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 > Female opinions count > Comments

Female opinions count : Comments

By Sarah Russell, published 30/11/2015

The Australian is renowned for both ideological and political uniformity. It is also a national newspaper in which male voices often dominate the opinion pages.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
Q, has the land of OZ been getting sadder, angrier, sicker & poorer ever since 1972? when we began listening to women?
Posted by imacentristmoderate, Monday, 30 November 2015 8:35:10 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
Absolutely! And not before time!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 30 November 2015 9:12:06 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
Once truth counted now it depends on who says it. Turnbull is a hero because of a vote on same sex 'marriage', sticking to Abbotts boat policy and gw hoax policies. Same policies, one man is demonised, one loved by the latte sippers. Unfortunately abc does itself no favours by feminist such as Caro, Wong etc who can't think beyong a pathetic feminist narrative. No wonder the Islamist laugh at us while using the feminist/leftist for their agenda.
Posted by runner, Monday, 30 November 2015 9:49:41 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
I should of added that their are some really good female journalist like janet albrechtsen who are objective and willing to look for the truth on issues. They are pretty rare as the 'group think'previals especially if you a cushy high paying tax funded job with the national broadcaster.
Posted by runner, Monday, 30 November 2015 9:53:26 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
Janet Albrechtsen in the Australian more than compensates for all the the poor, hard done by girlies who cannot get a word in, as the whingers believe. The lady mostly makes more sense than the fashionably head-shaved men, and she looks a damn sight better. There are a couple of amazons of the Left who pump out enough guff for those of their gender who are like-minded. This gender war crap is passe. There are plenty of opportunities for women in the enlightened society. Some them need to realise that they are simply not up to the task, just like some men.
Posted by ttbn, Monday, 30 November 2015 10:40:10 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
Thanks for explaining why it is I prefer The Australian to other newspapers Sarah. And I am a woman! There are fewer feminist writers re hashing their tired old ideology (boring, boring)...Chris Kenny was spot on in bemoaning journalists at the ABC who "all dress in black, park (and lock) their bicycles, lament the horrors of climate change, talk down the terror threat, mock Tony Abbott, barrack for gay marriage, laud Julia Gillard, pillory Rupert Murdoch, demand open borders, scoff at national debt and encourage tax rises". You don't seem to know about all the people laughing out here at his apt description !! Can't you just see them unsaddling their bicycles...and I love a good bicycle ride...I just don't lecture everyone else about getting on their bikes !! If I believed in cloning I'd opt to clone Janet Albrechtsen and Angela Shanahan. Maybe Peter Van Onselen, who can't control his obsessive hatred of Tony Abbott ( there has got to be a story there! ) good feminist that he is, in a sacrifice to gender equality,could give up his permanent spot to Miranda Devine and we would have a great weekend read...and like the adults we are, make up our own minds from differing opinions,experience and reliable research.
Posted by Denny, Monday, 30 November 2015 11:52:52 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
OP, <Chris [Kenny] argues that political or ideological diversity in the media is more important than gender equality. He believes the political right does not get sufficient airtime on the public broadcaster.

Chris bemoans journalists at the ABC who "all dress in black, park (and lock) their bicycles, lament the horrors of climate change, talk down the terror threat, mock Tony Abbott, barrack for gay marriage, laud Julia Gillard, pillory Rupert Murdoch, demand open borders, scoff at national debt and encourage tax rises".>

Chris Kenny is right. The ABC is the bastion of political correctness. Where would (say) gay marriage be without Tony Jones and others beavering away to give it oxygen over all these years?

He was kind not to mention the 'Gotcha', adversarial interviewing the ABC reserves for all those it disapproves of.
Posted by onthebeach, Monday, 30 November 2015 12:00:54 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
Even the Grand Helmsman of China, Mao Zedong opininated "Women hold up half of the sky!" . . . . perhaps we need a 60:40 ratio of women to get some 'sense' in parliament from time to time? However don't follow the 'parliament' of the Chinese Communist Party with Chinese characteristics which really is a charade about so-claimed democracy and don't you worry about freedom of speech, the recent banning of Miss Canada from being welcome in the Miss Universe titles held in China due to her membership of outlawed China Falun Gong, nor freedom of religion [as long as it is vetted by the Party and does not disrupt the social order], continuing organ 'harvesting' from convicted and jailed Falun Gong members who are operated on while alive, etc. Just ask our leaders to encourage China to buy more iron ore then we can all hop in the open cuts and emulate an 'ostrich with its head in the sand' or a pollie or a journo with either an axe to grind and/or a 'con job' to sweep under the carpet . . .
Posted by Citizens Initiated Action, Monday, 30 November 2015 1:58:17 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
Informed, well-expressed and interesting opinions count. The gender of the author is almost always immaterial, unless the subject matter is directly related to gender issues.

I read Judith Sloan’s views on the economy because she is a capable and articulate economist, not because she presents a female perspective on economics (and I expect she’d be horrified at the idea)
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 30 November 2015 3:14:40 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
But what about the elephant in the room CitizenInitiatedAction..the gendercide of girls in China ..since we are talking about discrimination against them...Surely a graver case than that of the Canadian Beauty Queen you mentioned? From Reggie Littlejohn of www.womensrightswithoutfrontiers.org

"Shortly before China announced its move to a two-child policy, Chinese economist Professor Xie Zuoshi of Shejiang University, offered a controversial solution to China’s gender imbalance. Xie estimated that by the year 2020,there will be 40 million more males than females.These males, whom he terms “guanggun” or “bare branches”, will never be able to find wives or have children. Xie sees this as an economic problem with an economic solution: Allow men to share wives..Professor Xie’s proposal is an outrage and underscores the fact that the largest social experiment in the history of the world – the One-Child Policy –has resulted in an unmitigated demographic and social disaster. Xie’s proposal ignores the fact that the reason there are 30 to 40 million more males living in China than females is that the females were selectively aborted – the ultimate form of discrimination against women. Now, Xie offers a ham-handed supply and demand analysis, with women as the ‘goods’. The women who survived this ongoing gendercide epidemic are expected to be wives to several men "
If I was Sarah Russell I would be writing about this, not trying to drum up an issue of gender imbalance among the writers in The Australian !
Posted by Denny, Monday, 30 November 2015 3:26:10 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 the comments re the imbalance of females to males. As you would know this has had long cultural underpinnings and the policies of the ruling party only exacerbated the problem. I don't agree with it but as China would intone, 'It is an internal affair'
Another 'elephant in the room' in many nations relying on China to buy their exports, particularly Australia, is that it is deemed in 'the national interest', to sell out morality for economic benefit - some may call this economic/moral prostitution . . . however it is not new. Witness also the apathetic vested 'national self interests' of Australia and the rest of the world, led by USA President John Kennedy selling out the West Papuans to be 'absorbed' into Indonesia completed with a UN sanctioned 1,200 representative voting charade of the West Papuans being 'persuaded with dire threats' that it was in their interests to vote for their nation to be taken over by our 'friendly' neighbour Indonesia. So much for ethical actions on behalf of all of our national leaders who blithely echo John Howard's comments to Alan Shock Jock Jones "Do you want to upset the 200 million Indonesians on our doorstep?" America proclaims, when it suits them, "In God We Trust!" [not firepower] . . . Show me your faith and I'll show you my action!
Posted by Citizens Initiated Action, Monday, 30 November 2015 4:53:53 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
If gender is not all that important, imagine if the ratio operated in reverse.

That is ... if 81% women and 18% men wrote the Australian's commentary in the days after the Paris attacks.

That is ...if ALL the expert commentary on terrorism was provided by female terrorism experts, not male terrorism experts.

That is ... if 14 out of 15 letters to the editor were written by women and only 1 by a man.

That is ... if female opinions accounted for 84% of commentaries on national security (male opinions 16%), 87% on international politics (and male opinions 13%), 86% on social action and 89% on the economy (and male opinions 14% and 11% respectively).

Such an overwhelming dominance of female reporting and opinion over male reporting and opinion - roughly 8:1 - would be no cause for concern, now would it? In fact, it wouldn't deserve even being remarked on.

All that REALLY matters is the individual journalist's competence and merit, not all this silly nonsense about gender ... doesn't it? Hmmmm?
Posted by Killarney, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 6:22:33 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
There is an interesting book titled;

Spin Sisters, How women of the media sell unhappiness and Liberalism to the women of America.

Myrna Blyth

Quote;

"Blyth admits that, as editor in chief of Ladies' Home Journal, she helped create "the negative message of victimization and unhappiness that bombards women," complete with attention-grabbing headlines about weight problems or sexual dysfunction. But she is not taking the blame by herself: "I am certain that there is a liberal tilt in the media aimed especially at women"; that tilt, Blyth argues, helps make modern women unhappy. She explains that women's magazines (and TV) have a vested interest in female discontent because an unhappy woman is more likely to spend a few bucks in search of a panacea for her psychological, sexual, or physical ills. Further, Blyth bashes the Left on grounds that the Spin Sisters (her name for the female media elite) need women to think of themselves as victims if they are going to look for help from a liberal government." Unquote.

Plus the women of the media also believe that every other woman thinks or should think the same way that they do.
Posted by Wolly B, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 7:54:17 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
There are at least five regular female contributors in The Australian. They are mostly more hard nosed conservative or free market anti-union than the usual run of male contributors.

I do agree that the females write on average better considered artlcles. I always pause to read an article when I see their name at the top, although often I don't agree. But far better than the slop put out by many of the female contributors to the Fairfax press.
Posted by Outrider, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 9:20:52 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
Instead of "female opinions count", this is itself a flaw, as really all opinions count, regardless if a person agrees with a viewpoint or not, as what flows from that, is that there will be a viewpoint of "male opinions count", in where:

"The Australian will be renowned for both its ideological and political uniformity being a national newspaper in which male voices often dominate the opinion pages."

Many people I know don't buy newspapers anymore, and would rather put a view on this page, be that person female or male (after all there are only so many letters, you can cram into a letters to the editors page) and with newspapers, advertisements win over stories. This site does not discriminate and many people also express an opinion elsewhere.

So referring to the Australian newspaper (owned by a major corporation), and using that piece of paper as some sort of case for winning an argument, is irrelevant in the context in terms of viewpoint expression.

After all, isn't the author here (Sarah Russell), putting a comment on this site - to encourage further discussion? I would argue that is a lot better (and intelligent) in terms of scope, than using mainstream media.
Posted by NathanJ, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 11:00:17 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
Without a doubt female opinions count. In a married relationship, it is her opinion about the which house to buy, or which car to drive, determines the purchase.

There as been a trend by female commentators, to deride, or to discount male opinions. They use the word "Mansplaining".
Posted by Wolly B, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 11:18:19 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
Seems like a plausible thesis to me.
Remember too that most of the Oz propaganda hacks are fully paid up supporters of the Orwellian open ended "war on terror". And many of them are right-wing "catholics".
The intrinsic greatness of woman in the guise of Shakti or She has been essentially destroyed by the patriarchal "culture" promoted by the the dreadfully sane essentially psychotic ghouls that now control the social and cultural agendas of the entire world.
This destruction has reduced all of life to scandalous garbage - male-reduced, monotonous, petty point-scoring exchanges concerns and rivalries.
Everything to do with Shakti or the domain of feeling and the senses, and pleasurable association with the feeling sensuous domain has been corrupted and aggressively opposed. WOMAN is opposed - that which woman IS, that which she incarnates, that which her pattern is about.

What is needed is the restoration of the Pleasure Dome Principle as the principal context of human life. The complete restoration of it. The liberation of the human disposition from the opposition to woman, to Shakti, to feeling, to art of all the senses, glorifying and turned toward the Divine condition of existence. Done in temple, done in bed, done at meals, done in community.

If you are full of Shakti, full of love, full of art, and all the yin that woman IS, combine with it, then the male of yang force is made whole, is gentled, is integrated with what it refuses via its dramatization mentalizing and physical hardness, and brute intents relative to what appears to be the controlling force, the force of nature, the force of the cosmos, the force of what is simply arising in each moment. The talking heads at the Oz are all male-like, utterly defended against it. All those grim and monotonously thinking or bullying their way through life.

The usual male sexing is a destruction of woman, a denial of the feminine force, of Shakti, of energy, of delight, of feeling, of Happiness Itself.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 11:27:03 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
'Remember too that most of the Oz propaganda hacks are fully paid up supporters of the Orwellian open ended "war on terror". And many of them are right-wing "catholics".'

obviouusly Daffy never watches the tax payer funded national broadcasters who are apologisist of Islam, promoters of porn and haters of anything decent.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 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
"The Australian will be renowned for both its ideological and political uniformity being a national newspaper.
Is that your unbiased opinion.
Murdoch had Abbott doing the tango, and where did that get Murdoch. When it became clear Abbott was short lived he went against his idol.
Murdoch’s plans for Abbott unraveled big time. Abbott’s legacy is a cluster of radical political parties and anti muslim protesters
Posted by 579, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 12:02:41 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
Make a Pleasure Dome. Make true art again which requires a great exercise in integrity. make it with all the senses. Make environment and the totality of life out of it.
The temple and the place of pleasurable embrace and of a community of right life, is a place of art, in every detail- the senses embraced pleasurably as women teach men, IF men will respond. Women teach the lesson that the realm of the senses, the domain of the senses, is the domain of feeling, to be organized pleasurably. The lesson of the male, having embraced woman, having embraced the domain of feeling and the senses, is that ALL of this must be considered in the context of the divine Reality, and oriented to IT.

The settlement is the woman make the palatial bedrooms of the community, and the places of delight, and on that basis the men make the temple. The men insist on the temple, the women insist on the bedroom. Everybody thus agrees that the temple and bedroom, and everything in between, is an immense Pleasure Dome as the core of life. Then the business of life has an entirely different logic to it. Its no longer made of competitive sock-horn male-like egos trying to figure out the "problem" and to control the world aggressively. Men and women all sublimed and oriented in that Pleasure Dome to Divine Communion, the entire pattern od daily life immediately possesses a totally different logic that that which is now making (and inevitably) destroying the world.

No more obnoxious arm wrestling and goring of humankind and the natural world, with nothing but sheer stupidity.

To have respect for woman there must be simultaneously a respect of the natural world because it is all She or Shakti.

The woman is the very source, the substance, the sign of art, of feeling. Women prepared to be women, not virgins, or reluctant objects.

Male is afraid of the the female now. Always has been in fact. The irrational opposition to women being priests in the "catholic" church is an archetypal example of this.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 12:03:53 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
Well Daffy Duck you certainly have a 'thing' about us men . . . Just to let you know as the father of three daughters and a husband of a treasured wife [as per Matthew 6:21] I certainly ain't afraid of women or the feminine psyche! . . . I suggest that as some men are bastar-s and thump females for whatever reason there are some women who emotionally thump males . . .

If the Pleasure Dome Communion is all about love and respect it seem to line up pretty well with what I value as a 'mere male'.

Was the slogan "Workers of the world unite, we alone know what is right!" unfortunately wrongly reported by a self-seeking journo of the male persuasion when it could have been instead: "Women of the world unite, we alone know what is right!"? Sexism is a terrible affliction imposed by those who fear rather than love . . . read 1 Corninthians 13:4-13 of the 'questionable'? New Testament if you have an Open mind? The old world is rapidly changing . . . "Get out of the new world if you can't lend a hand . . . the times they are a'changing!" - by whoever wrote it male or female.
Posted by Citizens Initiated Action, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 2:40:11 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
Well certainly there are few women's opinions that count at the current CHOGM being held in Paris.
I noted in the photo line-up of all the delegates and dignitaries today that there were very few women standing up there.

Maybe with the way the world is currently running, an increase in the number of women at the helm can only improve matters. Certainly it is time they were given the chance...
Posted by Suseonline, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 9:38:32 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
WollyB

'There as been a trend by female commentators, to deride, or to discount male opinions. They use the word "Mansplaining".'

The concept of ‘mansplaining’ is not about men expressing an opinion. That is the MRA/anti-feminist distortion of the term. (Ironically, this distortion of the term is in itself ‘mansplaining’!)

The actual feminist use of the term refers to the tendency for men to assume, in the context of a patriarchal culture – where the collective voice of men is elevated above the collective voice of women – that not only do they know more than women about any subject merely by virtue of being male, but that they know more about WOMEN’S EXPERIENCE than women do.

Mansplaining is not a habit confined to men – women also tend to mansplain to other women about women’s experience.

‘Mansplaining’ refers specifically to instances when women are talking about their experiences and challenges as women – and a man tries to tell them why their perceptions are wrong, misplaced or overblown, or how they should have acted differently.

Virtually every comment on this thread so far has elements of 'mansplaining' the writer's perceptions and arguments about the significant lack of female voices in the media and its affect on the wider society.
Posted by Killarney, Tuesday, 1 December 2015 10:40:02 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
Daffy Duck

You have a somewhat over-idealised view of women, but I get your drift.

The problem is not so much about men controlling the world over the last few millennia, but the fact that ONE GENDER has had virtually full control over that period of time. I'm sure that, by some accident of history, had women controlled the world over that same period, we would be in an equally disastrous mess.

It's not rocket science. Nature did create two genders, and they need to live in harmony and balance - maintaining equal control over their own societies. Giving men almost complete control over human affairs because of their superior physical strength, while pushing women into the purdah of the domestic sphere and keeping them almost completely dependent on men for their livelihood and social respectability, was bound to end in chaos and destruction.
Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 2 December 2015 3:12:49 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
Esther Vilar wrote "The Manipulated Man"

Quote
"Vilar writes, "Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina." The book contends that young boys are encouraged to associate their masculinity with their ability to be sexually intimate with a woman, and that a woman can control a man by socially empowering herself to be the gate-keeper to his sense of masculinity. In addition, Vilar states that this has happened and has been going on for some time.

The author says that social definitions and norms, such as the idea that women are weak, are constructed by women with their needs in mind. Vilar explains how it works; if women are viewed as weak, less is expected of them therefore they are given more leeway in society than men."

Unquote
Posted by Wolly B, Thursday, 3 December 2015 5:38:22 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
More wealthy, white woman whinging (such a first world anxiety). You have most of the "Journalist" degrees, use 'em.
Posted by McCackie, Friday, 4 December 2015 7:39:05 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
WollyB

Quoting Vilar: 'As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina'

Unbelievable in its grotesqueness! Honestly, even after decades of being a feminist, the level of misogyny in so-called 'advanced' Western society - among both men and women - still has the capacity to leave me gobsmacked. How any man could ever hope to have a halfway decent relationship with a woman, while subscribing to such sick views as this - i.e. that male-female relationships are just one big vagina trading market - is anyone's guess. But the MRA movement thrives on this kind of rhetoric and then reserves the right to blame it all on women when their relationships inevitably go belly up.
Posted by Killarney, Friday, 4 December 2015 8:06:29 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
Ho hum, more sexist bigotry and hate speech from the feminists, situation normal.

Killarney, how is what you are complaining about any worse than the feminist movements belief that sexism is okay so long as it's feminists doing it to men, that forcing people into sex-specific gender stereotypes backed by aggressive force so long as it's feminists doing it to men, that it's okay to exploit men as money objects, that men are just footstools women to climb up on.

What about your belief that women are entitled to all the protection and support of patriarchy and all the privileges and double standards of feminism?

You believe that, don't you?

If it's about gender equality, provide proof of the activism you have personally taken against the much higher death rate of men at work. Have you sought "gender equality" in that, and if not, why not?

Also what have you personally done to employ more women opinion journalists with your own money?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Saturday, 5 December 2015 11:55:22 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
JKJ

‘Killarney, how is what you are complaining about any worse than the feminist movements belief that sexism is okay so long as it's feminists doing it to men …’

Because it’s not feminists ‘doing it to men’; it’s the patriarchy that is ‘doing it to men’. The higher death tolls among men – from workplace accidents to suicides to road fatalities to the military and war to workaholism – are the product of a patriarchy that pushes men into dangerous an unhealthy activities. Under patriarchal systems, male egos become all bound up in the pursuit of physical dominance, which creates a safety hazard for all men everywhere.

The disclaimer that feminism does not criticise men, but the partriarchal system that conditions men to stereotypical behaviours and attitudes, has been in place for half a century. It’s not feminism’s fault that many men refuse to see it as such.

‘Also what have you personally done to employ more women opinion journalists with your own money?’

Well, I don’t have that much money, but I’m open to suggestions.
Posted by Killarney, Monday, 7 December 2015 2:54:06 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
>Quoting Vilar: 'As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina'

>Unbelievable in its grotesqueness! Honestly, even after decades of being a feminist, the level of misogyny in so-called 'advanced' Western society

>Posted by Killarney, Friday, 4 December 2015 8:06:29 PM

Esther Vilar is a woman, and I quoted what 'she' wrote.

Not long ago, the idea that was strongly promoted, is that if men did more 'housework' that they would have more luck in the bedroom. So how is this any different from Esther Vilars (a woman) much more blunt writing?
Posted by Wolly B, Monday, 7 December 2015 2:01:46 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
Quote

>it’s the patriarchy that is ‘doing it to men’. to the military and war to workaholism – are the product of a patriarchy that pushes men into dangerous an unhealthy activities. Under patriarchal systems, male egos become all bound up in the pursuit of physical dominance, which creates a safety hazard for all men everywhere.

The disclaimer that feminism does not criticise men, but the partriarchal system that conditions men to stereotypical behaviours and attitudes, has been in place for half a century. It’s not feminism’s fault that many men refuse to see it as such.

Posted by Killarney, Monday, 7 December 2015 2:54:06 AM

Unquote.

Quote

The White Feather Brigade

Many women liked this idea because it allowed them to help the British army and to take part in the recruitment process, while promoting patriotism and fulfilling duties to the rest of the country. No longer were they powerless as thousands of men, including their loved ones, were dying in battle, but they were able to strengthen the army by recruiting more men and increasing the numbers; which also increased their influence and control in society. However, while the women enjoyed their new feeling of control, resentment towards them was growing. The disgrace that they brought to men that were both rightfully and wrongfully given a white feather and extremist patriotism they displayed decreased the community’s view of them.

- Compton Mackenzie, a solder and author, viewed the White Feather Movement as "idiotic young women who were using white feathers to get rid of boyfriends of whom they were tired." Many people viewed this campaign as very dramatic and not for the right purposes; women taking advantage of the power they were given.

Unquote

So what part did women willingly play in this Patriarchal conspiracy?
Posted by Wolly B, Monday, 7 December 2015 2:19:48 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
To concentrate purely on Patriarchy as being the root of all evil, distorts the picture and past. Both genders played a role in it construction.

Lets look at history. Firstly tribes survived by each person playing a role in making a contribution to the survival of the group, then in the farming families each member again played a role in the survival of the family group,

The industrial revolution came along and this is when the majority of the labor force, made up of mostly men and boys leave the home, apart from wars, the industrial revolution shifted the vast majority of males out of the home.

Employed Women and girls were the first to get labor laws to protect them.

The industrial revolution has lead us to the standard of living we have today (positive and negative)

The death toll in industrial accidents were horrendous, not only for men, but women as well.

However one of the problems we face when looking back at the past, is judging the past by today's standards and values. This then creates a perception bias as well as values conflict.
Posted by Wolly B, Monday, 7 December 2015 2:23:49 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
Killarney

We don't live in a society in which men rule in their capacity as fathers, so looks like you're just setting up a false standard.

What's patriarchy supposed to mean? And patriarchy as opposed to what? A society in which everyone is privileged from having to engage in productive activity?

Anyway, please stop evading and actually join issue:

1.
What about your belief that women are entitled to all the protection and support of patriarchy and all the privileges and double standards of feminism?

You believe that, don't you?

2.
If it's about gender equality, provide proof of the activism you have personally taken against the much higher death rate of men at work.
Same with you, Sarah.

Have you sought "gender equality" in that, and if not, why not? Surely from a gender-neutral perspective, people dying would have to be more urgent and important than people getting indoor jobs with no heavy lifing in the opinion industry?

Also Sarah what have you personally done to employ more women opinion journalists with your own money? Provide proof.

3.
"Well, I don’t have that much money, but I’m open to suggestions."

Why should other people who don't even agree with you do it, if you aren't prepared to agree to do it yourself?

Practise what you preach?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 8 December 2015 5:01:04 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
Watching the current crop of News readers, Current Affairs, and reporters on air, it has become a game of spot the male.

I think all weather reports are presented by eye candy.
Posted by Wolly B, Tuesday, 8 December 2015 6:48:08 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
WollyB

You have raised several points, which I don’t have the time or interest in quibbling about. However, one issue I will comment on …

Every time that feminists point out that the patriarchy sends men to war, not women, we get the oh so predictable White Feather Brigade response.

We hear a lot about men being devastated with shame when those nasty harpies handed them the dreaded feather in public. Perhaps a lot were … if so, they were idiots. However, just as many men laughed it off and cracked jokes about having enough feathers to fill a mattress etc.

One example of women pressuring men to go to war does not prove anything – especially as there were just as many women at the time who campaigned against the war and conscription.
Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 9 December 2015 2:49:46 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
JKJ

‘What about your belief that women are entitled to all the protection and support of patriarchy and all the privileges and double standards of feminism?’

Both women and men are entitled to protection and support from the societies in which they live. If you mean that women have been traditionally protected by men from the violence of other men, that’s another issue altogether. The gender violence by men against women should be acknowledged and dealt with as a form of domination (which is the feminist stance) – not as ‘just the way things are’.

‘Surely from a gender-neutral perspective, people dying would have to be more urgent and important than people getting indoor jobs with no heavy lifing in the opinion industry?’

High rates of job fatalities and health risks in certain occupations have been dealt with over the years by the union movement and health and safety authorities. As WollyB pointed out, the safety and health hazards that women faced were addressed in the 19th and early 20th centuries, along with those that men faced (but I don’t agree that they were given priority over men).

The argument that women are protected from dangerous jobs does not stand up to scrutiny when you consider how men have actively excluded women from dangerous occupations – military combat, mining, building etc – which are also among the most highly paid. There are also many health risks in the low-paid caring professions – that are dominated by women. What about the high emotional toll on women working in hospices and hospitals. And when it comes to heavy lifting, try working for a week caring for an elderly person with dementia.

As for what I’ve personally done to change the working status of women, I’ve done heaps. I’ve written articles (under pseudonyms, because of the rampant vitriol targeted at feminist writers) and worked in refuge shelters and rape crisis centres. I don’t have a million or two to donate to women’s’ causes, but then, do you have unlimited wealth to donate to men’s rights?
Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 9 December 2015 2:55:56 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
>Every time that feminists point out that the patriarchy sends men to war, not women, we get the oh so predictable White Feather Brigade response.

>We hear a lot about men being devastated with shame when those nasty harpies handed them the dreaded feather in public. Perhaps a lot were … if so, they were idiots.

>One example of women pressuring men to go to war does not prove anything – >Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 9 December 2015 2:49:46 AM

Killarney, you wrote that the men who felt SHAME were IDIOTS. Is that not derogatory?

Is that not the very same tactic that is being tried in this very day and age. (shaming)

>Emmeline Pankhurst also declared her support for the war effort and began to demand military conscription for men (which was not introduced until 1916).

>Shaming men into political or military action is not unique to the tactics used by the women of wartime Britain. The idea carries all the way back to ancient times and is evidenced by the comical yet poignant depiction put forth by Aristophanes in Lysistrata. In World War I alone, both a women’s contingent in Russia and in the United States utilized the same tactics to sway men into military service. It is the timing and momentum of “The White Feather Brigade” and the anti-masculine sentiment which was attached to the “feathering” that ties this wartime activity to the feminist movement.

Killarney please note,;

Shaming men happened even in Ancient times. So it was not a one off as you try to dismiss it.
Posted by Wolly B, Thursday, 10 December 2015 7:40:50 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
By October of 1914, Christabel Pankhurst was touring America in an effort to convince her audience to enter the War with the Allies (Mitchell 50). When the first Russian Revolution took place, Emmeline Pankhurst journeyed to Russia to dissuade them from “retiring” from the War (Pankhurst, Sylvia 594).
Posted by Wolly B, Thursday, 10 December 2015 7:42:13 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
I should also add that the reason for the white feather brigade was too ENCOURAGE men to enlist.

Men were also resistant to the idea of going to war, Why else would the politicians introduce compulsory conscription?
Posted by Wolly B, Thursday, 10 December 2015 1:05:45 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
Sylvia Pankhurst actively campaigned against the war and became estranged from her mother over her stance. There were numerous women's peace groups throughout the world during WWI - including the Women's Peace Army in Australia and the Women's Peace Party in US - and at least half the suffragettes in Britain campaigned against the war.

Well over 1,000 women from 16 nations, on both sides of the war, attended the International Congress of Women at The Hague in April 1915 to protest the war and call for a peaceful end to the conflict. The congress initiated The Women's International League for Peace and Freedom, which is still active today in 37 countries.

'It is the timing and momentum of “The White Feather Brigade” and the anti-masculine sentiment which was attached to the “feathering” that ties this wartime activity to the feminist movement.'

Except that the feminist movement is NOT anti-masculine and never was. That's the most overused anti-feminist trope in existence and is typical of the saying that a lie repeated often enough eventually passes for truth. The women's groups mentioned above, which all campaigned against the war and conscription, were all feminist.

Shaming men into going to war is a purely patriarchal method of psychological warfare. Indeed, it's the antithesis of feminism.
Posted by Killarney, Saturday, 12 December 2015 5:25:39 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
Posted by Killarney, Saturday, 12 December 2015 5:25:39 AM

So on one hand we have a group of women promoting war, and on the other hand another group of women protesting against war.

>Except that the feminist movement is NOT anti-masculine and never was.
Posted by Killarney, Saturday, 12 December 2015 5:25:39 AM

Yet Patriarchy gets blamed for a lot of things.

When men challenge and disagree with feminist ideology and dogma, they get labeled as being 'misogynistic'.

I could post the usual quotes, from the old school feminists. But a few new subtle put downs are now appearing such as

manspreading
mansplaining

There was a hashtag #killmen that was being used by feminist group until that was outed.

Dahpne Patai, Heterohobia,
Who Stole Femnism.
Lying a Room of One's Own.

When I read George Orwell's 'Animal Farm" I cannot help but think of how this story seem to be so similar to how Feminism is behaving.
Posted by Wolly B, Saturday, 12 December 2015 5:54:45 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
WollyB

‘When men challenge and disagree with feminist ideology and dogma, they get labeled as being 'misogynistic'.’

That depends on the nature of the criticism. If the criticism is fair, feminists respond with fair responses. If the criticism is based on ‘feminazi’ rhetoric about women taking over the world or enslaving men, then ‘misogynistic’ labels are appropriate.

‘I could post the usual quotes, from the old school feminists. But a few new subtle put downs are now appearing such as

manspreading
mansplaining’

Are these simply ‘put downs’ of men or are they identifying common behaviours that men engage in to dominate and intimidate women?

I have often had to deal with men ‘manspreading’ on public transport, forcing me to shrink into an involuntary reduced space. And I have often had to deal with ‘mansplaining’ from men, which dictates to me about gender experience – everything from the evolutionary biological ‘fact’ that men need a lot more sex and many more sexual partners than women do, to the socio-biological ‘fact’ that feminists are just ugly women who can’t get a man.

As for #killallmen, no one has been able to identify who or what created this hashtag. All indicators point to the 4chan hoaxers, who set up provocative, politically incorrect hashtags to attract clickbait, while being able to remain anonymous. Genuine feminists had nothing to gain from setting up a hashtag that simply validates all the MRA hate-rhetoric directed at them.
Posted by Killarney, Monday, 14 December 2015 6:04:39 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
Killarney

Provide proof of what protests or activism you have engaged in to equalise the rate of female and male deaths at work.

And where did you get the stupid idea that men and women are the same?

All you're doing is claiming that females are "entitled" to the benefits and privileges of patriarchy and feminism, and that men should be liable to the costs and liabilities of both.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 15 December 2015 8:23:46 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
JKJ

'Provide proof of what protests or activism you have engaged in to equalise the rate of female and male deaths at work.'

How does one provide 'proof' of that sort of thing? Could you provide 'proof' that you never beat your wife?

'And where did you get the stupid idea that men and women are the same?'

I dunno. I never had that idea to start with.

'All you're doing is claiming that females are "entitled" to the benefits and privileges of patriarchy and feminism, and that men should be liable to the costs and liabilities of both.'

Women are 'entitled' to live in a culture that does not treat them as 'non-men'. Women are entitled to live in a culture that is male/female centric, rather than male-centric.

As for who picks up the tab for righting the gender imbalance that has existed for centuries, that's an issue that all of society must address. MRA/anti-feminist rhetoric feeds into a sense of outrage among men that they should finally pull their own weight, instead of being traditionally pampered by women as their own private homemakers, cooks, nannies and bed-warmers.
Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 1:50:04 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
"How does one provide 'proof' of that sort of thing? Could you provide 'proof' that you never beat your wife?"

I agree that proving something negative, such as that one has *not* done something, can't be done or often can't be done. But proving something positive, such as actions, is different. It can be done the same way proving anything is done.

Come on. Admit it. You have never taken any action to equalise the rate of female and male deaths at work, have you? Please answer this question.

"I never had that idea [that men and women are the same] to start with."

Okay. So we are agreed that they are not the same and not equal? Please answer this question.

"Women are 'entitled' to live in a culture that does not treat them as 'non-men'."

So now you're back to believing that men and women are the same? Yes?

If they're not the same, why should we pretend that women are men, or are the same as men? And even if we should, why should they have a right to *enforce* such an entitlement?

By the way, a culture is not a decision-making entity, and this fact invalidates your entire process of reasoning on this topic.

And you're arguing that no-one has a right to sexual preference? Yes? Correct?

"Women are entitled to live in a culture that is male/female centric, rather than male-centric."

In order to enforce that alleged entitlement, are women entitled to initiate aggression, by themselves or their agents, including physical attacks, and causing someone to be locked in a cage where they are at extra-ordinarily high risk of being raped?

You have not given any reason for your assumption that the state is more representative of the "culture", than the culture is of the culture.

What you're saying is just a confused and facile jumble that supports unequal female privilege based on aggressive violence and double standards.

What are your answers to my specific questions?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 3:54:57 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
JKJ

'Come on. Admit it. You have never taken any action to equalise the rate of female and male deaths at work, have you? Please answer this question.'

This is plain ridiculous! Even if such a thing were possible to 'prove', you are NOT getting any personal details from me about anything whatsoever that I have done in my private life. You have no right to bully and badger and hound somebody in this personalised way.

This is a public forum, in which people are allowed and entitled to preserve their anonymity. So lay off.

This exchange is over. Now, go away and have a nice time convincing yourself that you won the day and showed up that feminist bitch for the deceitful fraud she was. Or something to that effect.

'What are your answers to my specific questions?'

Ditto. Answer them yourself. In fact, you already have.
Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 17 December 2015 8:46:12 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
Killarney

Stop pretending that you have evidence of your protestations and activism to equalise the rate of female deaths at work with males, and that the issue is one of privacy. You must think everyone else is as gullible as you are intellectually dishonest.

Why should people be punished for not pretending that male and female are the same?

You don't treat male and female the same, do you?

You don't give people equal opportunity, do you?

You agree that men and women are not the same, and not equal? Yes?

You believe no-one has a right to sexual preference, because women are "entitled" to not be treated as "non-men"? Yes? People should be imprisoned for sexual preference? But if not, why not?

You believe it's alright for people to initiate aggression to get what they want from the opposite sex? Yes? Or if not, you renounce all feminist legislation and policy? Which?

If you don't care whether men live or die, why should men - or anyone - care whether your opinions are propagated, or whether there are more female opinion journalists?

Thank you for your demonstration that feminism is not about gender equality or equal rights, and all about benefits for females backed up by force and threats - the law - and intellectual dishonesty literally at every step.

Sarah
Hurry up and evidence your actions to equalise the female and male death-rates at work.

All
I challenge anyone to defend any tenet of any feminist theory without immediately falling back to self-contradiction and sexist double standards to effect unequal female privilege.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Thursday, 17 December 2015 9:34:35 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
Quote;
As for who picks up the tab for righting the gender imbalance that has existed for centuries, that's an issue that all of society must address.

Posted by Killarney, Wednesday, 16 December 2015 1:50:04 AM
Unquote

There is a problem with this type of ideology.

Firstly, the past is being judged by todays standards and values. This will also happen in the future where todays actions, behaviours, beliefs are judged by the values that exist in the future.

Secondly, in the past, the gender roles existed for some very good reasons and positive reasons.

There are three very good reasons why women have been able to break out of the gender roles of the past, and the first is effective "contraception' and the second is education. Thirdly is the increased life expectancy. The matriarchs in my family tree lived until their eighties in the 17th century.

Before the industrial revolution, the vast majority of men and women were illiterate. So they learnt the skills and information about being able to live, from their community, that included their parents.

Sons learnt the skills from their fathers, just as the girls learnt the skills of their mothers. It is possible that both parents taught both genders the same skills. Cooking, child caring, herding animals, collecting eggs, milk etc.

So the skills past from generation to generation, have allowed our society to grow and develop. In both positive and negative ways.

The so-called labor saving devices, did not exist until after the 2nd WW. So any activity was labor intensive. From farming, preparing food, to cooking food, clothes were made by hand.

Feminism focus and spin on the hardships experienced only by the female gender, creates a distorted picture of the past, when human life regardless of gender was not valued very highly (by todays standards).

Children often engaged in a pointless argument about who started it, or who was worse off. So to engage in the same argument about the past about which gender was worse off, is pointless, as both genders experienced things that treated them horrendously. (by todays standards)
Posted by Wolly B, Friday, 18 December 2015 4:59:34 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
Chimney Sweeps;

1700 to the 1800's

Boys as young as four climbed hot flues that could be as narrow as 81 square inches (9x9 inches or 23x23 cm). Work was dangerous and they could get jammed in the flue, suffocate or burn to death. As the soot was a carcinogen, and as the boys slept under the soot sacks and were rarely washed, they were prone to Chimney Sweeps Cancer.

The Mines (Prohibition of Child Labour Underground) Act 1900 was an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. The statute prevented boys under the age of thirteen from working, or being (for the purposes of employment), in an underground mine.[1]

An estimated 3000 boys were affected by the new law,[1] which was passed on 30 July 1900.

So it is only in relative recent history have the laws in regard to child labor changed to protect children from exploitation.

For many centuries in the past, it was seen a OK to use child labor.
Posted by Wolly B, Friday, 18 December 2015 5:29:48 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
Wolly

Killarney has not been able to defend the idea that there is or has ever been a "gender imbalance" - which she doesn't define - because she has been unable to defend any tenet of any feminist theory, and has simply vacated the forum being faced with questions which prove her wrong either way she answers them. This is not because they are trick questions: it's because her theory is wrong, as proved by the fact that not even she agrees with it, otherwise she'd answer the questions posed.

When I was young I read many feminist classics and was much influenced by them. But re-reading them later, I was amazed at how I swallowed them so uncritically without noticing the glaring defect in all of them.

It's not factually true that male and female are "equal", because of
1. the difference between people in general
2. the sex-specific differences between male and female.

Once you start with this factually untrue premise, this then infects and invalidates the logic and ethics that are derived from it. That is why no-one is able to defend any tenet of any feminist theory, as we have just seen with the acquiescence of the feminists. In a word, it's false. That's why they keep contradicting themselves in everything they do and say, for example:
- saying that discrimination on the ground of sex should be against the law, but sexual preference is a human right; straight-out contradiction
- saying that patriarchy is the source of sexist oppression, but relying implicitly on the dreaded patriarchal state to provide *both* patriarchal *and* feminist laws and policies supporting and privileging women
- saying that nature-given sex-specific gender stereotypes are an abuse of human rights for women, but a "responsibility" for men and should be enforced by prison.
- advocating the use of aggressive violence to get what they want from the opposite sex
- saying feminism is about gender equality, which is a completely unhistorical statement. The name says it all. Feminism has never been about gender equality, but about getting benefits for females.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 18 December 2015 9:24:20 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
Quote"
When I was young I read many feminist classics and was much influenced by them. But re-reading them later, I was amazed at how I swallowed them so uncritically without noticing the glaring defect in all of them.

Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 18 December 2015 9:24:20 PM
Unquote"

I did that as well, however something felt not quite right, and when I first started reading material that contradicted their dogma, claims, beliefs.

My first mental reaction was that this recent material was not true. But emotionally it made sense.

The more I looked at how research was controlled and manipulated the less trust I had for feminist research. Typically their research was full of sophistry, rather than factual.

I think the author of Backlash was very perceptive and she knew that men would eventually start comparing notes and then start challenging feminism.

For this the internet has been a godsend, meaning that men who think that they are the only ones to feel this way are not alone, that there are many people both male and female who challenge feminist ideology and dogma.
Posted by Wolly B, Friday, 18 December 2015 9:43:10 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
That's why feminists have never given a sh!t about the unequally high rate of male deaths at work, even while complaining women can't get nice clean safe indoor jobs in the opinion industry!

So please don’t pander to their nauseating hypocrisy.

Point out that male and female are not factually equal, and therefore not the same and
the feminists say “Equal doesn’t mean the same.”

But here they themselves prove that the whole ideology is false to the core.

For if equal does not mean the same, then there is no reason why there should be the same number of female as male opinion journalists, is there? There is no reason why female pay should be the same as male pay for the same work: the equal pay legislation should be repealed because “equal doesn’t mean the same”. They contradict their own major premise.

But if equal does mean the same, then women are not *in fact* the same as men, therefore *cannot* be equal, and there is no reason why people should not *value* their differences differently, and there’s nothing wrong with it - just as there's nothing wrong with sexual preference. There's no reason to pretend they are the same, let alone be forced to pretend they are. So on this feminist argument, they must admit there’s no justification for their hypocritical ideology.

A common definition of feminism that it’s about “social, economic, and political equality”. But how can men and women be “socially” equal without equal numbers of maternity hospitals for men? Why should be people treat men as if they have babies, or women as if they don’t?

The reason for the absurdity is obvious. The costs of reproduction unequally fall to women, and not as a 'social construct', either. Women don’t have babies as a matter of gender, they have them as a matter of sex.

Feminism is only an attempt to use the state's legal monopoly of aggression to obtain special benefits and privileges for women on account of their vaginas, unequally paid for by men in toil and blood, and falsely called “equality”.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Friday, 18 December 2015 9:49:40 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 love it when feminist claim that it has always been a man's world;

Quote

It was during the times of the Tudors that the use of torture reached its height in England. Under Henry VIII, torture was frequently used. When Edward and Mary were on the throne, torture wasn't used as much. However, when Elizabeth took the throne, torture was used more than in any other period of history. Queen Elizabeth thought that treason was one of the worst crimes that could be committed, and the majority of incidents of torture were for reasons of high treason. Lords and high officials were exempted, and woman were rarely put through torture.

Unquote

Notice that in a man's world women were very rarely tortured.
Posted by Wolly B, Saturday, 19 December 2015 9:18:51 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
JKJ

You have a habit of posing aggressive and irrelevant questions of posters you disagree with, and claiming victory when they either refuse to engage you or fail to answer to your satisfaction. Your demand that Killarney ‘provide proof of the activism you have personally taken against the much higher death rate of men at work. Have you sought "gender equality" in that, and if not, why not?’ is a particularly egregious example.

If Killarney has withdrawn from this thread, I guess it is because she has tired of this tactic, not because you have won the argument.

Equal does not mean the same. Two five dollar notes are not the same as one ten dollar note, but they are equal. Two people doing the same job to the same level of competence for the same employer are equal and should be paid the same, even if their gender, skin colour, religion or favourite footy teams mean that they are different.
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 21 December 2015 12:32:06 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
Rhian, Sarah, Killarney

You understand, don't you, that if you face questions which you can't answer without proving yourself wrong either way, it means you're wrong?

If you vacate the forum, or go out backwards unable to answer questions without contradicting yourself, you are not entitled to maintain that your ideology is true or justifies any policy whatsoever. Other people are not just footstools for you and your pet favourites to climb up on.

I have demonstrated and continue to demonstrate by my questions that you cannot answer without expressing disagreement with your own premises, that your ideology is hypocritical, sexist, bigotted, and should be rejected. The mere fact that, after categorical disproof, you still fondly cling to your previous opinions is no defence of them, and that’s all you’ve got.

Answer my questions, or admit that you are wrong. But if you skulk and refuse to answer, or evade them, it means you concede that you are wrong.

1. Where did you get the stupid belief that male and female are the same?
2. If equal means the same, then it's not true that male and female are equal, is it?
3. Having-a-baby and not-having-a-baby are not equal, are they?
4. They could only be valued equally if we valued human life at nothing, which would be anti-human, wouldn't it?
5. If equal does not mean the same, then you admit there is no reason why the number of female opinion journalists should be same as the number of male opinion journalists?
6. And there is no reason why male pay and female pay should be the same, because "equal does not mean the same?"
7. And there's no justification for anti-discrimination laws, because there is no reason why male and female should be treated the same, according to you?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 22 December 2015 8:52:40 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
Rhian
8. Why is it irrelevant to ask Sarah or Killarney to provide proof of what they have done to equalise the rate of male and female deaths at work?
9. How can you say my questions are aggressive, when you argue that it's okay to use aggressive violence to get what you want from the opposite sex?
10. If you don't, then are you saying that laws and policies - including feminist laws and policies - are not enforced?
11. Or you renounce feminism’s political acts and platform?
12. Which?
13. What have you done to pay women to stay at home looking after their babies, the same amount that you say employers who don't even agree with you and do not consent, should be forced to pay them by threats of imprisonment?
14. And you have the gall to accuse me of being aggressive? You don't treat people equally or provide them equal opportunity do you?
15. Are two five dollar notes equal to one ten dollar note in the resources used to make them?

Sarah
15. If you don't care whether men live or die, why should anyone care whether your anti-human opinions are propagated more rather than less?
16. It's a dishonest misrepresentation to claim that anyone ever said that female opinions don't count, isn't it?
17. Are you saying that the numbers of male and female in all activities should be the same, otherwise there's a "gender imbalance"? If not, how do you know whether a gender balance, which you never define, should entail always equal numbers? If so, why? If not, why not?
18. If someone is raped in prison as a result of the government's compulsory funding of the ABC, do you have any problem with that?

Let's get one thing straight. I have every right to ask you bigots questions which disprove your sexist hypocritical belief system, and you have no "entitlement" to live in a society in which people are forced or threatened into pretending that male and female are the same or equal when it’s factually untrue.
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 22 December 2015 8:53:43 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
No-one has established any reason why male and female “should” be the same, valued the same, or treated the same, let alone any justification for imprisoning people who disagree.

Admit it. All you hypocrites are trying to do, is get for women the support and benefits of both patriarchy and feminism, with men to unequally bear the risks and costs of both. You are not for gender equality, you are for female privilege on a double standard, backed by force and threats, and double-talk at every stage.

We have now established that no-one can defend any tenet of any feminist theory.

But if I am wrong, what are the answers to my numbered questions above?
Posted by Jardine K. Jardine, Tuesday, 22 December 2015 8:56:37 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
Hi JKJ,
Sorry for the delay in responding, I have taken a break from the keyboard over the holidays.

In response to your first set of questions:

1. Where did you get the stupid belief that male and female are the same?

I do not believe male and female are the same

2. If equal means the same, then it's not true that male and female are equal, is it?

Refer q1

3. Having-a-baby and not-having-a-baby are not equal, are they?

No

4. They could only be valued equally if we valued human life at nothing, which would be anti-human, wouldn't it?

False argument. I think 1,000 $100 bills are equal to 2,000 $50 bills, but not the same. This does not make them valued at nothing, nor does it make me anti-money.

5. If equal does not mean the same, then you admit there is no reason why the number of female opinion journalists should be same as the number of male opinion journalists?

I partly agree, and in fact indicated as much in my earlier post. It may be that women are less interested in terrorism and therefore less likely to want to develop expertise in this area, in which case the lack of female opinion writers on this subject is not discrimination. It would be different, though, if female voices are excluded from the debate because they are female.

6. And there is no reason why male pay and female pay should be the same, because "equal does not mean the same?"

As indicated previously, I think two people doing the same job to the same level of competence for the same employer should be paid the same, regardless of gender, family, race, height, religion, favourite footy team, suburb of residence or anything else that makes them “different”.

7. And there's no justification for anti-discrimination laws, because there is no reason why male and female should be treated the same, according to you?
Wrong. Refer q6
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 4 January 2016 11:46:18 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
Re q 8
Because the question is based on a false premise – that only people who have actively worked to equalise male and female death rates really care about gender inequality. But this is a subset of a very wide range of phenomena that constitute differences in the workplace experiences of men and women.

By analogy, suppose you are an animal lover who donates half their income to the RSPCA and spends all their spare time as an unpaid volunteer at a local animal sanctuary. But someone asks what you have done to save the critically endangered Yangtze Finless Porpoise, and you have to admit you have done nothing. That hardly proves you are not an animal lover.

Re q9
I do not argue that “it's okay to use aggressive violence to get what you want from the opposite sex?” I do not share your view that enforcing the law of the land is “aggressive violence”. And your assumption that use of the law is only against the “opposite sex” reveals your own prejudices.

Re q10 and q11
No

Re q12

Again your logic is flawed, because it presumes that enforcing anti-discrimination legislation constitutes “aggressive violence”.

Re q13
Refer to the logical fallacy identified in q8

Re q14
I do treat people equally (bearing in mind, as I have said many times, equal is not identical). I do provide equal opportunity. And you are aggressive.

Re q15
No. But that doesn’t mean shopkeepers will value them differently.

On your other post, When have I indicated I want the “benefits” of patriarchy? Or female privilege?
Posted by Rhian, Monday, 4 January 2016 12:32:11 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

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