternity leave because I'm more than a little jealous of my wife. I'm not your average macho type. I love my kiddies and am not very career focussed.

Back to my objection. It's the painting of history, and projecting into the present of history this one-sided view of the world. Woman, always the downtrodden at the expense of men. Times were different (as you used as an excuse for white feather activity) and people had gender roles (Some happy some not).

But you constantly harp and harp on every little way women were constricted and really are bitter about it all. Men were constricted too! Men have a lot to thank feminism for, and conversely women have a lot to thank MEN for. Just think how quickly things changed as soon as women put their had up and said 'I want more'.

You have a black armband view of history for women.

I say: Society set up with man as provider, men get jobs and given loans as it's expected they'll be providing for children.

You Paint: The oppressed women, hatefully patronised and downtrodden and enslaved and prevented her financial dependence by the abusive misogynist men.

You don't hear men ever saying those hateful women stopping men from having a full emotional relationship with their children by denying them time with the kids and forcing them to go and earn money.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 24 February 2010 8:54:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq: Why do you never get it? Could you put your personal confabulations and stereotypes aside for a moment and just reflect on these matters.

Despite some men on here posting about having experienced acrimonious divorces, had AVOs taken out against them etc etc. you never scrutinize their claims about 'the system' treating them unjustly. Their emotional expressions of distress that have lingered years after the event, never seem to draw comment about a lack of objectivity and whether they might be expressing a biased opinion when they denigrate ALL women.

I don't denigrate all men at all; and if you can't distinguish between yourself and other males then that's a male problem. If you don't like the way men are portrayed - then portray yourself as the sort of man that isn't like those that are full of bitter complaining.

Not all women share my views or are feminists. Do you see me worrying about it?

Yet the history of every social institution right up until now (and ongoing) bears testimony to the restrictions that have held back half the population with less social power than the dominant sex.

You say that men have HAD to go out and earn. Well women have too - but usually at menial and non-paying (devalued) work. Women have always worked. Anyway, back to working men - how do you think that oppressed men obtained the vote or increased wages, or the right to own property or engage in commerce ? - long before women did.
Was it by sitting and twiddling their thumbs; dependent on the beneficence of the upper and wealthier classes ? No, it was by resistance, agitation and revolution - sometimes violent. Feminists have achieved a lot for women (and children; and men) and without using violence, but are never given credit where it's due.

Of course women and poor men too have been both happy sad with their lot. That doesn't mean it is right and ok to surmise that all of them are happy enough and that they shouldn't have the opportunity to improve their lot.

cont'd
Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 24 February 2010 10:15:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
cont/d

H: I recall once that you posted about women doing housework and said something like, "Well rather than whinge about it; they should just not do it." That's fair enough (I agree - I do next to no housework myself. I have a homemaker who is terrific at it). However, what do you do when your two year old spills a bowl of stew and the missus isn't around to mop it up ? Just decide you don't want to do house work ? Or do you get on with the responsibility of sorting out the mess even though it's not an enjoyable task and not something you would choose to do ?

I quite understand why you wouldn't question your world - it works for you. Just try a modicum of adult compassion in considering that there are lots of people who don't have the choices that they should have; and which could be so easily obtained. Instead of standing in the way in any little way that you can, why not applaud their efforts and be supportive of positive change ? The men who are held back from understanding because they adhere to carictures of feminists, or they are frightened that if women get something they will lose their importance - or whatever - are missing a great opportunity.

I came became a feminist not by worrying about myself - though I recognized constraints (as mentioned), but because when I was marrying, everyone was asking my to-be-spouse how he intended to support us and whether he owned a block of land or had the deposit for a house. I remember thinking, "Wtf - aren't I earning too?" I wasn't at all 'nesting' but I did amuse myself with the idea that if I had a son I would ask his to-be-in-laws how their daughter intended to support my son.

Who knows; if you let the feminists have a fair run, some blokes might even get to stay at home and mind the kids on a year of parental leave :) Anyway, enough for now.
Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 24 February 2010 10:30:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme

You took the words out of my mouth...one of the points you made, that Houellie accepts without question the claims made by Anti et al, yet remains completely cynical about anything a female poster has to say, hit a nerve with me.

And all this vitriol on a thread about the achievements about two women. I think you hit the nail on the head by saying some men "are frightened that if women get something they will lose their importance". Like Stev, when he stated that praising women should not be at the expense of men. WTF? If I praise the ambo who rushed me to hospital a few months ago, is that at the expense of all other medicos? Of course not. And the discovery (for me and probably other women) of two outstanding women succerding despite the mores of their time is praiseworthy for both men and women. Women take pride in male success, conversely I am sure there are many men who admire the athleticism of Cathy Freeman or the brilliance of Dr Elizabeth Blackburn, Nobel Prize laureate.

Sad world when an article like Brian Holden's brings out such hatred - or is it envy?
Posted by Severin, Thursday, 25 February 2010 8:41:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme:"Despite some men on here posting about having experienced acrimonious divorces, had AVOs taken out against them etc etc. you never scrutinize their claims about 'the system' treating them unjustly"

In my own case, i have been as complete as i can be in describing what occurred and i have answered trite and banal questions with patience and forebearing. I have never tried to run away from events by hiding behind S 121 of the FLA, as some (such as yourself and the laughable cotter) have done to avoid actually presenting cases.

You went out of your way to look back over my posting history to try to find something i have said that discredits ny story and the best you could come up with was when my ex abused my son.

Frankly, you're a fraud and an incompetent. You wouldn't know a fact if it hit you on your ample arse. It was deeply stupid people like you who were at least partly responsible for my ex thinking she could exclude our children's father from their lives and that the State would back her up.

She would have managed it too, if I had followed the advice of my own lawyers before I sacked them.

The reason you don't like my story is because you know it is true and it makes a mockery of your own fantasies. Tough.

ask yourself this: if I was a woman and had come here saying how I had managed to beat the bastard ex in court, what would be your response, all other aspects of my posting being the same? do try to be honest, with yourself at least.

Severin:"baaa baaa baaaaa anti baaa"

"Better watch out, there may be DOGS about".
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 25 February 2010 8:59:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pynchme,

'you never scrutinise their claims about 'the system' treating them unjustly. Their emotional expressions of distress that have lingered years after the event, never seem to draw comment about a lack of objectivity and whether they might be expressing a biased opinion when they denigrate ALL women. '

Firstly, I'm never interested in the my stats vs your stats game.

I think they target All women as a desperate plea to turn around the all prevalent women victim/male abuser dichotomy. You do the same apart from the odd disclaimer that you love your husband.

Anyway, you never scrutinise people like chazp and mog.

I've been in an abusive relationship where I barely protected myself as I was taught never to hit a woman, yet I still felt guilty especially after THOSE adverts. I don't think you can grasp the damage a lot of the absolutist feminist campaigns unfairly paint all men with the same brush. I'm not going to argue stats, but a lot of DV both partners are violent, but the propaganda remains men are the problem. Always.

There are some things I wish you would admit, given that I conceive you to have a brain.

1. Society looks to punish men and help women
2. There is still a presumption that children are better off with their mother. You cant tell me this doesn't colour Family Court stuff.
3. Some men really do experience legitimate turmoil in being kicked out of the home they have built/renovated/enjoyed with their family and not seeing their kids every day. Some end up committing suicide. You honestly don't give the impression you have any empathy for them at all.

The way I see it, everybody has poured over the plight of women for eons, and feminists are somehow terrified to admit that men have any problems of their own.

'Instead of standing in the way in any little way that you can'

That's exactly what you're doing to the 'menz'. Because you don't want to let go and accept life isn't as simple as man=abuser woman=victim.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 25 February 2010 9:25:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Severin said:

"Like Stev, when he stated that praising women should not be at the expense of men. WTF? If I praise the ambo who rushed me to hospital a few months ago, is that at the expense of all other medicos?"

No, Severin, praise is not a zero sum game. You can praise someone WITHOUT denigrating others. If you praised your ambo by disparaging all the other ambos then you ARE doing it at their expense. Do you get the subtle difference?

I don't want to engage in personal attacks so I will give you the benefit of the doubt that you didn't see the difference. What is interesting to me is that I have seen (on more than one occasion) those of the feminist persuasion creating these "straw man" arguments (i.e. attacking something that wasn't said). But, then again, perhaps I'm just paranoid. :-)
Posted by Stev, Thursday, 25 February 2010 10:36:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq: "Stats games" provide quantitative evidence that distinguish "propaganda" from legitimate information.

I don't know who "mog" is and have only recently become aware of a poster named chazp. I scrutinize every post/poster that I read.

<"I've been in an abusive relationship where I barely protected myself">

Were you able to escape? How ? What did she do to prevent it? I hope you had the sense to seek an AVO and to lay charges.

<"I don't think you can grasp the damage a lot of the absolutist feminist campaigns unfairly paint all men with the same brush.">

Such campaigns arise from health, welfare and even police sources that are using every preventive means they can to decrease the imposition on their services of continued interpersonal violence.

I take it you're referring to the "Your strength is not for hurting" posters. I thought it was rather a good campaign. They don't paint all men with the same brush - YOU paint yourself with whatever brush you like.

It would be interesting to see the menz come up with some anti violence campaign. Be nice if they would do something constructive like that instead of feeding each other the rubbish that now prevails.

They don't provide anything whatsoever to prevent violence by anyone (M or F); but keep on track to prevent women terminating relationships with men or obtaining support outside of their influence or destroying any services providing safety to victims of violence. Interesting fact - those same services are accessible to them (AVOs, police, hospitals, shelter accommodation) - yet the stats of male usage wouldn't fill a thimble.

Male-male rape victims and male children who have been sexually assaulted as children are another matter entirely - increasingly accessing services, which is a good thing and hopefully will continue to help reduce the male suicide rate.

Answers to your questions:
No
Yes - and that's good and bad for women, men and children.
Definitely - what's your proposed alternative when a relationship breaks down?

Your last para: A product of your preconceived notions about feminism; not my position.
Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 27 February 2010 8:41:49 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Severin - right there with you.

Stev - but you did say and even argued your perception that these two women were being vaunted at the expense of men.

I would say that these women were ignored in historical accounts and it's a miracle that their achievements have been noticed at all. I am really glad to see that it's a bloke who has done so (thanks Brian).

Yet we have all sat in school rooms hearing and thrilling for years at male achievement - rightfully so too; except that achievers from the other half of the population have not been reported much at all - leaving the default conclusion that notable achievements are usual for men and extremely rare for women.

I don't know where that leaves you in your bid for victimhood but I am pretty sure you don't have a case to argue.
Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 27 February 2010 8:53:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ah, I see, the historical lack of recognition of women justifies the need to denigrate men in the present.

Are you incapable of admitting that recognition does not require denigration of "the other"?

And since I am not engaging in a "bid for victimhood" I can only assume that you are projecting your own desires onto me.
Posted by Stev, Saturday, 27 February 2010 9:44:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Stev: The article is about women in the 1920s and 30s or something.

Men aren't being denigrated now and they weren't denigrated then. How systems worked is just how it was and people modified their life goals accordingly; some were happy and some not. That doesn't mean that the systems shouldn't have been subject to change.

If you don't like what was said about how men accepted their world then or about how men were or are; if you're a different sort of bloke, then bravo. There should be more of it.
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 28 February 2010 1:35:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pynchme,

'provide quantitative evidence'

Not when they're distorted to the level they are by people with a barrow to push, and selectively picked by the likes of yourself and antispetic.

BTW: I have a degree in statistics.

The campaign was,

'TO Violence Against Women-(only) Australia Says No.'

These adverts depicted a guy yelling at his wife. They contained not 1, not 1 depiction of a woman yelling at her partner, of throwing glasses, of wielding a knife. That sh1t just doesn't happen you know!

'Were you able to escape? How ? What did she do to prevent it?'

My paternal instincts ensured I remained there to assure HER safety from herself. I was too afraid to leave her with the threats of self harm. As a man, I am there to look after my partner, not run away like a wuss. I did love her at the time too.

Actually sometimes I did attempt to leave the situation hoping she'd cool down, but she would follow me, cling on to me, and yell 'don't you touch me' if I attempted to detach her. See, your propaganda worked well on her. Only men are abusive.

Soon after I saw the adverts, confirming that I was really the one in the wrong. I had yelled back at her after all, and even grabbed her wrist and pushed her off me. Nasty male abuser that I am.

'yet the stats of male usage wouldn't fill a thimble.'

And why would they? After watching those adverts, and knowing the place would be staffed by a bunch of beaten wives and feminists, do you really think anyone would believe me?

'Yeah, then she kicked you, threw glasses, she wielded a knife, ok.... HEY you grabbed her arm!? How hard did you grab her? That's not on I'm afraid! What did you do to make her angry? I don't think you're telling us everything. Didn't you see those adverts. Where there's smoke there's fire, I think we have an abuser on our hands girls!
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 1 March 2010 10:59:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq: If you have a degree in stats (I didn't know there was a "degree in statistics", unless you mean something like epidemiology, which was part of one of my post-grads. I also did the usual stats that one does in psych and other undergraduate studies) - in any case, I would therefore expect you to be discerning enough to read the information provided which is predominantly from government sites and peer reviewed literature.

H: <"And why would they? After watching those adverts, and knowing the place would be staffed by a bunch of beaten wives and feminists, do you really think anyone would believe me?

You know there is nothing stopping the menz organizations from creating their own adverts and putting them up for consideration. Many of those groups have obtained considerable funding; why not suggest to them that they get busy on it?

'Yeah, then she kicked you, threw glasses, she wielded a knife, ok.... HEY you grabbed her arm!? How hard did you grab her? That's not on I'm afraid! What did you do to make her angry? I don't think you're telling us everything. Didn't you see those adverts. Where there's smoke there's fire, I think we have an abuser on our hands girls!">

First of all you'd be speaking to a health worker and/or police officer. Neither organization is predominantly staffed by beaten wives or feminists. Btw: feminists have no trouble at all seeing violence from women and have worked hard to have women regarded as citizens with the same capabilities (good and bad) as any citizen. You're sounding hysterical. The point is, your story sounds horrible and I don't doubt it - but did you lay charges? Did you have the good sense to seek an AVO. If not, then your ridiculous preconceived notions have done you a disservice.
Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 1 March 2010 5:44:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""You know there is nothing stopping the menz organizations from creating their own adverts and putting them up for consideration.""

To counter a $73 million Government advertising effort paid for from expropriated taxpayer funds?

Perhaps we can appeal to the Office for the Status of Men for a bit of help.

Whoops. There isn't one.
Posted by Amfortas, Monday, 1 March 2010 6:41:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amfortas: <"Perhaps we can appeal to the Office for the Status of Men for a bit of help.

Whoops. There isn't one.">

No, instead there's a whole male dominated polity. Mind you, when we have a female Prime Minister and a dominance of State Premiers who are female; and a greater number of women sitting up in parliament you'll be able to make an excellent case for obtaining an Office for the Status of Men. You'll have my full support as well :)
Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 1 March 2010 7:11:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is not surprising you call yourself Pynchme. Someone needs to.

So, a 'male dominated' (read, men step up to do the jobs women won't do) polity - no doubt an oppressive, chauvinistic, anti-female mob - has created an Office for the Status of Women, bent on marginalising, villifying and demeaning men. Explain that one to us.

But if we eventually get women stepping up to the plate (as Margaret Thatcher did all those years ago) and become Prime Minister, dominating the polity, we can expect them to aid men with an Office devoted to men's advacement.

Pull the other one.

And pynchme when when all this comes to pass.

By the way, when you have broken through the imaginary Glass Ceiling, pick up a shovel and join the chaps in the real glass cellar.
Posted by Amfortas, Monday, 1 March 2010 9:02:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amfortas: <"By the way, when you have broken through the imaginary Glass Ceiling, pick up a shovel and join the chaps in the real glass cellar.">

Would that be the same glass cellar where women work for nix?

You know, doing all that unimportant stuff like caring for kiddies, disabled and elderly folk ?

Sok Amfortas - We can bat this back and forth ad nauseum. Do you really think it's worth going over all this old stuff again? I don't mind if you insist - but really, don't we have better ways to spend our time?

(I think we know each other's arguments pretty well don't we?)

I rather like you - I'd prefer a truce for now if you can swing it.
Posted by Pynchme, Monday, 1 March 2010 9:17:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Truce, Pynchme?

OK.

But I will search for the stats on child-care workers dying in industrial accidents like miners do. No, that would be a waste of time.

I won't argue with you because that's a waste of time too.
Posted by Amfortas, Monday, 1 March 2010 9:47:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
PS.

I rather like you too.

:)
Posted by Amfortas, Monday, 1 March 2010 9:59:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I've only just got to this article and I am somewhat perplexed by the strength of the attacks on it. Brian has most likely added his own color, some of it gained by talking to a close friend of one of the women he speaks of. He attributes views to an establishment that was from my reading on the matter often sexist and classist in terms which fit commonly held views of attitudes of the times.

I think that the idea that men are denigrated by the article is seriously overstated. The women are praised because they achieved things which were unusual for women of their time in a cultural setting which was probably quite unfriendly to it. Perhaps Brian could have looked into the pressure the women faced from other women to conform but I think his thoughts were elsewhere when he wrote the article.

Those who felt denigrated might take some encouragement from Brian's observation -
"before Greer was born there were women sharing wilderness adventures with men who were their admiring team mates."

eg not all men are bastards, not all men of the time saw women in negative terms or required that they be kept in their place.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 1 March 2010 10:56:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
pynchme,

I can sort my own messes out. I picked a bad partner, and took too long to realise I couldn't fix her. My problem, and as I said I didn't want her arrested, I just didn't need to be stigmatised on top of the problems I was having.

If I had called the police, who do you think they'd arrest? The all powerful man, or the poor little abuse victim. That's what the adverts perpetuate.

If my view of the services available is distorted, I am probably not alone given my impression of the attitude towards domestic violence was coloured by the dominant propaganda of the time.

I have a science degree with a major in Statistics. I remember the social science students really struggling with the mathematics involved even in first year. I've seen the level most get to, and it gets about as far as understanding a normal curve and a p-value. Most don't even grasp the difference between correlation and causation. They do a few first year subjects and a marginal pass is all that is required for their degree.

If I had any confidence whatsoever in yours or antiseptics intellectual honesty I would bother reading some of the research. But my time is too valuable to me to bother searching through research only to find, surprise surprise, the conclusions you two make are bullsh1t.

Besides, survey stats will never peak my interest. It's all in the wording and sample group, and people lie. Like in polls, what people say and what they do are two different things.

If people had asked me at the time had I ever been a victim of domestic violence, I would have said no. My partner would probably have said yes. Shows the accuracy of these type of stats. Also shows the power of the propaganda.

'feminists have no trouble at all seeing violence from women '

Rubbish. Your Flood link reckons any claims of that nature are just a tactic from men's groups to minimise male violence.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 9:33:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq:"If I had any confidence whatsoever in yours or antiseptics intellectual honesty"

Now that hurts. i do my best to provide current stats and current links to the most credible research I can find. Where possible I go to prime sources to check the data. I do understand the difference between correlation and causation and I do my best to understand the figures, both as presented and via my own interpretations. I have some confidence in my ability to do that thanks to my own studies and my work background

I don't go to the nearest "pro-feminist" website run by a self-serving opportunist to find stuff that I know will support my position because it's been carefully tailored to do just that in order to support his claim to a seat on the feminist gravy train.

The trouble with social "research" is that it has largely been the preserve of second-raters and the emotionally damaged. Smart people go into law or medicine or science or commerce. The rest do social studies. As you say, apart from the woeful capacity to grasp basic statistical methods, many of these people are conscientiously doing advocacy, not research or work that is justified by the demands of a clientele willing to pay for it.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 10:00:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert

<<< Perhaps Brian could have looked into the pressure the women faced from other women to conform but I think his thoughts were elsewhere when he wrote the article. >>>

Good point, there has always been pressure from women for women to maintain the status quo, just as there are men who pressure other men to conform to a stereotype. I think this behaviour deserves its own topic thread as it is way beyond what I think was Brian's intent; to proffer praise to a couple of outstanding women.

Therefore, I accept Brian's article with the good intent with which it was offered. Keep up the great work.
Posted by Severin, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 10:41:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
r0bert,

I think stev nailed it...

'Of course, Brian has no actual evidence that these women felt controlled, alienated, or anything else. It is a possibility not an actuality (to use your language).

Instead, he chooses to rely on a commonly-used rhetorical or narrative device that is designed to inflame the faithful's indignities and thus heighten their appreciation for the heroic achievements of the central characters. My simple observation was that this male bashing was unnecessary and unhelpful. '

Except the last sentence. I think really, it's just the 'Journey' he needed to describe. It's necessary for our full appreciation of the journey he wanted to get across. It's even 'apposite'!
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 10:55:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq, nice use of the word 'apposite' (i.e. apt or pertinent).

I think it is valid to describe someone's journey by describing the hurdles involved *if the hurdles were actually there*.

It's like embellishing the story of Apollo 13 to make the return journey more dangerous so that the actual achievements appear more heroic. Like, "let's have the computer fail or oxygen leak out", when in reality it didn't happen that way.

Brian has no idea if these women felt controlled or alienated by flabby men. These details were added as props to raise the hurdles and inflame an emotional response. It wouldn't be acceptable in a non-fiction account of Apollo 13 and it's not acceptable here.

Of course, raising imaginary hurdles happens all the time in entertainment - film, TV, novels. We could classify Brian's work in the category of entertainment, bio-tainment if you will, instead of non-fiction. I can live with that.

But then is it still acceptable to create caricatures of men of that era based on some archetype of the "typical" 1920s male? I seem to recall that negative stereotypes of women in contemporary (fictional) media have been decried by feminists in the past. Do we extend the same courtesy to men?
Posted by Stev, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 5:10:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Houellebecq and Stev Brian claims to have been good friends with a friend of one of the women. That does not ensure that the account is accurate but it also means that he has better sources than we do. I've just realized that I somehow missed the second page of the article on first reading and it contains the following

"That condemnation of lesbians was driven more by the women of the establishment than by the men."

I don't think that this piece is written as an attack on men, by reacting so strongly it's diminishes the impact when we address serious attacks on men. Brian has written a piece about two women who were very different for their time. He has not just singled the male establishment out.

The article closes with the comment "Germaine - now you need to write a book about women who are not under the control of anybody."

Give Brian a break and enjoy the piece as a celebration of those who step outside the mold and a recognition of the cost that can be part of doing so.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 6:07:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""The article closes with the comment "Germaine - now you need to write a book about women who are not under the control of anybody.""

Funny that should be said, because she did. It was called her PhD. The book 'The Female Eunuch" was the anti-thesis, a refutation of a thesis which is commonly written along with a 'literary' PhD so that the arguements can be subjected to scrutiny.

Germaine Greer's feminist publishers paid her handsomely for the anti-thesis and the PhD was put in Embargo. No-one is permitted to read it.

So she had her cake (the 'Dr') and ate it too (the cash and fame) and has dined out on both ever since.
Posted by Amfortas, Tuesday, 2 March 2010 9:42:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
stev, embellishment is the essence of story telling.

Maybe it's Info-tainment.

'But then is it still acceptable to create caricatures of men of that era based on some archetype of the "typical" 1920s male? I seem to recall that negative stereotypes of women in contemporary (fictional) media have been decried by feminists in the past. Do we extend the same courtesy to men?'

Good point. I suppose I for one am used to this kind of phenomena. I don't think you can expect feminists to exhibit equality. It's just not what they're about. The very term 'fem-inism' should be a clue.

'So she had her cake (the 'Dr') and ate it too (the cash and fame) and has dined out on both ever since.'

Good for her.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 3 March 2010 8:08:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
""Good for her""

Sure, let's cheer for the fleas of the Black Plague while we are being generous.
Posted by Amfortas, Wednesday, 3 March 2010 9:23:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy