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 > Decline in feminism? The backlash myth > Comments

Decline in feminism? The backlash myth : Comments

By Paul Norton, published 19/8/2005

Paul Norton argues there is no evidence to support popular claims that Australians are becoming more conservative.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 30
  7. 31
  8. 32
  9. All
Women are rejecting feminism because they can still go out to work, have independence from men, equal pay, sex whenever they want, go to pubs whenever they want, in fact do whatever they want whenever they want and still have the door opened for them and have dinner and flowers bought for them. There's no longer any need to "be a feminist"
Posted by lisamaree, Friday, 19 August 2005 12:25:19 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 that, Paul -- an interesting and somewhat reassuring read. I first came across the 'younger generation is getting more conservative' discourse as a young postgrad about 15 years ago, when the older women on my masters course constantly assured me that my generation was rapidly becoming less radical because we weren't out 'womynning the barricades' and so forth (apparently). My generation were definitely seen as lesser mortals!

My facetious, knee jerk answer to your closing question would be that the second wave, babyboomer feminist generation didn't want to give up their public ownership of the issue (i.e. a gen-x vs babyboomers, 'ganglands' style thesis). More thoughtfully, perhaps they didn't realise that the goalposts had shifted in some ways for a younger generation of women, and that debates about the same existential issues (work, families, etc) were merely being interpolated in different ways.

I also wonder if conservative politicians have tried to re-cast public debate on 'what women want' in certain, less than progressive ways to support their own public/social policy engineering efforts (e.g. the current baby bonus stuff & use of Carolyn Hakim's work to support their take on the family & work issue). A parallel might be the conservatives' stated appeal to the wants and needs of the aspirational, lower middle class voter when many of their policies (e.g. tax cuts for the rich, a two-tiered health system) surely work against the interests of this lower income group. Anyway, what I'm trying to say is that the gap between the perceptions of young women's opinions and their actual opinions may have been quite purposefully engineered in public policy & media debate.

Lisamarie -- don't forget the efforts of the women who made these things possible for you!
Posted by Eleanor, Friday, 19 August 2005 12:56:17 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
I can imagine a school class being held on feminism, family and social issues.

Now students,
If a woman becomes pregnant, up to 40% of the time she will have the foetus killed.
If the woman continues with the pregnancy, 1 in 10 children will be effected by the drugs the mother takes during the pregnancy.
If the children are born, 1 in 3 will be removed from their father by the age of 18, due to divorce or separation which is mainly initiated by the mother.
Of those children removed from their father, 1 in 3 will never see their father in the future.
Over 50% of custodial mothers believe that the contact time the non-custodial father has with his children is “just right”, when the majority of these fathers see their children every second weekend or less, (or not at all).
The majority of child abuse and child poverty occurs in single female parent families, often creating a cycle of abuse and welfare dependency.

So children, you should feel very grateful for feminism and modern motherhood, except perhaps if you are a foetus or dependant child, (in which case you have a lot to worry about).

I will finish with an excerpt from a book titled “What Women Want Next”, by the honest and famous Australian feminist, Dr Susan Maushart.

"When I was a teenager, I thought love would solve everything. In my early 20s, I thought sex would solve everything. By my late 20s, I thought a career would solve everything and then - when it didn't - I was sure that motherhood would. By my late 30s, following a brief period of certainty that therapy would solve everything, I became convinced that divorce would solve everything. At 40, I was sure an extension would solve everything (and, frankly, the en suite came close). Now, edging 50, imagine my surprise to find that I am as f---ed up as ever."

So class, you should all aspire to become a brilliant feminist like Dr Susan Maushart. We should invite her to the school to give a talk
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 19 August 2005 1:16:34 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
An interesting response, Eleanor, especially your conjectural answer to the final two questions.

As a matter of historical interest, in Australia the 2nd wave feminists of c. 1970 had their own generational argument about issue priorities, ways of organising, etc., with the preceding generation of the "movement among women", as it called itself, in groups like the Union of Australian Women.
Posted by Dr Paul, Friday, 19 August 2005 2:34:06 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
Timkins, I luv this "up to" 40%. That's not a statistic, it's an emotional wishywashy number that doesn't really say anything. Did you know that 100% of divorces begin in marriage?
Yes Children. Let's go back 50+ years where 50% of babies born were doomed to be considered inferior simply because of gender.
Thanks Meredith, I don't forget. What I meant was that that the difference between perception and reality could be the interpretation of "feminism". I think most women in their 20's prolly don't know or understand the meaning. Some people still think it's about who pays for dinner, or who asks who out on the first date.
Posted by lisamaree, Friday, 19 August 2005 2:45:04 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
Lisamaree,
I’m not sure of your objection to statistics. At a quick count, there were 28 sets of statistics incorporated into the article, but I feel that many of those statistics were questionable, as they came from public opinion polls which can be easily manipulated by choice of wording in the poll questions, and they also rely upon the public having a very good understanding of the subject matter.

Statistics are also regularly used within organisations such as the AIFS, universities, medicine etc.

There is quite a good account of feminism in the article “Feminism and the Family” at http://www.ldsmag.com/familywatch/040506feminism.html. That article gives the history of modern feminism, a biography of many of the feminist leaders (including our own Germaine Greer), and the eventual outcomes of feminist ideology for many families. Unfortunately it is not for the feint of heart or stomach.

However I think that feminism has also become highly commercialised, and is now used to exploit both men and women, and it is also highly anti-child.

You may get a general idea of this by reading the many articles written by Dr Susan Maushart (with her PhD in Communication Theory), which are published each week in the Australian Newspaper. She makes money from those articles, but in those articles she repeatedly disparages men, her various ex-husbands, and her own children.

I have heard of no feminist opposition to those articles, and this tells me a lot about feminism in Australia.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 19 August 2005 3:45:35 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
Hmmm... yes an interesting article. I am thinking that "conservatism" is becoming harder to define these days. Perhaps many more young people are wanting to "get ahead", because the world has changed since the 70's. We keep hearing that there will be no pension by the time the under 45's (or whatever) reach retirement age. The dole queues, it seems, are being scrutinised more harsly due to data matching and the like. Whilst they are busy "getting ahead", and doing and thinking all those things still considered "conservative", who's to say where individual (or collective) young people's views on particular social and political issues lie? It seems one can have a "traditional" or "conservative" stance on some social issues, but not on others. I dare say many young women today have taken on many values considered "feminist", but have rejected some of the other core values carried by the 1970's feminists. Indeed there are different types of 'feminism' anyway, but perhaps the boundaries between thes are becoming more blurred. Perhaps many young women have their own values, and it stops there. Young women may not see themselves as feminists, socialists, marxists, conservatives, liberals (small 'l' variety), or what ever. Not everyone wishes to limit their sphere of thought to spefically defined labels. What does "conservatism" really mean anyway? Personally I don't think todays society allows for such rigidity, and argubly it may have never have had anyway. Of course I have no stats to back me up, just a thought really. Cheers!
Posted by silent minority, Friday, 19 August 2005 3:59:44 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
Dear Paul

Thank you very much for your article - thought provoking to say the least.

As a "baby boomer" at the ripe old age of 30 I first studied feminism during my Bachelor Studies. I was selective in what I chose to take on board, and I didn't burn my bra. I found the study very interesting and challenging.

Even so, I reckon my father had the best handle on the underpinning philosophy of feminism. When I was 15 years of age and planning future studies, Dad gave me a transistor radio for coming top of the year, and he said: "What ever pathway you choose, it is up to you - but always remember, you are as good or better than any man". I will never forget that day or his words.

And down the track I have learned about assertiveness, affirmative action and peoples' rights. And I have tried to practise these principles in my everyday living. But I have never been over the top in shoving my beliefs down others' throats - which I think radical leftist feminists do.

I will pay my way when I go out to dinner and I will accept my dinner being paid for. I will open a door for another person, just as I like a door opened for me. Just plain good sense and manners.

What I have said probably sounds extremely simplistic and naive. I know all of the academic jargon that I could use. Frankly, can't see the point in complicating my life on this planet.

As for young women, say 18-30 years these days, I doubt that they have any idea of the derivation of the term feminism and its underpinning philosophies. On the contrary, I get the impression that the conceptual framework is something along these lines: "I want what I want, and I want it right now!"

I think the key to being a successful human being is about balance. I like to balance some of my feminist values with some of my traditional values. For me they marry quite well.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Friday, 19 August 2005 5:56:35 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
The Problem facing Feminism, is the same one facing 'Trade Unions'

RELEVANCE.

My son just went for a job, for which he was accepted, at $20/hour. Its automotive related, but just factory work. Previously he only scraped in $15/hr. Unions have done well... but what next ? I can hear the board meeting "Cost of production... CHINA"...and all of them lose their jobs. Success turned into...failure.

FEMINISM.... all the supposed 'gains, freedoms, independance, etc may well end up with men, who actually think like 'men/males' looking for .... ( u can guess :)

Feminism, as with Unions, will now have to try to raise new issues so they can remain relevant. Its a bit like TV ratings.. Program manager at 10 "Guys.. ratings for Big Brother are a bit down, the Ad revenue is at risk.. lets PUSH THE BOUNDARIES AND MORE SEX".. which of course, like oil, is a limited commodity, once you 'do/show/speak about everything'.. what next ?

So, maybe we should take a fresh approach. Maybe its time to think for ourselves, and recognize the marxism (with its flawed philosophical assumptions) behind radical feminism, and the 'screen saver' magic it promised... is empty, barren, dissappointing and culturally destructive. It took many years for the Males of the Yir Yuront of Cape York to see the impact of the Steel Axe on their self esteem, but by the time they realized it, too late, they died of broken hearts, now there are perhaps a fingers and toes number of people who speak their language.

We have had feminism for only a few decades.

aah.. the simplicity "Husbands, love (and of course respect) your wives....... Wives, respect your husbands"..... "Treat the younger women as sisters, in all purity"

The Biblical concept of mutual adoration and sacrificial care, family, recognizing the complementary (rather than competitive) aspects of our genders.... mmmmmm like a breath of very very fresh air :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 19 August 2005 8:15:59 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
BD - your son is earning much more than I did after nursing since 1971 - RGN RPN Dip Teach B.Ed Master of Ed. Before my accident as a nurse (2002) I was earning $22.50 an hour.

Grrr posts such as yours make me angry
Even so BD
I always get a laugh from you
Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Friday, 19 August 2005 8:58:11 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
Paul,
Overall I don't think a growth in liberalism is an indicator of less or more conservatism. And statistics can be read upside down and sideways depending on how you want to extrapolate from them.
Posted by Rainier, Friday, 19 August 2005 10:32:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for a lucid and well-argued article, Paul. It's interesting to note that your detractors thus far in this forum variously refer us to a Mormon website, the scriptures, or stray off into barely coherent non-sequiturs that must have some logical connection to your article in the minds of those that post them.

I guess the conservative commentators you mention must base their claims on the nonsensical but noisy opinions of fringedwelling malcontents and missionaries, such as those who appear on this site every time the "f" word is mentioned.
Posted by giaman, Saturday, 20 August 2005 9:34:55 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
Paul I agree that there is little evidence to support Australians becoming more conservative and I can understand that there can be confusion about what we are told by the elites and what seems to be the stat, facts.

As a man that was at the begining of the baby boomer years and had personal experience with the changing equality, the worst women I met were the radical feminist dyke's who hated everything that may be male.

Could I just add this to the debate, please don't forget the many men back then that supported equality for women and put it into practise, without ranting and raving. One of the reasons I feel that younger women have changed their attitudes is because the vast majority of sane men accept that they are equal. What you can't do is take out the inbred desire for both sexes to oggle each other. Even at my age I love to look at lovely young women, but as I would look at my daughter. This may sound stupid but they are so cute and full of life and they know that they can go get it if they want. The world is their oyster so to speak and it is a pity that it didn't' become that way long ago

In some cases there are things in law and social standards which favor females, but there are also somethings that favor men. We have an equality that allows us to see each other as equal contributors to society.

We must also understand that we are all still men and women and until that changes, we will be different. Being different brings equality, not sameness, not accepting difference is inequality.

To the ladies on this post, you do yourselves proud, which is more than I can say for the mentally ill religious ones that can but quote mythological illusions constantly. After all it is religion that attempts to suppress women and men into submission.
Posted by The alchemist, Saturday, 20 August 2005 10:25:54 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
BD, why would relevance be a problem for feminism? If the goal of feminism is to promote women's equality, then as long as there is inequality, there is relevance. When men and women are equal, the relevance wanes – and so does the concept of feminism. At that point it would be hoped that all people of the world see not gender but a person.

Until gender is not a consideration for any goal sought by an individual, feminism will be relevant. Once it’s not, I don’t think even the most radical woman would care that it wanes.

As for the comparison between radical feminism to Marxism, this is also applicable to other radical (see fundamental) Christian, Islamic or other ideology that becomes larger in the minds of the followers than in real life.

Would you care to state clearly whether the respect you attributed between the husband and wife is equal – or relative to their position in the ‘partnership’? I sense a subtext in your writing. Is there a ‘senior’ partner in your idea of husband/wife?

Could you also state clearly, without circumspect (that is, in yes or no terms) your answers to these questions:
- Does a woman deserve exactly the same freedoms and opportunities, in every way, that a man does?

- Is a woman as capable of leading as a man?

- Is it natural for a woman to be in a completely equal partnership with a man?

- Is it natural for a man to mind the house while the woman supports the family?

Just some curiosity regarding your world view…

Food for thought – my family. A single mother raises 4 children who go on to be: a decorated police officer, a lawyer, a financial advisor and a children’s counsellor. No criminal records, no drugs and no alcoholics. All while holding down a full time job and managing a mortgage in the 80’s – with no assistance from the father. Seems to me a woman is as capable as any man.

Be proud women – you are strong and equal in every way.
Posted by Reason, Saturday, 20 August 2005 1:01:24 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
Rainier,
Perhaps you could be more specific in your opinion of statistics, and in particular the statistics contained in this article. If statistics are worthless, then why is it that so much taxpayer’s money is spent on researchers developing statistics. Is such research worthless?

Giaman,
You have said a lot of generalised, unsubstantiated words. Is this representative of feminism? Perhaps you could be more specific.

Paul Norton,
Public opinion polls can be easily manipulated through choice of wording in their questions, and they also depend upon the public having sufficient knowledge to give an opinion. Very often the public does not, and some people who have objectively studied feminist ideology have found nothing but lies, fraud and myth, (eg http://www.iwf.org/ARTICLES/article_detail.asp?ArticleID=68) so the public has not been able to see the real picture in the past because of this.

I would think the backlash is now well on in Australia and in other countries. A part of core feminist ideology is the destruction of the nuclear family and the removal of the father from his children. This has been occurring extensively, but the release of study papers such as “When the Difference is Night and Day” http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/afrc8/parkinson.pdf have highlighted the extent of this part of feminist ideology occurring within Australia, and that paper was heavily referred to in various inquiries held recently into Family Law. The result will likely be some of the most major changes occurring to Family Law in 30 years. Those changes have to occur, as the present situation cannot continue, or there won’t be any families in the future.

Core feminist ideology also includes the promotion of wide scale abortion, but backlash to this is now growing also, after many millions of children have been killed, and abortion rates have hardly decreasedin many places, even with significant advances in contraception.

Other parts of core feminist ideology includes the state being responsible for raising children, and backlash to this is also occurring, as even governments now recognise that this is not only inadvisable for children, but too impractical also.

I could continue but have reached word limit.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 20 August 2005 3:01:03 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
Timkins, My point is that people change their minds overnight. Opinion stats should be seen as a snapshot of a demographic of opinion - not a conclusive and reliable indicator of attitudinal change. This does not mean statistics are useless, rather the opposite, interpretation of them is often at fault.
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 20 August 2005 4:19:49 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not sure if there has been a retreat from feminist values so much as a constriction from a much broader and outward-looking agenda to a narrowly instrumental and self-centred one.

Feminism as I understood it in the seventies and eighties was much more than simply striving to achieve equality with men in the workplace and on the domestic front. Feminism for me provided the hope that women would achieve positions of power and influence and would change the world for the better.

Women have become decision makers but sadly nothing has changed. The competitive indivdualistic environment remains and becomes more dog-eat-dog with each passing year. Women now climb over other women to get to the top. The feminine values of caring and cooperation are as far removed from the echelons of power as they ever were.

Where I once hoped the rise of feminism might mean the end of war, there is arguably less questioning today of the efficacy of war than there has ever been. Equality for women seems to have resulted in little more than women now demanding the right to kill alongside men. The idea that women might have an equal voice and demand an end to killing doesn't seem to have occurred to many in this generation of women.
Posted by Bronwyn, Saturday, 20 August 2005 11:14:50 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
Rainier,
I'd agree that public opinion polls aren't that reliable. They are like asking one question only in an exam paper. If the poll question was, “Do you think women should have more rights”, then the most common answer would probably be “Yes”. If the question was, “Do you think women should have more rights than men”, then the most common answer would probably be “No”. So asking more than one question gives more insight into peoples thoughts, but more than one question becomes a research study, not an opinion poll.

By it’s name, Feminism is gender biased and prejudiced, and I know of few feminist organisations that include males, so feminism is also undemocratic. So how reliable or worthwhile is feminist research?

My personal experience is that feminist research is 99% unreliable. At it’s best, feminist research is advocacy research or a form of brainwashing propaganda. An example of where feminist research eventually leads to would be Dr Susan Maushart PhD, who has carried out an extensive amount of feminist research in Australia, but by her own words in her most recent book, (eg. “I’m as f*ed up as ever”),so she does not seem to have a very clear idea regards anything. So becoming totally confused, does not necessarily mean becoming less conservative.

Bronwyn
An interesting article on feminisim US politics:-

“Instead, she claims that feminists “demonize” conservative women such as Ann Coulter, Phyllis Schlafly and Sen. Kay Bailey Hutcheson. “Feminists called Hutcheson a female impersonator,” said Easton. “Somehow, she’s not a real woman because she’s conservative?”
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8403

Considering the actions, texts, press releases etc of various feminist and women’s organisations in Australia (nearly all of which exclude males, so they cannot be democratic), I would say they very much rely on name calling and demonisation as a political tool also. In the past they have mainly carried this out on males (including young boys), but in the US they also carry it out on other women.

I would think that someone calling themselves a feminist does not automatically qualify them for special privileges.
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 21 August 2005 10:11:58 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
A brief comment in response to Timkins in particular, and some others, about the reliability of the figures I cite in the article.

I have relied primarily on findings of the Australian Election Study from 1987 to 2004, and Australian Bureau of Statistics figures regarding the workforce and family status of women in the 25-34 age cohort.

The AES is conducted after Federal elections and referendums by political scientists (both male and female) from the Research School of Social Sciences at the Australian National University. It is Australia's most reputable and continuous database of social and political attitudes, and is accepted as authoritative by politicians and commentators across the ideological spectrum. Whilst it is true that survey questions can be "cooked" to produce a preconceived outcome, in the case of the AES its questions on attitudes to abortion and to equal opportunity for women have remained much the same from 1987 to 2004. It should be clear from the article that I have simply noted that the AES has detected a straightforward increase in broadly pro-feminist responses and a decline in anti-feminist responses. It should also be noted that the AES has found strongly conservative majorities in opinion on issues other than gender and family.

The figures I cite on workforce and family status of women in the 25-34 age cohort are derived from the fm2 table (labour force status by sex, age, relationship) in ABS Data Cube 6291.0.55.001 Labour Force, Australia, Detailed, and its hard-copy predecessors.

Timkins and others don't have to like what these figures reveal about public attitudes to gender and family issues. Nor do they have to abandon their sincerely held views just because they are current in a minority. However I am intrigued by Timkins' attempts to assert the existence of backlash trends in defiance of the evidence I have presented, and without presenting countervailing evidence of his own.
Posted by Dr Paul, Monday, 22 August 2005 10:39:04 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
I wrote:

"Nor do they have to abandon their sincerely held views just because they are current in a minority."

I meant "currently in a minority." Sorry!
Posted by Dr Paul, Monday, 22 August 2005 10:40:08 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
Dr Paul,
You have agreed that public opinion polls can be “cooked”, but opinion polls also rely upon the public having sufficient reliable information in the first place, so as to give a reliable opinion. I’ve given examples of where feminist type information, text, research etc is extremely unreliable.

In the area of families, research has often been unreliable, and the AIFS has acknowledged that fathers were often left out of their research, so much of their past research into families was therefore biased and unreliable. http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/smyth5.html

Upon including fathers into the HILDA survey, papers released from that survey have indirectly lead to major changes being proposed for Family Law, to overcome the feminist ideology of the destruction of the nuclear family and the removal of the father (which has been extensively occurring)

Feminist ideology has also wanted de facto relationships instead of marriage, and whilst research into de facto relationships or cohabitation has been minimal in this country, research in other countries indicates that such relationships are far inferior to marriage.

Feminist ideology has also wanted increased levels of promiscuity so as to “liberate women”. However various research definitely indicates that increased promiscuity eventually leads to increased rates of teenage pregnancy, increased rates of abortion, increased rates of STD’s etc.

You can find various data and research on this in several sites, particularly from the Rutgers University site http://marriage.rutgers.edu/

So if the public had sufficient information available on which to base their opinions, I am sure that their “opinions” would be far different to what they presently are, or have been in recent years.

Establishing reliable and accurate information is now an important issue, but if members of the public can only rely upon the type of information presented by people such as Dr Susan Maushart, then establishing reliable opinions would be a remote possibility.

Feminists are also not adverse to exploiting other women through “spin” http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1272/is_2718_133/ai_n12938336, and not adverse to demonisation of women they class as being “conservative” http://www.humaneventsonline.com/article.php?id=8403

I see no special privileges necessary for someone just because they call themselves a “feminist” or a “radical”
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 22 August 2005 12:10:43 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
Bronwyn,
I never considered your take on feminism and I have to say it makes sense. Feminism is not just about ‘empowerment’ but making a difference in the world through influence and decision-making. As you stated though, it seems the ideology to control, win at any cost and continue the current ‘power is everything’ thinking has infected the few leading women as much as the old boys. Pity really.

Timkins,
What has happened to you, that you despise feminism? Care to explain?

Your claims that feminism wants to promote de-facto marriage and promiscuity are extreme. Can you provide evidence that this is right? Or is it your take, from a tainted view? Feminism is about equality/equal influence (thanks again Bronwyn). What you probably perceive is a male domination threat – that should be welcome. Domination of half the world’s population is wrong.

The links:
The ‘Spin Sister’ article is not about feminism, it is about media women continuing to profit from and control women – nothing to do with feminism. There are no claims they are feminist. Is it your claim that any woman in a position of power must be a feminist?

The Human Events Online article simply states that feminism is having an internal crisis – targeting a particular kind of woman. This is similar to political party in fighting. As seen in male dominated political party shenanigans. Is it OK for the men but not the women to stack their organisations for their causes?

The first two are from organisations with their own agenda, in line with your position.

You also claim that people need reliable information to form their opinion. Information considered reliable should be a universal truth. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Truth is what one perceives while another denies (sounds very religious). My point is that if the information backed your position, one would expect you would not question it, while others would (and do) disagree.

I am not saying you are wrong Tim, just that you cannot have an unbiased opinion, given your extreme distaste for feminism in any form.
Posted by Reason, Monday, 22 August 2005 1:01:16 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
Reason,
Thank you for your unsubstantiated assumptions (eg “you despise feminism” etc)

I believe that I have done a considerable amount of work in my posts to make my points clear, but you have done little. I find that feminist supporters will rely very heavily upon hearsay, anecdote, doctrine, name calling, mantra and unsubstantiated or unproven statements such as “Feminism is about equality/equal influence”

You can do some work, and provide me with reliable information to say that feminism or women’s groups are democratic (eg the number of males in the Office of Women or the Sex Discrimination Commission for example)

You can find the substantiated evidence that de facto relationships, abortion, promiscuity etc is not heavily advocated by prominent feminists.

You can find the reliable evidence that feminists do not attempt brainwashing in their media, but give objective assessments.

You can find the evidence that feminist political parties such as the Green party in Sweden remain popular, once they make their policies or beliefs fully known to the public.

You can find the information that feminists will not put the female gender before the male gender, or ignore the male gender, or exclude the male gender, and also find the information that feminist supporters will not attempt to demonise or denigrate the male gender, and strongly oppose those feminists who regularly do so (eg Dr Susan Maushart)

You can do some work other than making unsubstantiated assumptions about myself, or making unsubstantiated statements.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 22 August 2005 2:29:49 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
C'mon Timkins, your posts are an almost non-stop tirade against feminism, no one needs further evidence. (Shall I count up how often the word appears in your posts?)

And this:
"unsubstantiated or unproven statements such as 'Feminism is about equality/equal influence'"

Surely with all your efforts to find friendly statistics, you can also find a dictionary.
Posted by Deuc, Monday, 22 August 2005 2:59:49 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
Timkins,
I think I have you pegged. Look at your posts re this subject. You abhor feminism. Timkins, my statement is based on what I see – your statements here and in the abortion thread (wherever that has gone). You are not a fan of women it seems.

* I would ask what others think regarding Timkins stance.

As to me finding facts, I have asked you to provide evidence of your stance (as with promiscuity and de-facto relationships. You are the one who made the statements originally. I simply asked for some evidence from you. My comment that feminism is based on equality/equal influence is not a factual statement rather a perception of the ideology. Something even women see in different lights (see Bronwyn for a rather good take on it). You don’t seem to even like the idea that feminism is about this. Actually I find it quite interesting that here are two men arguing about this topic. Where are all the women? Or maybe they see this as quite funny – two men arguing. I sort of feel that too. But I do enjoy the discussion.

As to the issues/’homework’ you have raised, it is you who raised them. Can you provide evidence? I asked a question in the first place. I did not refute or argue against all your claims. I simply asked for evidence.

Timkins, you are very aggressive when you respond to peoples comments. It does not help the discussion when you become overly defensive and attacking. I have not belittled you or ridiculed you in any way. Please, treat me with the respect I have treated you. I am happy to discuss the matter – but do not take it personally.
Posted by Reason, Monday, 22 August 2005 3:04:12 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
Paul Norton writes -

"The question then remains. Why, when the actual trend is for public opinion and personal behaviour on gender, family and sexuality issues to become more progressive, do commentators across the ideological spectrum concur in wrongly claiming that the trend is towards conservatism?"

Yes, why indeed?

You may well ask.

But the answer is very simple. And it's one of the following two, you choose.

1. The research data reflecting actual trends for public opinion is incorrect, or,

2.Commentators are incorrect.

I prefer answer No 1 myself - the research is bent, crooked, cooked, false, lies, deception, propaganda, unreliable, or as I prefer to say, bullsh'. I believe that's what Timkin's been trying to get across too. But if you prefer the other answer, then good luck to you. Time will tell which one is true.
Posted by Maximus, Monday, 22 August 2005 8:27:33 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
Clearly feminism is alive and well on Online Opinion. 45 of the last 50 articles are by blokes. sheesh
Posted by Dreem, Monday, 22 August 2005 9:35:39 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
Paul Norton provides us with a cogent argument based upon arguably the most reliable statistics available in Australia, while his detractors send us off to Mormon websites or simply reject properly conducted research in favour of the spurious misogynist opinions of far-right media 'commentators' who share their futile dream of turning back the clock to a mythical time when women knew their place.

Norton's argument is 'substantiated' by a wealth of solid research and analysis, while descriptions of the most prolific misogynist posters to this forum are 'substantiated' by the hundreds of anti-feminist posts they have somewhat obsessively made to this site.

The anti-feminist arguments on this forum are typically 'substantiated' by reference to some dodgy website or another instead of reputable research, or simply by a preference for populist ignorance, as displayed above.

Indeed, Dreem's cogent point about the gender of authors whose articles are published on OLO indicates that masculine domination exists in this forum, much as it persists in the real world. It seems that "Backlash" is a phenomenon that exists principally in the minds of that minority of men who feel threatened by strong women.
Posted by giaman, Tuesday, 23 August 2005 8:23:52 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
I fully concur with Bronwyn's point that the (few) women who have risen to the top simply play the men's game by men's rules - otherwise they wouldn't have reached those heights in the first place. For example, Margaret Thatcher. There is no way she would've become a conservative right wing leader if she threatened the status quo in any way.

So what does it all mean? Simply that women are no better and no worse than men. That power corrupts women just as much as it does men. That doesn't mean we should stop from achieving full participation in government/business/education or anything else. It is simply that we should not expect women to be any intrinsically better than men.

As to the thread; during times of real or perceived threat people tend towards more conservative intolerant beliefs as a way of protecting themselves. There are many men who are very insecure about their power base and are easily threatened by women or other men from different cultures. They will generate propaganda to state that we are all going to hell in a hand basket because of feminists, gays, indigenous people, muslims whatever. As others have stated the overwhelming bulk of articles on OLO is produced by men. So I really have to wonder why some men feel so threatened. But clearly, as demonstrated by other posters, they do.

So are Australians becoming more conservative? - only to retain the balance of power, because that is what it is all about: Power. Who has it. Who wants some. Who won't share it.
Posted by Trinity, Tuesday, 23 August 2005 9:23:34 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
Maximus wrote:

"the answer is very simple. And it's one of the following two, you choose.

1. The research data reflecting actual trends for public opinion is incorrect, or,

2.Commentators are incorrect.

I prefer answer No 1 myself - the research is bent, crooked, cooked, false, lies, deception, propaganda, unreliable, or as I prefer to say, bullsh'. I believe that's what Timkin's been trying to get across too."

Effectively you are saying that bodies such as the Research School of Social Sciences at the ANU and the Australian Bureau of Statistics are either massively incompetent or are engaged in a conspiracy to mislead us all about the real state of public opinion. I think that this is highly unlikely.

The questions asked of people in the Australian Election Study are fairly straightforward and are public knowledge. Therefore it is open to anyone who doubts the AES figures to conduct their own surveys asking the same questions, with a suitably large and randomly selected sample of the population, and see what results they come up with. If a number of such studies consistently produced findings at odds with the trends revealed by the AES, you would have a basis for challenging the AES results. So far, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has done so.

Also, if one studies the AES 2004 findings on all the issues on which people were surveyed, one finds an intriguing mix of "left" majorities on some issues, "right" majorities on others, and middle-of-the-road majorities on others, in a combination which doesn't add up to majority public endorsement of the overall program of any significant political actor in Australia. This is not the sort of result one would expect if the ANU RSSS people were cooking the figures in line with someone's agenda.
Posted by Dr Paul, Tuesday, 23 August 2005 11:25:41 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
Reason,
Thank you for the demonising, unsubstantiated accusations (eg “You are not a fan of women”, “you are very aggressive” etc). What accusations would you like?

There are many social and political “isms”, but your belief that “feminism is based on equality/equal influence is not a factual statement rather a perception of the ideology.”, is not very clear I believe.

This also appears to be a problem for a number of political parties in Europe, who initially identified themselves as being “feminist”, but when they had to provide a set of policies that the public could vote on, they couldn’t, so the public hardly votes for them anymore. So being a political party that is overly “non-conservative” or “feminist” seems to result in minimal popularity.

But feminist supporters should clearly define what feminism is, and also provide a list of clearly understood feminist policies.

So could you provide:-
-A clear, easy to understand definition of feminism, and a list of feminist policies.
-A list of feminist books and web-sites I can read.
-A list of feminist organisations I can join (if possible, as I am a male)

Until then, I will stay with the description of feminism as contained in the address to the World Congress of Families by Dr Janice Shaw Crouse (http://www.worldcongress.org/wcf3_spkrs/wcf3_crouse.htm), because I haven’t found much to suggest that feminism is anything different (eg the confused Dr Susan Maushart),

Giaman,
You use exactly the same words, (eg. misogynist, dodgy etc), and have a very similar style as “garra”. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=7664

Garra was suspended for 28 days, starting from the 7/8/05. Further details can be provided.

Trinity,
Could you define what would be a “female” type politician, and what would be “female” type political policies.

Dr Paul,
There would be at least 3 fundamental issues with public opinion polls.
-The poll question wording has to be neutral.
-The public has to have sufficient background knowledge to be able to give an informed, reliable opinion.
-A single question in an opinion poll would be of less value than an in-depth research study with an abstract, conclusion, research details, references etc.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 23 August 2005 12:22:47 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
Eleanor refers to:

"use of Carolyn Hakim's work to support [conservative politicians] take on the family & work issue)."

The work of Catherine [not Carolyn] Hakim has been presented in a fairly uncritical and "pre-chewed" way in Australia, with little attention to the theoretical and empirical criticism it has faced in Britain. I don't have space to canvass all those issues here, but the ABS figures I cited on the work-family choices of women in the 25-34 cohort have major implications for Hakim's three-way, 30/40/30 classification of women as work-centred/adaptive/home centred.

I chose to study the 25-34 cohort because this is the cohort responsible for what demographers call the "M-curve" of women's workforce participation. Graphs of women's workforce participation across different age cohorts exhibit two peaks in the 20-24 and 35-44 cohort, with a dip in the 25-34 cohort due to childbearing and temporary withdrawal from work, giving an M-shaped curve. In terms of Hakim's theory, this would be explained in terms of the different life-choices of work-centred, adaptive and home-centred women being most manifest in the 25-34 period.

The thing to remember about Hakim's model is that she developed it during the 1990s, and had fully formulated it by 1998, on the basis of statistical data on women's work/family choices in the 1980s and 1990s. I have found that her 30/40/30 breakdown was actually a fair approximation of what Australian women in the 25-34 cohort were doing in the early 1990s. The problem for Hakim and her barrackers is that ABS statistics suggest that the behaviour of Australian women in this cohort today is more like 50% work-centred, 30% adaptive and 20% home-centred, with the shift to work-centred, and away from both home-centred and adaptive, showing no signs of reversing. In other words, whatever else Hakim might call her preference theory, she cannot credibly claim that it applies to women's "Work-lifestyle choices in the 21st century".
Posted by Dr Paul, Tuesday, 23 August 2005 12:32:35 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
The 'choices' of women (and men?) are at three levels - personal, family and communal. Decisions made in one sphere affects the others, so the question is one of balance between personal autonomy and communal duty/responsibility (both within the family and wider community.)

The issue of equity is a little bit harder as we are quite willing to accept sex based sporting teams/events, however, cannot dictate on more fundamental sexually related areas such as childbearing and family structures, or wages (based on productivity & quality?)and other issues of gender discrimination or heaven forbid, moral codes.

So, the structures that women (and men) were subjected to pre 1960's (ie marriage, monogamy, child bearing, single income family models etc) could be seen as restrictive, but, could also now be seen as essential and in the interests not only of the individuals but society as a whole - hence so much talk of it never being so bad (or good, if the nuclear 'christian' family isn't your thing.)

The issue of 'power' (patriachy no less!) is also difficult in that the social engineers / policy makers / Churches have been replaced to a certain degree by an emphasis on individual materialism cf social and economic outcomes and responsibilities.

Women (and men) are now in the position where they can desire and see merit in a series of models/choices at family and communal levels but actively practice personal choices at odds with those.

So, both commentators and researchers are probably at the same place as people can judge what is 'right' on balance, but, are no longer compelled to practice it personally.

Imagine if we continue down the path of women 'choosing' to have 1 or 2 IVF babies on their own later in life rather than several natural childbirths earlier with a monogamist husband.

Demographics may well see feminists (and western cultures) bred out of existence as other societies ignore the perils of such 'free' choice.
Posted by Reality Check, Tuesday, 23 August 2005 1:44:05 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
Dear Timkins,
I will not attempt to answer all your questions, as they were not addressed to me, but just a couple.
First, a definition of feminism. It simply means someone who believes that women are equal to men, not the same, a common misunderstanding of the word equal. Equal means of equal worth, though two things may be different. Our entire monetary system is based on this concept; ie: an apple is worth (is of equal value to) $1.50, say. By this definition (a prasee of the dictionary definition) you are probably a feminist, Timkins. Within feminism, just as within most religions and philosophical movements of all kinds, there are moderate feminists and those with more radical ideas.
As to feminism being democratic, well, men are welcome to call themselves feminists, as I do. I don't actually belong to any feminist organisation, I just identify as one. But, surely feminist groups are entitled to restrict membership to feminists (who tend to be women) if they choose to do that? Just as Muslim groups restrict membership to muslims, and black rights groups may well restrict membership to blacks. There's nothing all that odd about such groups, they exist all over.
And as for Susan Maushart, her columns are meant to be funny, Timkins, so don't take them so seriously. She always gives me a good laugh.
As to the so-called conservative backlash, perhaps it is the last gasp of those in power desperately trying to turn back the clock to a time when the rest of us knew our place and were content to stay there. How refreshing your statistics are, Paul, perhaps power really is beginning to be shared a little more equally. We still have a long way to go, however, women still earn less money on average than men, even when they do the same job.
Posted by enaj, Tuesday, 23 August 2005 1:45:33 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
Dr Paul,
You seem to be saying that the M curve is changing into a inverted U curve through:-
A. Women are having fewer or no children
B. Women are returning to work earlier after a baby is born.
Both are actually occurring.

But opinion polls or a study of work hrs being performed, does not answer the question of why. Nor do they suggest if it is a good thing or not.

You seem to be suggesting that it is “progressive”, or even "feminist", but I don’t know how that is determined, as society cannot last long with both A and B.

With A, society will run out of children, although this can take a while.
With B, children become raised by the state or by someone other than the parent, (eg. in day care centres ) etc, but I have seen studies suggesting that long hrs in day care is detrimental to the child.

So neither A nor B is that progressive, and both lead to a society that does not value children (and this would also be related to the supposed increased acceptance of abortion)

I think my premise remains, that many people are too ignorant, or too uninformed to form what are reliable opinions.

No one would ask a group of mechanical engineers a question on botany and expect a reliable answer, and I don’t think people are being informed enough about how to best operate families, raise children etc, to give an informed opinions on those issues.

I have yet to see any evidence that both A and B are actually “progressive”, or even sustainable over the medium or longer term.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 23 August 2005 2:34:22 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
enaj, I'm pretty much in agreement with your post but did wonder about "women still earn less money on average than men, even when they do the same job". Is this an "all else being equal" scenario or missing some key factor?

Hours worked being an item which can tilt the equation if it is ignored. If it is an all things being equal what are the mechanisms used to do it? Do males routinely have higher gradings (for the same length of service) than females?

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 23 August 2005 2:34:22 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
Robert,

I'm not sure about the exact mechanics, but did notice only last week that when the papers announced average full-time weekly earnings had cracked $1000 per week, they made it clear this was for men only, women's average full-time weekly earnings are still at about the $900 mark.

Some of the reasons for this may include that we still have one of the most sex-segregated workforces in the OECD, and female dominated occupations (nursing, teaching, retail, clerical, etc) remain low paid, even when - as in the first two cases - high skilled. Also, even in the female dominated occupations, the people at the top tend to be male. Given the number of female teachers to male teachers, it is amazing that the proportion of male principals to female principals is the way it is. This, of course, is partly because women still shoulder the majority of the responsibility for childrearing at the expense of their career. One of the great indicators of the relative lack of economic power women as a group have is the huge discrepancies in the amount of superannuation in female hands as opposed to male. Single women face a much less financially secure old age than single men, and they have to manage on less for longer, given women generally live longer than men. All of these facts are clear indications of systemic bias against women and how much further we have yet to travel.
Posted by enaj, Tuesday, 23 August 2005 3:22:34 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
enaj, I don't want to see like I'm disputing what you say - I really am seeking clarification. In particular I was interested in the claim "even when they do the same job". I thought that was addressed by a variety of legislation (I know there are ways to work around it).

Certainly pay rates for different jobs can account for significant differences (teachers/nurses vs managers) but the other issues are hard to split out from personal choices.

I'm not real familiar with the personal finances of a lot of other people so most of my experience is in the difference between mine and my ex wifes finances.

- I've worked full time since leaving school.
She has worked part time as much as she can (regardless of child care responsibilities).
- I did a trade on leaving school and later a degree. Her studies have related to recreational interests.
- My super (now dramatically reduced) is based having worked full time for a long time. Hers is based on choosing easy jobs at minimum hours plus what she got out of me at settlement.
- My super will be added to by my working. Hers will get very little added to it until the next divorce.
- I've never had welfare as a substantial proportion of my income (minimal FTB only). Welfare and child support form the bulk of her income (even when we still had equal shared parenting with an equal balance of work hour child care responsibilities).
- Assuming a male child costs about $7000PA to raise my son is was costing me about $8,500PA under equal shared care. My ex was getting a net profit of about $4000 (based on the last figures I saw) between her share of that cost and what she received in benefits directly related to his care.

The big indicators can tell one picture but the detail can put a different light on it.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 23 August 2005 4:36:20 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
"Could you define what would be a “female” type politician, and what would be “female” type political policies."

Timkins, I don't believe there is a quintessential "female" type politician and consequently "female" type policies - we're on this small planet together - so better get used to it.

From what I have observed politics attracts certain personality types which are not gender specific. Primarily those attracted to power, those who think they can make an improvement to the human condition and those who possess a combination of the two. Nothing to do with sex, everything to do with personality.

The theory that women work in a more collaborative, communicative method and that this would transform politics is still a theory. Margaret Thatcher did nothing to further equal rights for women, nor did Bronwyn Bishop - these are the "power" type personalities.

Of course, as I have previously stated this doesn't mean that women should not have equal representation in politics, simply because they are no better or worse than men.

You really don't have any idea of what feminism means - nor do a lot of people. For me it is about equal rights - for both men and women. This includes equal representation in all facets of our world. Women can and do make valuable contributions and should not be prevented from doing so by a few men (AND WOMEN) who want to hold on to the balance of power.

There are women who really aren't all that interested in promoting women to higher positions. Why? It gets back to power and control. They like it just as much as men. More women means more competition for them.

So much for your feminist conspiracy theories - they just don't stand up. Women (quelle surprise) are as diverse a group as men and will never be the united force needed for any kind of 'take-over'. Nor would I want that I like men, I really enjoy their company, some of the best support (emotional and practical) has come from men.
Posted by Trinity, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 11:50:14 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
Enaj,Trinity,

Unfortunately, I believe you have not given a very clear idea of what is “feminism”.

I keep hearing people talk about “feminism” or describe themselves as being “feminist”. In fact on the ABC radio, an announcer will often introduce someone as being a “feminist”, but other times they do not introduce a person as being a “feminist”, so there must be some difference.

There are many “isms”, and the idea that “feminism” is for equality is rather suspect looking at the history of "isms". Marxism, Fascism, Communism etc were all for equality, freedom, liberty (origionally), which is why so many millions were killed or imprisoned because of those “isms” . Other “isms” such as Colonialism, Imperialism etc did similar.

I would think that there are people who will say that they are “feminist” simply to try and give themselves more importance, or to standout from the crowd. Similar to the learned “feminist” Dr Susan Maushart explaining how she utilizes her PhD:- ”I trot that out when I need a bank loan” http://abcasiapacific.com/nexus/stories/s944592.htm

She uses her PhD when it suits, discards it when it doesn’t, and I have also known people to use the term “feminist” when it suits, and discard it when it doesn’t.

At this point in time I would still have to go with Dr Janice Shaw Crouse’s outline of “feminism” (http://www.worldcongress.org/wcf3_spkrs/wcf3_crouse.htm). I have personally checked some of the data in that outline and I haven’t found anything to be “not true” as yet.

However I have been known to be wrong, so can anyone else provide:-
-A clear, easy to understand definition of feminism, and a list of feminist policies.
-A list of feminist books and web-sites I can read.
-A list of feminist organisations I can join (if possible, as I am a male)
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 1:57:31 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 think people percieve there to be a 'backlash' against feminism as many young women say 'oh no, I'm not a feminist', as they percieve this to mean man-hating, which they (the young women) clearly are not. Perhaps some feminists have been man-hating, but hey, you get nutbags at the fringes of any movement.

I look at feminism and go... hey, if not for feminism, I would not be allowed to vote. I would not be allowed to attend University. I would not be allowed to enter any of the professions. I would be a legal chattel to my father and then to my husband.

And even going back in recent history, after some gains were made- when my mother and father bought a house in the 70s, my mother's income was not taken into account by the bank as "she would just get pregnant and stop working anyway", despite her solid work history, and her qualifications being higher than my father's.

So I look at feminism and don't see male-hating. I see a movement which made it possible for me to work, live alone, attend university, get a well-paid job where I am equally respected with the men I work with. I am no-one's chattel, now or in the future. I expect that any future husband will be my partner, in every sense of the word, sharing responsibilities. I would not expect, ever, to be told that I should do something domestically just because of my sex. And I'm sure this view is shared by all the people I know in my age group.

Equality of opportunity, and equal respect. That is what I believe feminism has given women, and men, the chance to achieve.

I look at my female friends who are, or who are training to be, doctors, scientists, teachers, and engineers. And I look at my male friends who are or are training to be, physiotherapists, teachers, economists and computer scientists, and I think that really, this equality thing that feminism helped to bring about is pretty wonderful.
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 3:00:37 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
I don't know how to be any clearer, Timkins, a feminist simply believes in the equality of men and women.
This was revolutionary because until relatively recently (even back in the 70s when I was young) most people believed that women were intellectually, physically and spiritually inferior to men. They believed this to be a fact, hence the development of feminism, beginning in the 17th century with Mary Wollstonecraft's "Vindication of the Rights of Women" - a truly revolutionary text - and the many who followed her, including John Stuart Mill (yes, a bloke), Virginia Woolf, Betty Friedan, Gloria Stienem, Naomi Wolf and many many more. Read any of their books Timkins, if you want to read up on it. Laurie is right, without feminism women would not have the right to their own earnings or their children (both given to British women in the mid 19th century), the right to vote, the right to an education, or the right to refuse sex in marriage. Until just over 100 years ago, women were not considered to be fully human. It was, without doubt, feminism that changed that.
I am sorry if the women in your life have hurt you, Timkins, but women and feminists, as Trinity points out, are, just like men, a diverse group. If you got to know some of us, you might like us.
Posted by enaj, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 4:12:02 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
Enaj,

Thankyou for your unsubstantiated assumptions (Eg “the women in your life have hurt you”). Is making unsubstantiated assumptions about someone an important part of feminism? What unsubstantiated assumptions would you like to be made about you?

You have just said that feminism is about equality. Unfortunately many people talk about such things as “equality”, “freedom”, “liberty” etc. Just turn to Fox news.

What's so special about “feminism. and why should I believe a “feminist” when they talk about “equality”, and not someone else when they talk about “equality”. I really need a detailed set of “feminist” policies, not rhetoric or propaganda (as there is enough of that already in the world).

Re: books by the feminists you have mentioned. I have read works by some of these authors, and thought that they had all the elements of distortion, deceit, and duplicity (similar to the wonderful role-model for young people, Dr Susan Maushart)

Eg
“Friedan worked 9 hours a day – declaring that being a wife and mother was “not going to interfere with what I regarded as my real life.” Not surprisingly, Friedan’s three children had to undergo therapy to deal with what was called “the emotional fallout.””

Steinem famously declared that a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle. She remained single until her 60s –– when she recently married a divorced man with grown children.
http://www.worldcongress.org/wcf3_spkrs/wcf3_crouse.htm

Wolf:- She makes a dangerous extrapolation from the personal to the political—but the personal undermines the cause that is the pretext for writing the piece in the first place. http://slate.msn.com/id/2096152/

Basically I need a much more in-depth definition of feminism (as “equality” has been too misused in the past, to the misfortune of many, many people), and some detailed feminist policies.

I’ve seen too many tricksters, hypocrites and fraudsters hiding behind the term of “feminism” (eg Maushart, Greer) to unquestionably accept the term of “feminism”, without a very detailed explanation of what it is, and what it wants.

Also a list of “feminist” groups I can join (or can’t join, if I am a male).
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 24 August 2005 5:45:05 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
Timkins

What part of feminism is the belief in equal rights for women and men don't you understand?

I know you want neat little boxes, neat little stats and a hyperlink or two hundred, but really get it through your head - women are as a diverse a group as are men. Therefore, apart from the basic premise of equal rights we diverge into a variety of opinions from there.

Please give me examples of "male" politicians and "male" type politics. Now that should keep you very busy as that encompasses a pretty broad spectrum as does "female" politics - if there is even such a thing.

What affects women, affects men, ergot politics applies to us all. A healthy society values ALL its members and doesn't discriminate according to sex, religion, race, colour etc etc etc....

You are being deliberately provocative - I know you are not that stupid that you do not understand what equal rights for all people means.

What are you hoping to achieve by this deliberate form of ignorance?
Posted by Trinity, Thursday, 25 August 2005 8:11:45 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
Many feminists define themselves as advocates for "equal rights for women and men". Examples include equity in

- Pay: equality of earned income, in bottom line dollars, regardless of factors such as hours worked, job choices, etc.

- Careers: equal numbers of male & female engineers, computer scientists, doctors, lawyers, etc

I wonder, though, how many of the following numbers you think should be equal "regardless of other factors":

- health care research money (ex prostate vs breast cancers)
- life expectancy
- child custody statistics
- suicide rates
- victims of violent crime
- graduation of high school, university
- genital mutilation

Say whatever else you will, but can you name ONE of these, or any other injustice men/boys experience, that would be acceptable (because these certainly are) if the statistics were reversed?
Posted by pearlmartin, Thursday, 25 August 2005 9:30:28 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
health care research -

Until recently, almost all health care research was on men, then assumed to include women. Heart disease researchers are only now beginning to understand why women react differently to treatment than men. Both sexes have been treated unfairly by medicos, but I think if you went back through history ( a significant name in itself) you'd find women have had the rougher end of the stick. However, I do not defend less money for prostrate cancer research. Get out there, guys, and start raising some. Where do I send my cheque?

Life expectancy - women used not to live longer than men due to death in childbirth, since childbirth has become safer, they live longer. What should we do, make it more dangerous?

Child custody - when my husband and I had kids, I stayed home for 5 years as a full time mum, then I returned to work part-time, which I am still doing. He works long days and travels a lot. If we parted (heaven forbid) I would expect to continue to do the major careing for my kids.

suicide rates - more women attempt suicide, more men succeed. Misery seems to effect both sexes equally, its just women choose drugs to kill themselves which are less violent, but less effective.

victims of violent crime - its true, but men are also far more likely to be the perpetrators of such crime, so perhaps the two are connected.

grad. high school/uni - women do better in education, but they don't do so well afterwards, with men represented overwhelmingly in richest lists, most powerful and influential lists etc, which may indicate prejudice against highly educated women.

genital mutilation - there you lose me. Millions of women have their genitals appallingly mutilated in Africa at age of 6 annually (usually with a stone or razor and no anasthesia), mutilated to the extent that a small hole is left for urination, the life long misery health and childbirth consequences of this ghastly practice are horrendous. If you're comparing this with the removal of the foreskin, I'm gobsmacked.
Posted by enaj, Thursday, 25 August 2005 1:22:28 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
Pearlmartin- re equal pay- I doubt many women and/or feminists would suggest absolute pay equality without equality of time/effort when equal jobs are being performed.

What I find interesting about the lower rates of women's pay is the tradional under-valuation of the areas of employment dominated by women. For example, although rates of pay have gone up significantly in recent years, most of the 'caring' professions, such as teaching and nursing, which are dominated by women, tend to be under-valued in terms of pay-for-hours (and by that I mean ACTUAL hours, not the nine-to-three many people percieve teaching to be). The professions dominated by women also tend to be of lower social status, often quite inexplicably when the training and importance of their role in society is considered.

I believe the general lower status of these 'female' professions has its roots in the lower legal and social status of women that existed for many many years, where anything considered 'women's work' was devalued and considered insiginficant.

This devaluing is why many feminists continue to focus on the pay differential as a signal that while we, as a society, have come a long way in achieving greater equality of opportunity for men and women, there is still a way to go.
Posted by Laurie, Thursday, 25 August 2005 2:29:12 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
Trinity,Enaj, Laurie

Still no definition of feminism, or a list of feminist policies. If “feminists” are so diverse, then the term “feminist” has no real meaning. Feminists should just call themselves “people”.

But hearing a feminist talk about “equality”, is like hearing a feminist talk about a “woman and her children”. So for me to fully embrace the world of “feminism”, I would need an in-depth definition of “feminism”, and also a detailed list of feminist policies (or wants).

Otherwise the situation could be:-
Feminism:- Something that is used whenever it suits.
Progressivism :- Something that is used within feminism.

Pearlmartin,
To add to the list,
-the amount of government money being spent on women as compared to men,
-the number of women only, women’s organisations being subsidised by the government,
-the major difference in the avg retirement ages between men and women,
-the major difference in the sentencing of males and females for the same offence,
-the amount of male vilification and male demonisation being carried out by persons attached to Universities (eg Dr Susan Maushart).
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 25 August 2005 2:46:59 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
Laurie, it would be nice to see some research looking at hourly rates for men and women broken down by number of years training/experience required to achieve the pay rate. I certainly share the perception that some occupations dominated by women are underpayed (for hours worked).

enaj,
are your husbands work hours a result of his personal drive to work long hours and be away from home or rather a result of his dedication to his family and his attempts to work in a partnership with you to provide for that family. If the latter then would it not be reasonable if you split up (I hope not too) for him to change priorities? To often a males willingness to provide for his family becomes the stick he is beaten with after a family break up. Has he had the opportunity to be the prime carer while you do the long hours at paid employment? All other things being equal would you cooperate with that? Maybe you would but all too often the roles undertaken while a family was together are used as an excuse for massive inequity if the family splits up.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 25 August 2005 3:03:56 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
Timkins - I see your answer is wilful ignorance then.

Robert - time to move on from your appalling marriage.

Enaj, Laurie the above prove that on this website at least there is indeed a backlash.
Posted by Trinity, Thursday, 25 August 2005 3:12:27 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
Trinity, moving on from the marriage is easy. Moving on from the web of excessive child support and a life kept out of balance by a system which discrimiates and an ex milking it to the hilt is not. This is not history it is something which restricts my ability to move on every week.

I'm very much in favour of equal rights, equal pay etc. I'm pretty much in agreement with what you have said in earlier posts.

I have a real problem with those who use the guise of feminism to seek a special deal for women (some of what Timkins talks about but Timkins and I seem to be at a different place about the validity of feminism).

I'd would like more feminists to see the damage being done to legitimate feminism by those playing the system. Those who want better than equal rights but no accountability. In the areas I have looked into there are a lot of dodgy figures being used so I question other generalised figures which don't deal with the background.

I use my own situation because it is one where I know the details. No smokescreen about a hard done by mum not able to work because the child needs looking after etc. I have seen figures on how much support is paid.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 25 August 2005 4:00:58 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
Robert,
I would think there would be about a 5% chance that feminism is actually for “equality”, and a 95% chance that the term “equality” is being used as a type of smoke screen.

Feminists will say that they are for “equality”, but they do not call themselves “masculinists”. While a feminist is pro-female, they are not necessarily pro-male as well, and many feminists are highly anti-male and also anti-child.

If you have knowledge of Family Law, you will know the system is highly anti-male, and fathers are not regarded as being parents. That is feminism in action, with feminist textbooks found referring to fathers as being “foreign” in the family, and advocating that fathers be removed from families.

You probably know what feminists want to do to DV legislation, where a male is to be regarded as being automatically guilty, and has to prove his innocence, no matter what the situation.

Feminists want women to be removed from jails and detention centres because they are female, but of course the males must remain behind.

Feminists is some universities want all research to be approved by a feminist board before it is carried out, to see that the research will be pro-female, so eventually research becomes advocacy research for feminism, and such research is currently rife within social science already.

Feminists want women to be elected into government based on quotas, not ability. So eventually more feminists can get into government by default, and then they can change laws based on feminist ideals, not necessarily democratic ideals.

The list goes on, but an insidious aspect is to call “feminist” policies “progressive”. This means that if someone now questions feminism, they can be called “anti-progressive” as well as the usual terms of misogynist, anti-female, patriarchal etc

It is all designed to give more and more to females, but not necessarily more and more to the males as well (which is why so many feminists don’t like to talk about their “policies”, but hide behind the term “equality” instead)

“Don’t you worry about that” says the feminist.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 25 August 2005 7:47:51 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
R0bert - thanks for your response - I did reconsider later on that maybe I had been a bit harsh - I confess to venting some frustration. I agree that there are women who milk the system - this is not the result nor the intention of feminism.

I didn't choose too well with my marital partner either, I'm not holding the patriachy to blame, although back in the 70's a call to the police or neighbours for help while being abused brought no support - women weren't taken very seriously back then. Unlike you I was able to escape completely from the clutches of my ex - although if I had had children I often wonder if I would even be alive now. R0bert - not all women are like your ex please don't let her make you bitter and twisted.

At least we now acknowledge DV as a crime - one of the advances brought about by feminism. (yes I agree men are abused too - and I believe this acknowledgement is about the struggle for equal rights).

Timkins - a diversity of opinion does not negate the need for equal rights and I am still waiting for your example of "male" type politicians and "male" type policies - in no more than 350 words please. Your arguments are becoming weaker and more desperate - you are now putting words into the mouths of feminists eg >>
“Don’t you worry about that” says the feminist. << Where is your evidence of the Great Feminist Conspiracy for World Domination? I see alot of men and women who really want each other and want to get along with each other. Anyway at least you are entertaining.
Posted by Trinity, Friday, 26 August 2005 8:50:36 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
Trinity:- Still no definition of feminism, or a set of feminist policies?

Trinity previously said:- ”I fully concur with Bronwyn's point that the (few) women who have risen to the top simply play the men's game by men's rules”

I’ve heard similar before, eg Gudrun Schyman:-
“women's lives, choices, and opportunities are restricted by the patriarchal power structure.”
http://www.transnational.org/forum/meet/2005/Schyman_FeministInitiative.html

Gudrun Schyman is the principal founder of the Feminist Initiative (FI) party in Sweden, which would be the latest major feminist political party formed in the world. There have been countless hours of feminist research conducted throughout the world, so FI could be the final culmination.

Gudrun Schyman is an ex-communist, an ex-alcoholic, has been charged with tax fraud, and headed the Swedish Left Party which sank into political oblivion.

Policies being mentioned by FI include:-
-a special “man tax” be placed on men, because they are male.
-men must get verbal agreement from women before any sex, which means that only men can initiate sex.
-gender quota systems on boards and government, which means people are primarily elected according to gender, not their ability.

So FI’s “anti-patriarchal” policies are hardly non-gender biased, and the history of feminism is one of feminists continuously attacking males, or trying to gain more power for themselves. Not surprisingly, a FI co-founder Ebba Witt-Brattström recently left the FI board citing “co-operation difficulties”. (ie a “non-patriarchal” party power struggle)

While some women may be pro-female, it doesn’t mean they are pro-male also, and women do not necessarily make the best politicians, just because they are female.

But looking at different figures on motherhood (some mentioned in my first post), I would think motherhood in Australia is at it’s lowest point ever (despite feminism). So many women are either killing or poisoning their unborn, or trying to remove the father from the children. Hardly much equality, (or even quality), in Australian motherhood, but I have noticed that feminists will rarely mention such figures.

So that is the rather uninspiring state of feminism (with all its declared or undeclared policies
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 26 August 2005 3:05:29 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
Feminist policies- improving women's status and lives by ensuring:
The right to vote
Access to university studies
Access to professions such as medicine and law
Ability to purchase property
Legal personhood
Equal pay for equal work
Ability to stand for Parliament
Posted by Laurie, Friday, 26 August 2005 3:42:45 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
Timkins, what is your view in regard to the kind of issues Trinity and Laurie are talking about?

Leave aside the excesses of some feminists (or those going under that name).

- Do you think women and men should get equal pay for equal work?
- Do you think women should have the same rights under law as men?
- Do you think that women and men should be allowed the same opportunities based on their ability rather than gender?

If you get past that then we may make better progress at dealing with the impacts of the abuse of some of those ideas. To much of these forum threads is taken up with you butting heads with feminists who don't appear to represent the extreme views rather than dialog which moves us forward.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 26 August 2005 3:59:46 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
Robert,
I would think it is now impossible to determine who is an “extremist” or "radical" feminist, and who is moderate, as so many feminists are now attached to government, subsidised by government, attached to Universities etc.

In the case of Maushart, she portrays herself as being an Australian academic attached to the Curtin University, but says the most discriminatory and vilifying comments regards the male gender, but to my knowledge no other academic has ever made the slightest objection (so the rest of academia must agree with her).

In the case of Sweden, it was recently ranked the most gender-equal country in the world by the World Economic Forum, but that does not stop the Swedish feminists from carrying out their male vilification and demonisation, although one government official Ireen von Wachenfeldt was recently forced to resign after comments made about men, and the Swedish Ambassador to Brazil, (and ex Equality Minister), Margareta Winberg was also forced to withdraw statements made about Swedish men also.

So it appears that no matter what is done, feminists will continue their male vilification and male demonisation as much as possible.

In the case of such things as right to vote, university studies, access to professions, ability to purchase property, legal personhood, equal pay etc, women have had those things for decades, if not more than men?

And this is becoming an important issue, whatever more is given to women eventually has to come from somewhere else,(particularly if money is involved). As a gender, men are paying out much more personal income tax than women, but as a gender, men are receiving back pittance. That is economics, but in the area of law, it is becoming increasingly biased towards women also.

The ultimate is Spain, where 50% of government has to be female by default, thereby allowing in so many Mausharts, Greers, Schymans , Wachenfeldts etc. Normally no one would vote for them.

That is why I would like to see a clear definition of feminism, and a clear set of feminist policies (and not a “Don’t you worry about that” attitude)
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 26 August 2005 7:56:29 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
Timmy, and given human nature, and looking at history, the likelihood of either gender just 'stopping' when they reach equality is quite opptimistic I think.

The people driving agenda's are usually very committed, and equality is too close to 'vulnerability', so it wouldn't surprise me if the feminazi's continue to try to drum up issues to remain relevant.

The classic I read once was how (believe it or not) the story of Abraham sacrificing Isaac, was one of the main contributors to power role stereotyping, gender inequality, and the evil of patriarchy.

Here is quite a good article which will shed light on that, plus some valuable isights on the roots of the present middle east conflict.

http://people.bu.edu/wwildman/WeirdWildWeb/courses/thth/projects/thth_projects_2003_kubota.htm

A quote from a feminist writer is illustrative of just how 'far' the feminist goals might be focused

"Many feminist writers have considered patriarchy to be the basis on which most modern societies have been formed. They argue that it is necessary and desirable to get away from this model in order to achieve gender equality"

But, I ask, is equality really the agenda ?

So, as more and more males realize just how far the feminazi agenda my be heading, a backlash will indeed occur.

So, if it will never be anything else but 'Us' or 'Them' in charge, perhaps its better to step out of the loop and look to the scriptures for some enduring answers :) which assign roles and promote love above power in all things.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 26 August 2005 8:45:41 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
R0bert

Thank you for your cogent, rational post. Notice how Timkins has deliberately ignored your reasonable questions as follows: (they deserve repeating)

"- Do you think women and men should get equal pay for equal work?
- Do you think women should have the same rights under law as men?
- Do you think that women and men should be allowed the same opportunities based on their ability rather than gender? "

Timkins I am still waiting for your example of "male" type politicians and "male" type policies.

Boaz for goodness sake this thread is about whether or not there is really a backlash against feminism. The only interpretation I can make from your post (apart from exhorting us to shack-up with JC) is that I guess you must be backlashing equal rights - ouch!
Posted by Trinity, Saturday, 27 August 2005 8:50:23 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
Trinity, the religious nutters can't help themselves, they see nothing but the muddy mirror inside their heads.

We have come a long way since WW2. Men returned from war and found that women were doing so-called mens jobs, very successfully. From then on both sexes began to realise that they were a lot closer to equal ability and opportunity than they had been made to believe.

It was the girls and boys of the that era that were taught by both their mothers and fathers to respect and accept each other on the whole. Though you couldn't stop them and never will from aligning themselves gender, wise when it came to sexuality. It went from there, to where we are now, which we should all be thankful for.

I am sure that most people believe that equality is the norm, as we see both sexes being able to make their way through life without major suppression. Of course we will always have the cases that don't reflect that.

Radical feminism, is just another blind ism, like religion. Good for making us wake up to its stupidity and giving us a hint as how far we have come and what we should steer clear of.

I hope this is not getting away from things to much, But I have yet to see the feminists out on the streets, or in the media, trying to overcome the suppression of islamic and other religious women in this country, they are strangely quiet.

From my view of life, I don't see a backlash other than against the feminist PC's that flaunt their stupid anti male agenda. I think I may be right in saying, that the majority of women really object to the PC's agenda, as it is driving wedges between the equality that we have attained.

As long as men and women keep talking to each other and understand that we all have equal opportunity on the whole, but are different in our understanding and implementation, then we can only go forward and enjoy what we have and can achieve
Posted by The alchemist, Saturday, 27 August 2005 12:01:33 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 like the simpler things in life -- like men." Graffiti.

What does that mean girls - I don't get it?

More graffiti: "God was a woman," to which some wag has added, "Until she changed her mind."

Gotta get back in the kitchen now.
Posted by rancitas, Saturday, 27 August 2005 3:02:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trinity,
I thought I had answered Robert’s questions. To be highly specific.

“equal pay for equal work?”
Women already get equal pay for equal work, but men generally earn more overall because they do types of work that women don't prefer.

EG:-
“Men work longer hours at more dangerous and disagreeable jobs. They more readily accept night shifts, hardship postings to Alaska and entrepreneurial risks. Men get in-demand degrees in engineering, while women get degrees in French literature. Female librarians earn less than garbagemen, not because of discrimination, but because so many applicants compete for the safe, clean, comfortable, convenient, fulfilling jobs women prefer.”
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0814472109/102-5212955-8863319?v=glance

“same rights under law as men”
Women get increased rights in law than men, with a woman more likely to get a less severe sentence than a man for exactly the same offence. Many men have also found enormous bias against them in areas such as Family Law, ability to get legal aid etc.

“same opportunities based on their ability”
Feminists in various countries are trying to bring in quota systems so women can attain positions based primarily on their gender, not their abilities. This has been achieved in some countries, and has been proposed here also.

What is the difference between a male and female politician?
Very little, but in the past many male politicians have been easily lead by feminists propaganda, although feminists in countries such as Sweden are now being shown the door if they continue with their male vilification. I also think that many female politicians cannot adequately formulate policy, but rely heavily on male vilification, biased research, brainwashing and mantra terms such as “patriarchy”. Apart from that they cannot seem to do much else, even when given every opportunity.(eg the latest feminist “non-patriarchal” party, the Feminist Initiative party in Sweden).

The Alchemist,
I would think unsubstantiated terms such as “religious nutters” can be regarded as flaming. Do feminists rely heavily on flaming, name calling, demonisation, vilification etc.? All available evidence in this country and elsewhere would suggest that they most definitely do.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 27 August 2005 3:14:32 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
BD,
“…assigning roles..”?

“feminazi”?

..”is equality really the agenda?...”

You reveal more of who you are each post.

I was going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you missed my post and the questions I asked you regarding women. But since you have been back and made further comments, I will ask again that you answer the simple questions I have posed.

Fortunately I think plenty of men are comfortable with their equality (or the drive to find it) with women and will provide a good role model for future generations.

I think that alchemist and Trinity have the right perspective. I do believe that most people want equality, irrespective of gender.

Timkins,
Could you please explain why you have such an attitude towards women? I am only curious.
Posted by Reason, Saturday, 27 August 2005 4:38:16 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
Reason,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated assumption (eg “you have such an attitude towards women?”) What unsubstantiated assumptions would you like to be made about you?

It must be handy to be a feminist:- “If you criticise me, you are anti-female”.
Hitler had a similar philosophy:- “If you criticise me, you are unpatriotic”.

Hitler used a Dr Joseph Goebbels, who was the Minister for Propaganda and National Enlightenment.

Consider the following:-

“Mentioned idea of a dancing class to P. He said he'd consider it, but would prefer if I'd call him by his full name now that we're living together. Honestly! Men. They're always pushing for more.”

“Why break his spirit now, there’s plenty of time for that after he’s married”

“but research shows that guys who make women laugh and let's face it, isn't that all of `em”

“There were no males in our family, except my Dad and the dog, and over the years my mother had both of them fixed.”

The above is typically poured out on a weekly basis in a national newspaper, by someone who describes herself as being a feminist academic attached to a University, and whose books were recommended by Pru Goward, the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner, during a speech to the Commonwealth Heads Senior Executive.

So why should anyone take the “ism” called feminism seriously, or think of feminism as being somehow “progressive”, when so many so called highly educated feminists can only malign, demonise and vilify males, or come up with policies such as a “man tax” (i.e. a special tax to be placed on men, because they are male).
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 27 August 2005 8:55:24 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
Reason,
thanx again for showing the poor arrangement of my rather sloppy post ... let me explain

"Is equality the agenda" .. meaning.. I observe history and people, and I notice that seldom do the 'stop'.... at equality. i.e. the Feminzi's (as opposed to the women who just want a better deal and equality) are more likely to drag up this or that.. to achieve ASCENDENCY.. rather than equality per se.

I referred to the Abraham story for a very good reason. When such roots of our culture at attacked as showing 'the gender power roles' you know there is more afoot.

"Assigned roles" Yep.. I feel our gender determines 'complementary' roles.. how many times have I said this and still it passes over heads :) Girls are not suitable for front line hand to hand combat.... because they are weaker than men physically. So.... we guys spill our guts, while the girls facilitate us in supporting roles.

-Women and leading.

Combat is my main exclusion for them leading.
I don't feel real comfy with a female leading men in many areas actually. Seems unnatural to me. Notable exceptions 'Deborah' in the Old Testament. Joan of Ark. etc.

-Women in equal partnership with men.

In a business sense.. of course. In marraige, under the frame work of the biblical pattern.

-Men mind the house/Women support the family.

I feel it is unnatural, but sometimes neccessary. I think most men would experience depression after a while at that game. (not all)
You have to work as a team in marraige.. and often u depend on the other to get you through a hard patch.

KAY... why do I make u so mad as to strangle me sometimes ? :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Saturday, 27 August 2005 10:18:08 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
BD >>I don't feel real comfy with a female leading men in many areas actually.<<

Finally some honesty from you - you really don't see women as equals if you don't like the idea of a female boss. You really are from the dark ages with lines like
>>Men mind the house/Women support the family<<

Many men are very good at supporting families, many women do very well in business and are a dab hand at changing fuses, clearing the guttering and putting out the garbage - if thats what U mean by minding the house. Like many men who are threatened by equality you simply want to maintain the power base as it is now and you shamelessly use the bible to justify trad roles for men and women.

Timkins - Now you're linking feminism to Nazism? You really are desperate aren't U? BTW for every 'anti-male' quote there a myriad anti-female

Warning the following may either be offensive or hilarious depending on who you are….

'keep her barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen'

‘all cats are grey in the dark’

‘Q. Why did God give men penises?
A. So we'd have at least one way to shut a woman up.’

Q. What's it called when a woman is paralyzed from the waist down?
A. Marriage.

Q. Why are hangovers better than a woman?
A. Hangovers will go away.

Q. What's the difference between a woman with PMT and a pitbull?
A. Lipstick.

Q. Why is a woman like a dog turd?
A. The older it is, the easier it is to pick up.

The list is endless - I just wanted to underscore Timkins' puerile attempt to once again denigrate women.
Posted by Xena, Sunday, 28 August 2005 8:11:02 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
Timkins, “I would think unsubstantiated terms such as “religious nutters” can be regarded as flaming”. Either you are religious, blind or both. A quick look at the world situation will give you all the substantiation you need as to the mental nut cases that make up religion.

We can all see how they view equality between men and women, they express it very well in their actions, attitudes and posts. Luckily they are so programed, that they can't fail to reveal their true intent, even though they try to disguise it.

To see both genders as being other than equal in opportunity just gives ammunition to those that wish to remain in the dark ages. I don't see an difference between the zealots of all ideological persuasions. But I do see that the vast majority of people are really happy that we can all deal with life together, in a harmonious way. You will never change the nutters no matter what their cause, thats life. But we can make sure that their mental aberrations don't' control us.

I feel that we are close to being able to do that as both men and women see that gender is not the problem, but radical ideologies that are so inadequate that they have to try and control everything to support their unsupportable fantasies, are a big worry to our positive evolution.

Timkins you have very good points to make, but constant ranting only alienates those that can see some of the rational you speak off. The inequalities that effect us all, can only be overcome when we all work together to contain and treat the radical, nutters of this world, not support their illogical illusions.
Posted by The alchemist, Sunday, 28 August 2005 8:56:22 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
Timkins

R0bert's questions were straight forward and fundamental

Do you think women and men should get equal pay for equal work?
- Do you think women should have the same rights under law as men?
- Do you think that women and men should be allowed the same opportunities based on their ability rather than gender?

Requiring simple YES/NO answers you have attempted to obfuscate and qualify your responses - thus you have not answered his questions.

Alchemist

Appreciate your comments. In many threads on this forum Timkins has valid and well reasoned contributions to make. However on the subject of women and equality he loses the plot all the time. His contribution would be appreciated however he fails to realise that not all feminists are extremists and paints all women as greedy, ineffectual and manipulative. Many posters, male and female, find his comments offensive and insulting.

Xena

Love the quotes - you go girl.
Posted by Trinity, Sunday, 28 August 2005 9:57:25 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
Trinity, I'm was hoping that if we got some clear agreement about the basic's of what I think most feminists are about (my rough attempt to distill it to a short list) we could move on to two key issues
- addressing the areas where those objectives have not been met
- addressing those area's where those objectives have been passed by and become active discrimination against men.

My impression is that Timkins is so focussed on the second that it's hard for him to focus on the first. I don't recall Timkins ever posting anything that says he dislikes actual equality.

BD has previously made his views clear on the issue and they are in my view fairly consistent with common interpretations of the bible even if not helpful to women wishing to explore their potential.

The worry for feminsists is that if some of the excesses are not wound back there may be a swing to far in the opposite direction by way of backlash.

Keep up the interesting posts.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Sunday, 28 August 2005 10:07:16 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 R0bert (this is getting to be a habit)

I believe that the uberfeminist to be in the minority just like other extremists are the minority of the population.

However, I believe that this thread alone highlights the fact of backlash against even moderate feminists like myself. We don't need to get radical to be accused of conspiracy or manipulation of the system. Timkins won't come out and directly say he is against equality - but he won't say that he is in favour of it either. He prefers to qualify everything such as his demands for responses on his terms eg asking for "female" type politicians - this is why I asked him for "male" type politicians - equally absurd.

But hey, in the mean time we are engaging in interesting discussion - and that is great.

Cheers
Posted by Trinity, Sunday, 28 August 2005 10:26:10 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
When I visited this thread a few days ago and the comments had reached 38 in total, I felt that everything had pretty much been said and that was probably the end of it. To my surprise, looking again today I see the comments numbering 68 and rising fast!

What could possibly have happened to have made the discussion continue?

Well from reading, absolutely nothing has changed. Writers were simply going around in circles still argueing over the same points. Struth! And so the sex war continues.

And it will continue until people wake up to all the rubbish and propaganda that surrounds it. That is slowly happening and it's been called "backlash". Of course it isn't a backlash at all, rather a straightening up of life's values to bring about a peaceful end to the war. It's called backlash, because those who promote the war want any arguement against their "progressive" [sic] movement to sound "regressive", which it is not. The so-called backlash is simply a representation for justice, reason and decency. Simply, feminism is hurting, corrupting and even destroying children's lives daily and by that, it is seen by many, including myself as unjust, unreasoned and indecent. But if backlash is what the Marxists want to call it, then so be it.

"Backlash" is alive and well and growing constantly with many women joining the ranks against feminism - a branch of Marxism, designed to destroy traditional families and it was hoped, capitalism with it (Marx manifesto, 1848). That's where this great cry for equality came from and the myth of class oppression of women.

The only oppression suffered by women over the past millenniums has been from their own biology and from that they were "liberated" in the 60s by the contraceptive pill - and feminism had nothing to do with it. It was done by men.

And just as my good comrade Timken has pointed out numerous times in reply to the so-called women's struggle to overcome inequality, that they already have it and more.

Good luck to you Timken, respect!
Posted by Maximus, Sunday, 28 August 2005 11:31:13 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
Zena,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated remarks (eg “puerile” etc). You’ve called many posters many names, and I haven't yet found any evidence to suggest that name-calling and male vilification isn’t an essential part of modern feminism.

I haven’t heard your “jokes” before, but there would be a major difference between them and the male discriminatory comments regularly made by the highly educated feminist Dr Susan Maushart PhD, who is paid taxpayer’s money to be associated with the Curtain University, and whose articles appear weekly in a major national newspaper, and whose works have been recommended by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

If researched, you will also find considerable historical connections between Feminism and Marxism and Nazism.

TheAlchemist,
I have no religious affiliations, but calling religious people “nutters” would constitute flaming.

Robert,
If the situation is studied objectively, I cannot find many areas where women don’t have fewer rights than men in our society. Most of the time they have more, as detailed in previous posts.

So many professional feminists must now make their living through continually demonising males, and continually portraying females as being perpetually “oppressed”. They must do this to continue to earn money to pay their bills, so no matter what is done, they will eventually want more, and this has become the situation in Sweden.

Feminists have also trained many women, (and some men), to continuously disparage males, marriage, fathers, children etc, but remove those things from women’s lives, and what is left for many women is just the workplace, and perhaps women’s media.

Unfortunately women’s media is mostly artificial, and there isn’t much satisfaction or fulfilment to be found within many workplaces either. As Susan Maushart PhD has acknowledged upon self-reflection, “I’m as F—ked up as ever”. She has been a long time, self-declared “feminist”, but has achieved minimal life satisfaction or self fulfilment it would appear.

And of course, her works have been recommended by the non-gender biased, but all female Sex Discrimination Commission. The feminist’s version of “equality” is clear enough.

Maximus,
I fully agree with your analysis of modern feminism.
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 28 August 2005 3:32:35 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
BOAZ David

Did I say that? I don't recall it, but it does sound like me. No offense meant. It is a phrase that I use in jest.

I don't very often agree with you but I will defend your right to your opinions. Even so, I always appreciate the sincerity, time and effort that you put in to your posts.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Sunday, 28 August 2005 5:40:28 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
Being a Bloke is Best
1. My odds of being hired for a job, against female applicants, are skewed in my favour.
2. If I fail in my job or career, this won't be seen as a black mark against my entire sex's capabilities.
3. The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are low.
4. If I do the same task as a woman, chances are people will think I did a better job.
5. If I stay out of prison, my odds of being raped are very low.
6. I do not fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces.
7. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be questioned.
8. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my masculinity will not be questioned.
9. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be praised for extraordinary parenting.
10. If I have children and pursue a career, no one will think I'm selfish for not staying at home.
11. Chances are my elected representatives are male.
12. I can be mostly sure that if I ask to see "the person in charge," I will face a person of my own sex.
13. As a child, I could choose from an infinite variety of children's media featuring positive, active, heroes of my own sex.
14. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented, every day.
15. If I'm careless with my financial affairs it won't be attributed to my sex.
16. If I'm careless with my driving it won't be attributed to my sex.
17. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
18. If I have sex with a lot of people, it won't make me an object of contempt or derision.
19. It’s possible for me to choose clothing that doesn't send any particular message to the world. I won’t be accused of dressing like a slut.
Posted by Ambo, Monday, 29 August 2005 11:04:39 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
20. If I buy a new car, chances are I'll be offered a better price than a woman buying the same car.
21. If I'm not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are relatively small and easy to ignore.
22. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
23. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that kind of violence is called "crime" and is a general social concern. (Violence that happens mostly to women is usually seen as special interest.)
24. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex. "All men are created equal…," mailman, chairman, he.
25. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month it is.
26. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or questioned if I don't change my name.
27. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about whether or not I might choose to have a family.
28. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my own sex.
29. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my household.
30. If I have a wife or girlfriend, chances are we'll divide up household chores so that she does most of the labour.
31. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she'll do most of the childrearing. If one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids, chances are the career sacrificed will be hers.
32. Virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are much rarer.
33. I am not considered a failure if overweight.
34. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.

Thanks B Deustch
Posted by Ambo, Monday, 29 August 2005 11:07:07 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
Ambo,
What a brilliant summary, particularly the last line.
In the end, we will all benefit from feminism, because it allows us all to stop living up to a stereotype of what a "man" should be and what a "woman" should be, and become what a "human" should be. Men may live longer if the pressure to be an unemotional breadwinner is removed and women may suffer less from depression if the pressure to be a self sacrificing home maker is removed, and people can choose for themselves.
And, I very much agree that women are no better than men and can and do behave badly, but, they are no worse either. I can understand the hurt and bitter feelings of men who have married or partnered badly, just as I can understand the hurt and bitter feelings of women who have done the same. We're so much more alike than we are different, and have caused such misery to one another, largely thanks to all religions, as you point out, Ambo, by emphasising our differences rather than our similarities. I want my daughters to have just as many opportunities to be the people they want to be as anyone's sons. Seems entirely reasonable to me that they should. And if the family can only survive by restricting women's choices in life then there is something seriously wrong with the family, and we need to think how to create families that benefit and encourage all their members.
Posted by enaj, Monday, 29 August 2005 12:17:31 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
Ambo,
Would making maligning, half-truth statement about the male gender be representative of “feminism”?

Also still waiting for you prove that you are not an Ambulance Officer on duty. Maybe you should join the Sex Discrimination Commission, but it doesn't employ males.

Enaj,
Still waiting on a tangible definition of feminism, and a detailed list of "progressive" feminist policies (without rhetoric, as I can get that from many sources).
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 29 August 2005 5:14:27 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
Ambo,

I too am waiting for you to prove you are an ambulance officer.

Similarly, I am waiting for 'abloke' to prove he's a bloke, 'aussie2' to prove his/her Australian citizenship, 'Author' to send us a complete bibliography, and 'Black Man' to send us a photo proving his ethnicity.

I would like to see a birth certificate for 'bushbred', and I hope very much that 'FromAmerica' will be presenting us with a passport, or some other kind of ID. I would also like to see 'Engineer' send us a scan of his Australian Institute of Engineers membership card, And 'drunkwombat955' probably ought to provide us with a blood sample.

To be fair, 'fireman' ought to also give us his operating number, and 'mediaman' should immediately divulge full details of his employer. Captain Moonlite will give us his boat license number, and landlubber would be unwise to withhold his address any longer.

I also require some kind of solid evidence that 'solarboy' is not accessing this site while connected to a conventional electricity grid, and I would be very much pleased if 'The alchemist' would tell us how to make gold from the other elements (or immediately change his nickname). 'musicmaster' will kindly show proof of his/her Masters (or higher) degree in music, and 'FunnyBones' is to supply a certificate of funny at once.

Finally, I require irrefutable proof that 'Neohuman' is a human, and not a chimpanzee.
Posted by Tom Carroll, Monday, 29 August 2005 6:17:05 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
Hi Ambo

Thanks for your last post - cracked me up!

Kay
Posted by kalweb, Monday, 29 August 2005 7:33:47 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
Being a bloke is best?
1. My odds of being hired for a job, against female applicants, are skewed against me.
2. If I fail in my job or career, this will be seen as a black mark against my entire sex's capabilities.
3. The odds of being falsely accused of sexual harassment on the job are high.
4. If I do the same task as a woman, chances are women will think I'm queer.
5. If I go out on a date, my odds of being falsely accused of rape are high.
6. I fear walking alone after dark in average public spaces because I'm statistically more likely to be a victim.
7. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will be questioned.
8. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, I will be nagged by my partner.
9. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be suspected of being a child abuser and pervert.
10. If I have children and pursue a hard working career, I'll lose custody of my children in divorce.
11. Chances are my elected representatives are men who comply with feminist dictates.
12. I can be mostly sure that if I ask to see "the person in charge," I will face a woman in middle management.
13. As a child, I could choose from an infinite variety of children's media featuring negative, stupid, stereotypes of my own sex.
14. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the newspaper and read demeaning articles about my sex, every day.
15. If I'm careless with my financial affairs I won't be shown any mercy by debtors or courts.
16. If I'm careless with my driving I won't be shown any mercy from the police or courts and get greater sentences.
17. I can't speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on trial.
18. If I have sex with a lot of women, I'll end up paying for a lifetime's child support.
Posted by Maximus, Monday, 29 August 2005 7:53:59 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
19. It's not possible for me to choose clothing that doesn't send a particular message to women. I will most probably be accused of dressing like a bum.
20. If I buy a new car, chances are I'll be offered a useless little gutless car marketed to women.
21. If I'm not conventionally attractive, women will call me a jerk.
22. I can't be loud because I'll be accused of domestic violence. I can't be aggressive because I'll cop an AVO.
23. I can't ask for legal protection from a violent spouse because I'll be assumed guilty and arrested for domestic violence and be put in jail without any evidence against me.
24. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day existence will always include my sex as an example of all that's wrong in the world. "All men are animals".
25. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in general will always be questioned depending on what time of the month it is for her.
26. Any woman can name me as the father of her child without my knowledge under the Family Law Act.
27. The decision to hire me to work with children will always be based on assumptions that I'm a sex-fiend and paedophile.
28. Every major government in the Western world is led primarily by people pandering to feminists.
29. Most Western religions don't argue that I should be the head of my household and promote homosexual marriage.
30. If I have a wife or girlfriend, chances are we'll end up divorced and she'll be awarded everything I've ever worked for.
31. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are I'll lose custody of them and be forced to support her even if she earns more than me.
32. Virtually all of the media is filled with articles demeaning, demonising and humiliating my sex.
33. I am considered to be a bum if temporarily unemployed or poor.
34. I have the dubious privilege of being a slave to the socialist state and their womenfolk's every need.
Posted by Maximus, Monday, 29 August 2005 7:54:46 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
Maximus, the important and powerful thing about B Deustch's privilege checklist is that it is true to a large extent, cf. yours.

Total bull claims: 1,2,3,5,6,12,14,17,21,22,23,24,25,29,30,31,33,34
Bizarre or not an example of female privilege: 4,8,11,18,20,21,25,26,29,33,34
Huge difference of degree: 7.
Not true if woman in similar position: 10, 31
Apparent misunderstanding of terms 19,24
Copies of other items: 11/28, 14/32.

15 and 16 are mostly bull, and where true it is because of a negative sterotype of women.
13: But in conjunction with a greater number of positive ones.

9,27. Are the only things with substance, and can be justified by an unfortunate reality and the seriousness of the issue.
Posted by Deuc, Monday, 29 August 2005 9:11:29 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
Deuc, I think both checklists have items that are true some of the time and false in other situations. Kind of depends on the perspective you read them with.

I thought about trying to do a list like that but did not like the risk of it become another slanging match between the genders - not what I'm trying to achieve.

Maximus's list may be as fair and valid as Ambo's - both have a use in pointing out that the grass may not be as green as it looks over the other side of the fence and both miss out on talking about the good bits.

Both probably are incomplete so if Maximus's list has some repeats assume that there are a few big ticket items missing (likelyhood of being on the front line if your country goes to war , risk of successfully suiciding in the midst of family breakup etc, likelyhood of being killed on the job, etc).

Reread Maximus's list the way you would like Ambo's list to be read. My suggestion - read it not to pick it to pieces and filter everything through your own perceptions but rather to get some understanding of the other view point. I tried it with Ambo's list and it is not really that painfull.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 7:51:13 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
Well said Robert. I agree it can all depend on which way you look at. things

Of course you could also add, the rising rate of suicides of young and middle age males which is getting quite out of control, as they struggle to find where they can fit, if anywhere.

We have come a long way and should look forward to moving even further towards equal opportunity and acceptance, without having to alienate the sexes from each other.

In my life I have seen lots of discrimination on both sides, personally losing everything I had worked for for many years as well as my children Purely because my ex decided that she wanted to do something different and got involved with the radical feminazi.

Instead of burying my head in negative, misery, I left it all behind. The ex and her crew are still whinging and bitching never satisfied, whilst I have happiness and contentment

Moral, It is how you react and how you go forward that determines how you see things and how they effect you, not what has occurred. Get on with it, there is as much good and bad between male and female, as you want to see. They give me the irritates sometimes women, but I also know that I do the same. I just try to make the effect less and less. I love the difference.
Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 8:52:16 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
I did some research on the 'mother of feminism' Mary Wostoncrafte.

Its interesting that she had an alchoholic and violently abusive father.

She also has a close link with some dissenting 'church' men of the day who rejected some fundamental pillars of Christian faith.

So, is it any wonder, that her writings, reflected these things, and that much of Feminism is also characterized by anti God/Christian and man hating ideas ?

In her day, it was considered that 'women' should not write about politics, or history.

Now.. is this 'male domination' ? is it 'inequality' ? or ...'culture'.

Why did 'men' write about history and politics. Maybe because they are closely related to the security of the nation, and just possibly because it is WE MEN who spill our guts out, and get blown away, and sliced and diced, to protect the women of the country from the hoards of raping and pillaging Ottomans or the such like.

Cultural symbols of this are things like opening the door for a woman, walking on the kerb side of the pavement (so 'WE' are more likely to get whacked or splashed, than she is)

Perhaps, men knowing that Women can have 'bad weeks' with the PMS and considered it not appropriate for a female general to be giving orders on an 'off' day, when the lives of countless thousands are at stake.

The sooner we abandon the idea that
1/ 'having different roles' is NOT about lack of equality, its about males and females being different, for very good reasons....and that
2/ The idea of equality peddled by 'marxist' linked feminists, is culturally, socially and biologically just plain incorrect.
3/ That those who have embraced ideas of equality currently in fashion, have simply been sucked in by skilful propogandists of marxist leanings, and hardly think for themselves.

Having said all that. I don't have a problem with equal pay for equal work. I dont deny females work opportunities similar to men, save front line combat,and any position where her monthly cycle may compromise her ability to give her best to the position.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 9:02:39 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
Her monthly cycle!
Now we get to the nub of it.
Some blokes are so quick to blame everything on menstruation. My question, when I see a bloke behaving like an absolute pain, is to ask what is their excuse? If it ain't hormones then it must be sheer bad character. I reckon that's about as fair a judgement as to assume women lose control of themselves every month.
Boaz, David, it seems, from your own words, that you regard women as naturally inferior to men, and that you do this as a result of your religious belief.
You summarise exactly why I reject all religion as so convenient at bolstering men's sense of superiority that it is self evidently man-made. It is also why I will not allow my daughters to attend any scripture or class from a religion which does not allow women to take leadership roles. If reincarnation is true (and I doubt it is) I hope you come back as a woman, you might see the whole world differently.
Posted by enaj, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 9:57:12 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
Finally we come to the crux of it BD. You have finally made me mad with your self-righteous, happy-clapper trash.

There are so many ignorant, chauvinistic and plain dumb examples in your last post that I cannot be bothered to respond to them. You are so deeply caught in your religion that it has made you so much less than a thinking person. I am glad you are happy – after all that is the plight many have in this life (finding happiness) but there are many more that have found it, without finding a target to dump on – in your case women and other religions.

Coming from a single mother family who successfully (i.e. no help or assistance from the father) raised four children without any social or emotional problems, all successful, considerate, socially conscious and most of all open-minded I’d say that your theory BD is a complete crock. How do you account for that? Or is she an aberration to the norm? Before you go on, I also know of at least three other families of two or more children, all who contribute to society, have no issues and are happy.

BD, take your illogical and self-serving claptrap and…. well, I am guessing you know what I would like you to do with it.

Enaj,
Well said. If BD want to blame nature for a woman’s ‘bad days’ (which I do not think exist), then how does he account for the continual asinine behaviour of men through the ages? Further, if it is men who are meant to rule, haven’t they completely $%&* it up so far? 2,000 years and still it is a mess. I think maybe it is time for the women? At least a more balanced contribution.
Posted by Reason, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 11:03:02 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 to all who have posted since my last post. I thought the debate was getting a bit stale and decided to stir the pot a little.

I feel real sorry for Maximus - clearly a case of sour grapes. As others have pointed out there is good and bad in both men and women.

BD - I work with women all the time I only know if they're menstruating if they tell me. And if women want to fight on the front line - good luck to 'em - its not for me. Except for one episode in my life I tend towards pacifism.

I am not so blind I can't acknowledge that the balance of power is still held firmly by men. In all areas from politics to business the majority is controlled by men. We still rule. However, I'd like to see some balance too, maybe women won't be any better at handling power than men, but it is hardly a true democracy if women don't have equal representation in all areas of power.
Posted by Ambo, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 11:48:57 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
Still no definition of what is this “progressive” feminism, or what constitutes “progressive” feminist policies, but a lot of talk about how men rule, hold power etc, etc, etc, and how only women can fix up the “mess” (whatever the “mess” is)

This “feminism” now seems very much like “elitism”.

Say that you are a “feminist”, and you should be automatically held in higher regard, but at the same time “feminists” do not have to prove anything, and do not have to show their "progressive" feminist policies for public comment (as any criticism of “feminism” is not acceptable, or it is “patriarchy”, or “anti-female” etc).

Sounds like a Total Rort.

Ambo,
Be truthful. Are you an Ambulance Officer on duty or not? If you are, then you are beginning to act as a representative of the Ambulance Services.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 12:29:28 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
Boaz David, “Now.. is this 'male domination' ? is it 'inequality' ? or ...'culture'. “
Answer, all three.

“WE MEN who spill our guts out, and get blown away, and sliced and diced, to protect the women of the country from the hoards of raping and pillaging Ottomans or the such like. “

“WE MEN”, detail your active service for this country. I doubt that you have ever been involved in anything other than your self righteous ego. What would you know about anything but stupidity.

I doubt that I would know any bloke who has combat experience that doesn't have the greatest respect for the women of this country. If you had any knowledge, you would know the tremendous contribution they gave during times of conflict, both at home and within active area's. The strength and support they gave was exemplary.

Personally I would rather have 10 women with basic training facing a superior enemy at their time of the month, than 1000 fully trained practising christians. At least I would know who I could trust and who would stand by me.

I have seen people like you on active service and those that represent your religion It was only the Salvos that were there for the troops, the rest, squirmed as far back as they could get. They gave no help, no support, they were just a bunch of pests. The number of blokes that went on active service as christians and came back as real people, far outweighed those who freaked when they realised that their useless god was not going to help them.

You are pathetic in the extreme.

Come to our RSLA and say what you have said here, I would look forward to that, but you and your cowardly ilk don't have the guts to be real, just bloody stupid.

If the moderator, feels that this is flaming, I apologise to all, but not Boaz David. But I am not going have anyone put down those that have actually stood up for their country.

I know few nurses that would love to treat you.
Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 1:32:38 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
Timkins,
Feminism is like humanitarianism, it is an attitude, a set of beliefs. If you'd like my definition, what I mean when I say I am a feminist, here they are. (You will pour scorn on them, I know, but perhaps others may read them with a more open mind.)
1. Men and women are people first, men and women second.
2. Women are fully as human as men.
3. Women are fully as human as their children.
4. Women's needs, desires, beliefs and ambitions need to be considered as seriously and respectfully as anyone elses, and should not always come second.
5. Women have the right to control their own bodies.
6. Women have the right to control their own lives.
7. Women have the right to dress the way they want to.
8. Women are responsible for their own choices and behaviour.
9. Women are no weaker, sillier or manipulative than men.
10. If a woman proves she can do something (run a big company, lead a country, fight on the frontline) she should be allowed to do so.
11. Women have an interesting and unique way of looking at the world that is fully as valid as mens.
12. If there is a God, s/he thinks women are every bit as valuable and important as men. S/he would let them decide if they want to be or do different things, not make fatuous rules about it, that exclusively benefit one sex.
Posted by enaj, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 3:01:50 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
R0bert, both do have items that depend on the situation, but in almost every single case the likelihood of a negative situation existing is much higher for women than for men. Eg. #2, in what fields is a failure by men going to be a black mark? Knitting perhaps?

And then there are the more egregiously false claims like 5, 23, & 30.
WTH is up with #34? or #20 or #4? What relevance is homosexual marriage in #29? These don't depend on perspective.

I'd like to think that you didn't actually read through Maximus' list. It may be about as fair and valid as Ambo's, in the same sense that unicorns may like to jump through clouds. There are areas where females are in a privileged position, but most of it has to do with differences that actually do exist in reality, eg. war, ability to do work that results in more injuries. There are comparitively fewer instances where unreasonable/unfair discrimination or expectations exist against men in favour of women.

The point of the checklist (which is an adaptation from a white privilege checklist btw) is to demonstrate disparity and thus show that men and women are not treated equally, not to show that no men are treated unfairly because they are men. Such unfairness should be stopped, but it is wrong not to acknowledge that the situation is stillbetter for men than it is for women.

Maximus' list is really quite weird, and the other viewpoint isn't some well-thought out and reasoned response by someone concerned with discrimination against men or extreme forms of feminism. It is an immature, homophobic and pitiful response from someone grasping at straws. I'm sure a better list could be drawn up, but that won't alter the disparity. Deustch's list does have flaws, where things are now less of an issue (14,23) and some weak claims like 15,16,24,26 etc., but it would be a huge example of false equivalency to say that Maximus' is as fair and valid.
Posted by Deuc, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 3:47:17 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
Is anyone else kinda depressed that this is even still an issue? People should be judged on their individual merit, not on what sex they are. There's really nothing else to it. End. Of. Story.

For example, yeah, on AVERAGE men are more capable of 'fighting on the front line'. But I'm a small weedy male, and I know heaps of women who would be better at it than me. So obviously its not about being male or female. Its about how good you are at fighting on the front line.

Pretty simple when you break it down, isn't it?
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 3:59:23 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
Deuc, we clearly have some different perspectives on some of the issues mentioned (as I have different perspectives to Ambo and Maximus). I have not tried to do a detailed point by point analysis of the lists, I think that both are intended to be subjective and touch impressions rather than hard statistics. I've browsed both lists and can recognise some truth and some things which don't look right.

If some of Maximus's claims are "total bull" they still represent some common impressions and the way some men are coming to feel about the direction society is going. Having seen some of the family law/child support system (sorry Trinity) first hand I am very aware of the bias in that system and the utter lack of accountability which applies to some women. I know there are female exceptions who get the rough end of deal as well.

A few points from Enaj's list are especially worth plagerising (all good but some stick out)
3. Men are fully as human as their children.
4. Mens's needs, desires, beliefs and ambitions need to be considered as seriously and respectfully as anyone elses, and should not always come second.
9. Men are no more aggressive, sillier or manipulative than women.
11. Men have an interesting and unique way of looking at the world that is fully as valid as womens.

Cheers R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 4:36:12 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
That is very true RObert :)

Some men get stuffed around by the system.

Some women get stuffed around by the system.

Traditionally, and in not that distant a past, women have got MUCH more stuffed around by Government/Society, but I like to think that feminism, and the acknoweledgement that women are just as human as men, has helped us all become a little more equal.

Hopefully, as we all become more aware of the systemic inequalities which exist in many different situations, the system will only be able to stuff us up as 'people'! Afterall, death and taxes come to us all! :)

Now there is a happy thought to end on! *sigh*
Posted by Laurie, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 4:50:39 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
Enaj,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated inference that I do not have an “open mind”.

Unfortunately I have read “Animal Farm” (and I have made sure that the daughter has read it too). What started out as “equality”, certainly did not become that way eventually.

EG
“All animals are equal”, eventually became, “All animals are equal, But some animals are more equal than others.”

Eventually “equality” on Animal Farm was replaced with a form of elitism, where the pigs ruled through deceit and propaganda, and if anyone was critical of the pigs, they could be savaged by special dogs, that had been especially trained by the pigs.

Most of your 12 “feminist” policies are all about “women”, and I become very suspicious of that, as feminism can easily become a form of “elitism”. Your 12 principles of “feminism” mentions the word “women” 13 times, the word “men” 6 times, and the word “people” 0 times. Nearly all feminist text is the same. It becomes brainwashing propaganda.

The 7 original commandments on Animal Farm were gradually changed in time, and the word “pig” became increasingly incorporated. The pigs believed that they should rule Animal Farm, and they believed that they should get the best food, and sleep in the beds in the house, and the other animals had to do the work, slept in the barn, and often starved. Seems very much like the current Family Law system, where the mother gets the house, and the father becomes a payer of money to the mother.

Leaving out feminist rhetoric and propaganda, I can find the most minimal evidence to suggest that feminists are really interested in “equality”, and not the “more equal, than equal” version of equality.

Generalised talk about equality is not enough, as there has to be detailed “feminist” policies provided.

For example:- is a “man tax” a progressive feminist’s “equality” policy, or is the current system of 80/20 in Family Law a progressive feminist’s “equality” policy. That is the level of detail now necessary
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 5:36:48 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
Timkins,
no, a man tax would not be right, neither is the 80/20 system in family court, as a general rule - that one depends on a number of circumstances.

So, how about you answer some simple questions:

- Do you think men and women should be equal?
- Are women as capable as men at anything?
- Are women suitable for leadership

Just to start the ball rolling...
Posted by Reason, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 6:55:54 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
ALCHEMIST.... posts like that last one of yours 'are' flaming, but don't worry, name calling is usually the sign of a weak argument.

FOR THE RECORD.
1/ I build my first house with a loan available ONLY to those who had spent time in a war zone. So, yes, my guts were on the line. Vietnam.

2/ Nowhere in my post did I suggest that our wonderful female half of the population were not involved, as a team, giving their all for the sake of the nation. I said it was we men who SPILLED OUR GUTS. vulgar but true. We did it to protect ourselves and the girls.
We could not have done what we did withOUT their invaluable effort behind the lines.

When I regularly met the Hercules' returning from Vietnam at Richmond, not once did I see a female without arms or legs, but by God I sure saw a lot of guys. Thank God also for the care and love shown by the nurses.

The only thing you proved with your post is how desperate you appear to be to lock me into some convenient little stereotype from your own bigoted mind (and I really mean 'bigoted' not an insult, an observation)

SPENDO.. in the RAAF we lined up 'tallest on the right, shortest on the left, and trust me, your size or build was not the issue, that you gave your best was. Comradeship makes up for a lot in turbulent times mate. Sometimes the most unlikely can do great things.

REASON.. sorry 4 making u mad. The truth is, my comment about PMS and monthly cycle was in fact almost word for word of how a women professional described herself to me just yesterday ...... I was not making a 'male judgement' mate. But honesty must agree that a significant number of gals are effected by pms and cyle no ?
I have a wife and a daughter and a sis in law like that.

TIMKINS.. your comments about animal farm are spot on.. human nature... no original sin ? :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 9:37:22 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
BOAZ - even if I was big, I'm no fighter. My point remains the same: I know plenty of women who would be much better fighters than me. Case closed.
Posted by spendocrat, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 12:13:39 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
BD, yes there are some women who use PMS etc as an excuse to avoid responsibility for their actions and choices.

Not an area I'm an expert in but there seems to be little medical support for the idea that the hormonal changes at that time of the month turn women into blithering idiots unable to make rational decisions. Probably as valid as you claiming a testosterone overload on a particular day caused you to go out and beat up somebody. Maybe a belief in the overwhelming power of PMS contributes to a willingness to let loose.

Most of us have days when we manage ourselves better than other days, unless we have serious mental illness we are still responsible for our actions.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 12:36:50 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
Reason,
I believe I have already answered your questions in previous posts, and I have given considerable detail in those answers, and I see no reason to have to re-answer such questions over and over again, like some type of interrogation.

But instead of interrogating people, you can simply get a copy of “Animal Farm”(or read a online version:- http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/animalfarm/1/)

Cross out the word “pig”, and insert any of the major groups throughout history that have identified themselves as being an elitist “ism”. The events that unfold are normally the same each time, and it doesn’t matter about gender.

Maybe the author of this article could also re-read Animal Farm, before any further glorification of the “ism” now being called “progressive” feminism.

And maybe the author or some other academic could also sort through available data and come up with a outline of the state of motherhood, fatherhood and childhood in Australia. Not a professional feminist's version, but the real and actual version.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 1:29:17 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
Timkins, I doubt you will find much argument around here that RADICAL feminism is the domain of academic rambling not connected to reality, but talking about Animal Farm and "isms", surely you can look back at, really, quite recent history, and see that it was "male-ism"? Women were not allowed to vote until just over 100 years ago, they were considered legally children, mentally incompetent, and requiring a man to 'own' them. Which hopefully, we all now agree is absurd.

As to the state of motherhood, fatherhood, and childhood in Australia, I would say things are getting better all the time. Children are not told (well, as much) what they can be 'when they grow up' limited by gender- it would be quite scandalous for your average little girl to be told "no honey, you can't be a doctor! you're a girl, you're going to stay home and be a mummy!", and it would be equally wrong for a little boy to be told "no darling, you're a boy- you should be a doctor, not a nurse".

Motherhood & fatherhood- most people who have children these days WANT them and plan for them. Why would they not love their children as much, or possibly even more, than when a lack of contraception often meant too many kids to keep? And arn't fathers now ALLOWED and ENCOURAGED to actively and openly spend time with their children? They are not assumed to be unfeeling bread-winners. Isn't that a good aspect of increasing gender equality?

So we should all look on the bright side of life. Some things suck. Somethings are unfair. But at least we know now that discriminating against someone based purely on their sex is, at the very least, intellectually WRONG. Even if we have not let managed to be 'sex-blind' in all areas of life/law/society/government/education/etc etc.
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 1:46:00 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 comparison of feminism to unionism is instructive on a certain level. l beleive that the purpose of politics is to divide and conquer. Tap into, or preferably engineer, a social discontent then build a constituency on the back of it by claiming to redress any real and perceived power imbalance. The founders of a political movement, the activists, tend to drive most if not all of the substantive changes of a political movement in its very early formative changes. Then once those changes are in effect, the politicians move in and hijack the legacy of the activists, claiming it as their own and using it as thier basis of power.

This is about the time that political ideology becomes crucial. It becomes important to focus on the marginal remaining areas of discontent and really hammer home the ideology. Ideology by definintion is arbitrary, unyeilding... it does not change. It defies logic and reason. It must, for logic and reason will always defeat ideology, being that ideology is a leap of faith. By its nature, it must be contradictory and unacheiveable. Above all it must be IDEALISTIC ie aspirational and unattainable in its totality. That way, social discontent can always be fostered and those few politicians searching for personal power can keep eating.

Eventually, there is no place to go except into the marginal, exaggerations of 'us versus them' ideological propoganda. That leads to the necessary VILIFICATION of the political opposition... it keeps discontent alive thru emotional manipulation. Eventually, the anti-opposition vilification disenfranchises the constituency. They can see the changes, they can see that its just the few at the top who are still fighting for their place at the levers of power and they disconnect. Especially distasteful to the constituents is the propensity for extreme and often quite rationalisation. The lack of person substantive relevance and the distaste for hateful vilification of the oppostion drives people away.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 2:46:33 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
l think this happened to unionism and its starting to happen with feminism. In fact femisist ideology is morphing into a womens' rights movement, which may be closer to truth than the laudible yet political obfuscation of a quest for so-called equality. Equality is an ideal... highly laudible yet logically flawed and essentially unattainable. No one is equal. We are all different and unique in some way or other. Given its idealistic nature it the perfect backbone of a political ideology. Interestingly, men too are now thinking in terms of so-called mens' rights. More of the same... me, me, me, us versus them type of stuff. Many of the rights that both men and women seek as a function of gender have merit, yet many are laced with vitriolic gender bashing personal discontent.

As an aside, l think that quoting such a narrow demographic as 24-35 yr olds is extremely limited. Particularly in this case, where a woman's reproductive biology has a signifiacnt impact on her needs and perception. Its well and good to see things a certain way when foot loose and free. Its another thing entirely when the kids come along and so much seem sto revert back to the ways of old, very often at the strong insistence of women. When women get past 35 and cannot conceive, their feeling and thought can change dramatically. Failing to survey women (and men) who are older than 35 is a huge ommission which in my view casts serious limitations over the inference and conclusions of the article.

Projecting the opinions of such a limited demography onto an entire population is, l believe, a logical flaw. It is the fallacy of construction. Basing a premise on a constructive fallacy can be a slippery slope.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 2:48:06 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
Laurie,
So much talk about “women and the vote”, sounds very much like Animal Farm. Any discontent from the animals, and one of the pigs would immediately give a speech telling the animals that they were much better off under their leadership, and how all the animals should be grateful. Most of the animals were too young to know anything different.

Women had the vote a few years after men, but for most men and women, the vote meant very little, (as many people could not read, or get much information on their candidates to make an informed vote anyway), and the vote still doesn’t mean much even today (as voter’s perceptions are being moulded by political spin doctors).

In every era, women were much more protected than men, and if women had their 1.75 children years ago, then you would not be here, because the human race would have died out, because of the high rates of mortality before so many diseases were reduced or eradicated.

That's the reality of history, but it is rarely mentioned by professional feminists, who seek to portray women as being continually oppressed, no matter what the situation

Some issues regarding current motherhood, fatherhood and childhood were contained in my first post, but to ensure a complete picture of society is known, statistics that should be taken into account would include:-

Rates of
-abortion and unwanted pregnancy
-single mothers
-fathers being removed from their children
-single parent households.
-child poverty
-child abuse
-mortality
-STD’s
-children being born drug effected.
-welfare
-homelessness
-drug addiction
-marriage
-divorce
-debt
-suicide
-mental illness
-physical fitness
-crime
-single person households
-tax being paid
Etc,

If such current rates in society were compared to the past, (ie 25, 50, 75, 100 yrs ago) then this would give a clearer picture of how well our society has advanced or progressed, for all the work that has been done, and all the taxes that have been paid (some of which now goes into the pockets of people such as the highly confused, but academic feminist and professional male-basher, Dr Susan Maushart PhD)
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 5:43:32 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
Trade215

I don't think we agree on all things, but my God ! that analysis of yours in the 2nd last post was most welcome, and appropriate and so true !

This is why I've been trying to drag (with a lot of kicking and screaming mind you) some in the PC thread to see the big picture rather than the obsessively small like 'manhole/personhole' which is a classic example of what you were describing as the major issues fade and activists scrounge around for some 'relevance hook'.

You should be a Christian apologist + a 'family values' advocate :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 31 August 2005 6:54:09 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
SPENDO
I don’t wish to drag you into something, but if your knowledge of Islam and Catholicism is limited, it might be a wiser course to hold back from telling us not to attack anything if you don’t know about it. With respect, I do know about them, from formal study. So, I’m in a better position than you to know whether it deserves to be attacked or not. No offence. I’m protestant by the way.

http://college.hmco.com/history/readerscomp/women/html/wh_033500_sexism.htm

“Sexism -the cultural assumption that men are superior to women and deserve preference and power over them”

I’m sure glad the Bible is not sexist.

Falacy 1. “Men are ‘superior’ This is a straw man. Men are in fact DIFFERENT.
Falacy 2. “Because men are superior, they DESERVE power and preference over women”

Men are not superior, so its wrong there. Men don’t ‘deserve’ power, it just works best that way by very natural laws which most people will not observe because of the relative peace of today+modern lifestyle. Put us in a traditional life setting, with predatory enemies, and it becomes quickly apparent that men must hold leadership in the protection of the ‘state/village/town’.

A female packing rations, is not inferior to the soldier who eats them on the front line.

<<The term sexism was coined in the 1960s by feminists>> (same article as above)

i.e. it is a political term, (Like Homophobia) invented with a specific political agenda in mind.

The problem, - itwas used tothrow the babyout with the bathwater, not differentiating between male female relationships based on ‘difference’ as opposed to ‘superiority/inferiority’ which should not exist. They don’t exist in the Bible, which is based on ‘difference’ and complementary roles.

Feminism attacks Patriarchy also, for ‘repessing women’ but it allowed a female leader of Israel during the height of Patriarchy. (search ‘Deborah+bible) So, Maggie Thatcher has her precedent err.. 2700 yrs ago.. Did ‘patriarchy’ need to be attacked ?

PC is closely related to the above, so I will attack it. I prefer simple ‘respect and courtesy’ they always worked b4, and if regained, will do so again.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 1 September 2005 10:29:22 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
BD,
I agree with your fist point – yes, men and women are different.

On your second:
“it just works best that way by very natural laws which most people will not observe because of the relative peace of today+modern lifestyle”.

You have got to be joking. Or delusional. Or just plain dumb. As far as natural law goes, in most ‘natural’ situations, the female of a species is more likely to fight for the protection of the young than the male. The males fight among themselves for dominance and territory while the females fight for survival and food. And much harder and viciously. So, your ‘natural law’ theory is complete trash.

“it becomes quickly apparent that men must hold leadership in the protection of the ‘state/village/town’”

Again, just plain male crap. Given you already held Mrs Thatcher up as example, how you justify this I don’t understand. Given she led England through a minor war (Falklands) and the Cold War – no mean feat – I think your argument is again, weak and inconsequential.

“it is a political term, (Like Homophobia) invented with a specific political agenda in mind.”

Well, this is just extreme religious stupidity becoming involved. So, gay men being bashed for no reason other than they are gay is ‘just political’? I’d say homophobia is alive and well. It’s not political, it’s just intolerance. As is the demeaning of women, claiming they aren’t capable because of their chromosome make-up. I know what you think ‘natural’ is but all you cling to is an outdated idea for a different time. As far as I know, God wants man to grow. I’m sure the ‘man’ in that included both the sexes otherwise they have to be considered the same as the animals – placed on Earth as tools for men to use.

Until gender is a non-issue, I can’t see why women shouldn’t feel they aren’t equal. When humans can get along with each other, regardless of race, religious or gender, then we will have grown, as God wants.
Posted by Reason, Thursday, 1 September 2005 11:33:22 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
How ironic Timkins should start quoting Animal Farm. For many years now and in this very forum, men have been telling women that we are already equal – to a limited extent, provided we acknowledge that having periods and being so much more physically weaker than all other men does limit us to particular 'roles' - but of course some are more equal than others. Well we’re still in the barnyard while the ‘boys’ are still dominating the big house (politics/business/religion).

Please note that the majority of men are just as powerless as women to the ‘boys in the big house’ – it has been said in other forums that men have more to fear from other men than from women. There is a vested interest by those currently in power to maintain the status quo. By hey why let reality get in the way of the Great Feminist World Domination Conspiracy.

Timkins has yet to provide proof of this ‘conspiracy’ he rants on so much about. Providing links to extremists no more proves his claims than do links to the KKK prove that all Christians are out for world domination.
He continues to ask for “female” type policies, apparently oblivious to the fact that issues that are of great importance to women in the Sudan differ from those to women in China, Indonesia and here in good old Australia. But it sounds like Timkins is saying something meaningful to rant on about this.

It was only just over 22 years I still would’ve had to seek permission from my estranged husband for overseas travel – the officer processing my passport and visa informed me that if I had applied only a few weeks earlier in the year of 1983 I would have had to go to my control freak of an ex to ask his permission to travel.

Yeah, we’ve come a long way, baby.
Posted by Trinity, Thursday, 1 September 2005 11:50:24 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
Boaz
I think the definition of gender differences, is open to interpretation, particularly by progressive feminists.

In the Violence Against Women Act in the US, there is an amendment being proposed from feminist organisations that women can not be asked to undertake a polygraph test (but males can). The reason for this appears to be founded on the belief that women can not lie (but males can).

That appears to be an important version of the differences between the genders.

The Justice Department in the US has also been asked to better define Domestic Violence and abuse. They have stated that it can include "name-calling and constant criticizing, insulting, and belittling the victim,"

All sounds very similar to the University academic feminist when she writes about men, fathers, ex-husbands etc, in her weekly column in The Weekend Australian. But her remarks are mostly about males, so it does appear to constitute abuse, and no other academic has ever objected to my knowledge. That appears to be another important difference.

Trinity,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated maligning remarks (eg “rants” etc). You and other feminists have now called me many names (eg “childish”, “foolish”, “the big t” etc), and it now definitely appear that name calling is a very important part of progressive feminism.

So could you please supply a list of maligning names you would to be called.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 1 September 2005 1:48:09 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
Timkins, has it occurred to you that people get frustrated with you and end up "maligning" you because you seem to:
a) deliberately misinterpret people's meanings
b) deliberately derail discussions
c) deliberately look on the negative side, particuarly in regards to discussions where men and women are the 'topic'.

Now please note that I have said "seem to". I do not know how 'deep down real Timkins' feels about issues, only your online persona, which can be rather frustrating to 'talk' to.
Posted by Laurie, Thursday, 1 September 2005 3:26:35 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
Laurie,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated accusations(eg you seem to: “deliberately misinterpret people's meanings,”, “deliberately derail discussions”, ”deliberately look on the negative side”, etc). No examples or elaboration provided.

But I am trying to gain a full understanding of this thing called “feminism”, so I am trying to get a definition of feminism, and detailed list of feminist policies, and also a list of names I can call people who consider themselves feminist (similar to the names they have called other people).

Knowledge about any “ism” becomes important, as many people who have formed “isms”, have often tended to think of themselves as being “more equal” than others, and then they tend to disadvantage or mistreat other people that they regarded as being “less equal”.

In fact, last century, people who belonged to various “isms” killed many millions of other people, because those people were thought “less equal”.

I have been called a whole series of maligning names by various supporters of this “ism” called “feminism”, so I must be regarded as being “less equal”, or “less progressive” than they are. So to become “equal” and “progressive”, I would probably have to say that I am a “feminist” also. This would likely please “feminists”, although no one seems to be able to provide an acceptable definition of what feminism is, or provide a detailed list of progressive feminist policies.

I hope this does not seem confusing, like articles written by the professional academic feminist and male maligner, Dr Susan Maushart PhD.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 1 September 2005 5:58:19 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
Timkins,
I am a male (a guy, a man, a bloke – just so you get that) and you appear to me to be a woman-hater. You can’t seem to get off the topic that all women must be feminist supremist or that all feminists want to degrade and hate men.

Now, before you jump up and down, thanking me (!) for calling you names and asking for proof that you ever espoused something like this, it’s not just in your direct statements but it’s in your avoiding answering questions yourself or saying anything remotely positive about women.

I asked you a number of questions. You claim to have answered them. Where? I went back through the thread and all you have done is claim there is a conspiracy to put women on top. You answered the question R0bert put to you by stating a few ‘facts’ about things that had happened about the world but you did not state what your own beliefs were with respect to those things. Try that. What do you think about:

- Women having equal rights to men
- Women having equal opportunity to do what they wish (to the extent that man does)
- Women being equally capable of leading and decision making as men

Just for now, forget the abuses of the system by extreme feminists (no, not forget altogether, just for a moment). Just answer with your opinions on these questions. Then we can take the matter further – I know you can, because you have said some quite lucid and intelligent things on other threads.

Timkins, I ask you to take a moment to calm and consider the questions I have posed.
Posted by Reason, Friday, 2 September 2005 12:37:49 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
REASON....

name calling ? :) (delusional. dumb) May blessing be heaped upon you.

Lets subject your comment about 'female of the species' and defending the young.

Hmm.. I answer that with one word "RAPE".. i.e. some men, through their superior (deliberate use of that word here ) physical strength, often rape women. That is evidence that without male protection, no amount of 'wanting to' from the women will be able to protect themsel es and infants from marauding soldiers. So clearly, my statements about the male protecting, stand validated.

I'm not surprised you picked up on the apparent inconsistency about 'male leadership' of town village etc and my mention of Maggie Thatcher (don't forget Deborah in the Old Testament).

At a national level in 'today's social historical conditions', it is quite true that a female can lead as M.T. did, It was also quite true of the Old patriarchal period. I don't think that invalidates my assertion that in a typical village situation, it will be the guys out front. If a female demonstrated some classy ideas about strategy etc, I see no reason not to consider them. After all, its really teamwork mate. But teams have full fowards who kick goals, and full backs who prevent them. If everyone wants to be Full Forward.. will the team win ?

On you question to the Big T "Do women have equal opportunity" ?
It is the wrong question. Opportunities should reflect our gender differences.

Extreme Religious Stupidity ? (more names ? :)

The observation that Homophobia and Sexism are invented political terms is quite well documented and stands substantiated.

I might invent one now, "Christphobia" .
Posted by BOAZ_David, Friday, 2 September 2005 7:28:12 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
Geez Timkins. Way to prove my point.

*goes off to join the dance craze sweeping the forum: Its Not Worth It*
Posted by Laurie, Friday, 2 September 2005 9:11:29 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
BD,
Sure, rape happens. Some men are capable of committing it through shear strength, some aren’t - they use weapons and stealth. But in plenty of cases women have been strong and willing enough to win. I know of a number events where women have fought off (and in one incident, detained) the offender. It isn't as rare as you would believe.

Further, in many ancient communities (and let’s avoid your good book – not exactly objective), women were a part of defending the town/village and warriors in war and games – for example Egypt, Celts, Romans – the list is quite long. Your comments regarding “no amount of ‘wanting to’ from the women” [being able to defend themselves I assume] are narrow minded and wrong.

I think it safe to say that women don’t ‘need’ men so much as both need each other.

“If a female demonstrated some classy ideas about strategy etc, I see no reason not to consider them.” – Just how patronising is that? “If” for a start. So, you propose that women can’t really be expected to get their head around strategy or the like?

As to the teamwork idea, I actually agree – but if a person is suitable for a job, based on skill, they get the nod – regardless of gender.

As to the opportunity being the wrong question – no it’s not. Role has nothing to do with ability or talent. Blatant sexism is wrong (and archaic) and should in no way affect opportunity.

And just explain how a homosexual being bashed is political? Are you saying the violence and discrimination perpetrated against homosexuals is a political stunt? That those things never happened? Or just that they were justified?

Feel free to invent ‘Christophobia’. It might give you an insight into how others feel for being judged by their difference. Do you now see the flaws in your thinking?

As to the name calling. Thanks for the blessings. Sounds remarkably like some other belief system. You don’t want to get too close to that. You might start seeing similarities!
Posted by Reason, Friday, 2 September 2005 12:33:35 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
Reason,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated name-calling (eg “a woman-hater” etc). I will add that to the long list of maligning names I have been called by various feminist supporters.

I have previously answered your questions, (and others like them), in earlier posts, but for me to become a “feminist”, I would really need some specifics:-
* a definition of feminism
* a detailed list of feminist policies,
* a list of web-sites and texts I would be permitted to read as a feminist, and a list of web-sites and texts I would not be permitted to read as a feminist (eg. Could I look at this http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm or look at this, http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php )
* a list of feminists I should regard as being “extremist”, and a list of feminists I should regard as being “non-extremist” (eg would Dr Susan Maushart PhD be an “extremist” feminist, or a “non-extremist” feminist, as no academic has objected to her male maligning comments, and she has also been recommended by the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner).

As well, I would probably need a list of maligning names I can call feminists, (similar to the many maligning names feminists have called me).

If the above were provided, it might convert me into feminism, but until then I will remain totally sceptical of any political or social “ism”, as so many have become totally corrupted in time, by individuals who inevitably regard themselves as being “more equal” than the rest, and from what I see, feminism is now well down that track.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 2 September 2005 6:17:23 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
BD, your post, “BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 9:37:22 PM “, after discussion with others we understand your reply, however, we all believe I should stick to my post, The alchemist, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 1:32:38 PM .

“The only thing you proved with your post is how desperate you appear to be to lock me into some convenient little stereotype from your own bigoted mind (and I really mean 'bigoted' not an insult, an observation)”

No one can lock you into anything Bd, your attitudes, veracity of beliefs, and the self righteous approach you have, is the place you lock yourself into. As we all do.

"Christphobia" :- Definition, those that act with logical reason and understanding to the realities of life and the illusional fallacies of religion.

The true definition of a leader, which I learnt from a military instructor. “The true leader, guides the group to where the group want to go, via the best path and using the best method to reach their goal. Follow this approach and you will always have success for yourself and those that you lead. Other forms of leadership, (religious and political) are designed to increase the power and control desired by the leader. History shows us that these type of leaders, in the end, always fail.”

Reason and others, you will never get those of BD's and Timkins ilk, to see the reality of life, they are fixed into the narrow blindness and fear of losing the thing that sustains them, illusion.

We should humbly accept these facts and pass beyond them, so that we can grow this debate in reason and learning. I believe, we are all on the right track to understanding our gender differences, that in itself is enhancing all our lives, giving us more abilities to work and love together.

O f course there will always be the fanatics, but they also help us keep real, for they show us what we should not be. Isn't that so good, to have such wonderful negative knowledge thrust upon us.

Well at worst, its a good laugh.
Posted by The alchemist, Saturday, 3 September 2005 10:39:00 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
Alchemist

Thank you for your down to earth comments. It has been entertaining if rather predictable - on the part of some posters.

I too am optimistic that men and women will continue to grow together. As you have suggested it is the extremists that keep us real. It is too easy to become complacent. As they say for freedom, so too the price of equality is constant viligance.

LOL
Posted by Trinity, Saturday, 3 September 2005 1:04:03 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
The Alchemist,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated, generalised accusations (eg “fixed into the narrow blindness and fear of losing the thing that sustains them, illusion.”)

But instead of such accusations, you, (or any other feminist), would be better to provide some specific details about feminism, as such details would help ensure that people do not have any illusions about feminism (and no “equality” feminist would ever want that)

Those details would include:-
*a definition of feminism
* a detailed list of feminist policies,
* a list of web-sites and texts I would be permitted to read as a feminist, and a list of web-sites and texts I would not be permitted to read as a feminist (eg. Could I look at this http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm or look at this, http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php )
* a list of feminists I should regard as being “extremist”, and a list of feminists I should regard as being “non-extremist” (eg would Dr Susan Maushart PhD be an “extremist” feminist, or a “non-extremist” feminist, as no academic has objected to her male maligning comments, and she has also been recommended by the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner).
*a list of maligning names people can call feminists, (similar to the many maligning names feminists have called other people).

I await to be freed from any illusions about feminism, by receiving such details.

Dr Paul
Some interesting recent articles on Day Care Centres and Motherhood.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16470895%255E28737,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16470905%255E28737,00.html

Perhaps if such information was made more available, (and not hidden or suppressed), then it would result in people being able to give more informed opinions than at present.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 3 September 2005 1:37:01 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
Timkins,
no you have not answered the basic questions I put to you. If so, cut and paste them - I could not find the answers.

Until you do so, I can only assume you are afraid to and it is not worth my time responding to you.

Alchemist, like your thinking. Always good to have a devil's advocate - particularly ones that are entertaining.
Posted by Reason, Saturday, 3 September 2005 2:40:05 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
Reason,
I have given detailed answers to your general questions, starting about http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2466#12950

Discarding rhetoric or propaganda, you have provided minimal details about “feminism” in your posts, (so other people would know more of what you are talking about), so maybe you could provide some very specific details about “feminism”, as asked in my last previous post.

Anyone else who wants to call themselves a “feminist”, could also provide those details, but if simple questions about feminism cannot be answered, then it certainly doesn’t say much for all the taxpayer’s money that has been poured into so many feminist courses over so many years.

Or perhaps those courses were just breeding grounds for academics such as Dr Susan Maushart PhD, (who has been thoroughly recommended by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner), but who cannot write a single article in her weekly column in the national newspaper, without maligning or demonising the male gender in some way.

Eg
“Remember the midlife crisis? It used to be something only guys got - like jock itch, or promotion to partner.”

or perhaps,

“In marriages where husbands reject wives' influence, the odds of divorce are much higher. Not so when wives reject their husband's influence - a situation most researchers describe as ... well, understandable.”

So males are just people to be maligned by feminists in the media, and researchers say that husbands must obey their wives, but wives do not have to obey their husbands.

What a marvellous culmination for all those taxpayer dollars spent on all those so called “equality” feminist education courses held over so many years in so many universities throughout the country.
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 3 September 2005 9:46:56 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
Reason

Just a quick post to acknowledge your posts to this thread - they are a breath of fresh air much needed in the repetitive atmosphere that permeates many of these forums. I would wager my round-house kick to the unlikely protection that an aging bible basher could afford me. Also I, unlike a certain paranoid conspiracy theorist, I thoroughly enjoy the company of the opposite sex - vive le difference! Which are very few but very necessary.

Bon Jour fellow humans!
Posted by Trinity, Sunday, 4 September 2005 11:47:15 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
Trinity,
I thought “feminists” believed in “equality”, and didn’t “discriminate”. However you have mentioned an “aging bible basher”, which now means that you like name-calling, and also you discriminate amongst people regarding their “age” and also their “religion”

This feminism seems very confusing, so perhaps you could provide some light on “feminism”, and provide some specific details:-

*a definition of feminism
* a detailed list of feminist policies,
* a list of web-sites and texts I would be permitted to read as a feminist, and a list of web-sites and texts I would not be permitted to read as a feminist (eg. Could I look at this http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm or look at this, http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php )
* a list of feminists I should regard as being “extremist”, and a list of feminists I should regard as being “non-extremist” (eg would Dr Susan Maushart PhD be an “extremist” feminist, or a “non-extremist” feminist, as no academic has objected to her male maligning comments, and she has also been recommended by the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner).
*a list of maligning names people can call feminists, (similar to the many maligning names feminists have called other people).
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 4 September 2005 3:18:19 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
Thanx Timmy :) I guess she was referring to me.

Trinity, its cool, I don't mind a bit of that. But in my defence, (now that you have attacked my manhood) may I say, that I'm 6foot, 100kg and have never lost a fight.. oops.. I did lose one, it was the golden gloves state titles in NSW, where for my first fight, I was matched with a guy who 3 fights later became Australian light heavyweight champion. I fought him for one round, but gave too much too soon, and decided to opt out. The judges awarded me the round. On the basis of that one round, Ring magazine rated me 18th in Australia.

So, if push came to shove, I think I would (even at this age :) have something to contribute towards your protection in the face of an attacker/s. Maybe we would be a good team "Boaz and Trinity" instead of batman and robin.

Ok.. manhood restored :)) down to business..

I seriously doubt that the radical feminists (many of who seem to come from some kind of abusive background.. ?) will ever be happy with what most of us would call equality. The rediculous calls for 'replacing fathers/mothers day with Special persons day' is at least illustrative of this.

When the major issues of communal survival have been dealt with, some people seem to hunt around for trivial things which they turn into a major 'relevance exercise' and annoy everyone else by showing how much power they wield in making us change our vocabulary. i.e. it boils down to ego.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 4 September 2005 5:16:53 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
Timkins,
I have not ever stated that I am a feminist. I cannot be because I am a male. I have simply asked you to answer a few questions, which again I say you have not. If so, please cut and paste them into a post so I can read them.

You carry on quite a bit about various maligning statements regarding men but very little regarding what you think of women. Let me ask one more time, very clearly:

- Do you think that women should have equal rights to men?
- Do you think women should have an equal opportunity to do what they wish (to the extent that man does)?
- Do you think women are equally capable of leading and decision making as men?

Now, try to answer these without more about what you perceive the current situation is. I want your opinion on these questions, not your perception on other issues.

Do you understand? Just a simple answer to each question, nothing more.

Trinity,
My thanks. I agree wholeheartedly. Difference and sameness all in one. It would seem though that some men have a fear of the equality that is abundantly evident and rely on Neanderthal style comparisons to argue their case.

Bd,
If you judge manhood by how easy it is for you to beat up on another, you are further up the tree than I originally thought.
Posted by Reason, Sunday, 4 September 2005 11:13:42 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
Don't be silly Reason, of course you can be a feminist.
Posted by Deuc, Sunday, 4 September 2005 11:38:36 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 must have lost the plot!

My understanding is that Voltaire(male) was the first person to espouse rights for women.

Being called a "feminist" is not the issue. It's about holding feminist values. Feminist does not mean female. It is about human rights.

Check out Voltaire
Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Monday, 5 September 2005 12:48:27 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
Reason, Trinity, thank you for understanding my posts. After much deliberation and technological investigation, I have come to the following enlightening conclusion.

I may be wrong., but it appears that Timkins, may be a recorded loop message with the ability to pick up and add some words and phrases, very cunning indeed.

Bd, your ilk is very good at being loopy, did you write that. However I don' think the technology has advanced enough to be able to actually answer questions, but good try Reason.

I must stand up for BD on this occasion, 6ft and 100 kilo's up a tree, I would like to see that.

You are right Kalweb, it is a pity that so much time has passed and we still haven't got it right. So refreshing that so many of us do accept and enjoy our differences, against the constant grinding stupidity of the fanatical, (blank). I won't use the word nutter anymore, as I am no longer prepared to demean the dense qualities of nuts. I do feel, that “blank” is a more suitable description.

What other ways can we draw the genders together and continue to improve our lives. In another thread, (Aussie mozzies, I think) I have asked the muslims to explain their reasons for the debilitating suppression of women, but along with all the (blanks) they avoid replying and just switch on their loopy replies, or disappear for a while in the hope that we all might forget. Ah, the intricacies of a closed mind.

So along with what we have here, it is growing evidence that they have no answers, just blinkered fear.
Posted by The alchemist, Monday, 5 September 2005 8:36:21 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
Reason - thanks for your comments. Anyone who believes in equal rights for all regardless of race, colour, creed or gender can rightfully claim to be a humanist. This is really how I prefer to see myself. I use the term feminist mainly to make it clear to those who are a bit slow that I believe in equal rights/opportunity for women. And to stir the pot a little ;-) as feminism has become an inflammatory term for some.

BD - sigh - I was not entering into a pissing competition with you I was merely pointing out that I can take care of myself, thank you very much, and am in no need of your paternalistic form of protection. You have managed, as Reason has pointed out, to reveal your neanderthal tendencies.

Timkins - Apparently no-one here wants to 'convert' you to feminism.
Posted by Trinity, Monday, 5 September 2005 8:42:14 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
Reason,
I’ve answered all your questions in previous posts. Go back and carefully read those posts again, and also carefull read through the links. No one else seems to have had much difficulty understanding those posts (or they haven’t asked as yet)

I’ve done the work, you have only called me names and made unsubstantiated remarks about me (similar to those “non-discriminating” and “equality” type remarks made by Trinity and The Alchemist).

But you say that you are not a feminist, then what is a “feminist”?

Please supply,
*a definition of feminism
* a detailed list of feminist policies,
* a list of web-sites and texts I would be permitted to read as a feminist, and a list of web-sites and texts I would not be permitted to read as a feminist (eg. Could I look at this http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm or look at this, http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php )
* a list of feminists I should regard as being “extremist”, and a list of feminists I should regard as being “non-extremist” (eg would Dr Susan Maushart PhD be an “extremist” feminist, or a “non-extremist” feminist, as no academic has objected to her male maligning comments, and she has also been recommended by the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner).
*a list of maligning names people can call feminists, (similar to the many maligning names feminists have called other people).

Kalweb
You seem to be saying that feminism means “equality” for females, but does feminism mean equality for males also?

For example:-
“Are you supposed to clip a boy’s toenails? I found myself wondering at 3am. Does he even have toenails? I couldn’t recall having specifically sighted any.”

This has been written by a Dr Susan Maushart PhD, about her own son. She describes herself as a “feminist”, and appears to be much respected by academics, and has been well recommended by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

So would Dr Susan Maushart PhD be a suitable role model for a “feminist”, (who are supposed to have equal regard for other people, even including their own sons)
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 5 September 2005 9:06:42 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
Timkins,
You are simply avoiding the questions.

I can only now suppose that you are afraid to post your answers. At least BD had the fortitude to do so.

Look through your posts and point out to me where. Treat me as dull (I will not mind the slight. I am a little thick skinned to those simple issues – yes, even a little thick if you like) but just at least show me where you clearly answered the questions! Alternatively, answer them! How hard is that? Here they are again!:

- Do you think that women should have equal rights to men?
- Do you think women should have an equal opportunity to do what they wish (to the extent that man does)?
- Do you think women are equally capable of leading and decision making as men?

They aren’t complex or difficult you know…

Oh, yeah… Yay, I’m a feminist! My girl friend will be so happy!
Posted by Reason, Monday, 5 September 2005 11:06:59 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 love the post about Timkins being a loop post with a few added words to fool us all.
Having given him my definition of feminism about 100 posts ago, what his oft repeated question really means is until you give him a definition of feminism he is prepared to accept, you haven't given him one.
There is a definition in the dictionary, and here it is, from Websters Dictionary.
Feminism: the principle that women should have political, economic and social rights equal to those of men. Direct quote, Timkins, does that qualify as a definition? Or do you reject the dictionary? Not superior to, equal to, do you disagree with that? If you don't, you're a feminist.
And, as I've pointed out before, Susan Maushart is a satirist, its meant to be funny. Don't you ever crack a laugh at your own gender's expense, Timkins? I laugh at women all the time, including myself. Life's a great deal more pleasant when you do.
Posted by enaj, Monday, 5 September 2005 11:55:26 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
I believe men can, and should, also be feminists. Anyone with a good grasp of history can see that women HAVE been, and in many countries still ARE shockingly discriminated against. Hurrah for modern Aussie society where this is no longer the case!

Also, heh. Timkins as a text recognition loop. I like the idea. Makes the repetitiveness easier to deal with!
Posted by Laurie, Monday, 5 September 2005 1:18:33 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
Timkins, I'll have a go (how I treat the topic). Sorry to those of you who know what you are talking about if I've got it wrong.

*a definition of feminism
- A belief that men and women should be treated equally with responsibility and opportunity based on our individual ability rather than our gender. I think that most gender differences (apart from the yummy physical ones) represent a perceived mean on a curve. The curves overlap so saying that one gender is better at something than the other does not represent individual abilities.

* a detailed list of feminist policies,
- No such thing, everything gets tested against the previous core goal in the definition. At most there may be lists of target areas of concern.

* a list of web-sites and texts I would be permitted to read as a feminist, and a list of web-sites and texts I would not be permitted to read as a feminist
- I'm not much into censorship and tend to base my reading my view of the usefulness of material. I read for recreation, reinforcement, to know my enemy and to test my own thinking against others.

* a list of feminists I should regard as being “extremist”, and a list of feminists I should regard as being “non-extremist”
- Test what they say and do against the core value of equality. If they demonstrate a drive for supremacy and win lose situations they are extremists. Does Dr Maushart make jokes about feminist women as often as she makes jokes about men? Individuals will change over time and depending on the subject (eg you and I are more intense about family law than on most other topics).

*a list of maligning names people can call feminists, (similar to the many maligning names feminists have called other people).
- There is no acceptable list. Individuals within any grouping will exhibit a variety of behaviours. There are plenty of other ways of being rude even without name calling etc. Some practice regularly, for others it is the exception.

cheers
R0bert.
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 5 September 2005 1:53:03 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
Reason,
Keep re-reading my earlier posts and links. You seem very confused regards the rights of a male, and the rights of a “feminist” (IE. “I cannot be [a feminist] because I am a male”). Does that say anything to you?

Enaj
Finally, you’ve given a definition of “feminism”. Unfortunately, there are 100’s of “isms”.

Eg
Absolutism:- doctrine of government by a single absolute ruler
Absurdism:- doctrine that we live in an irrational universe
Academicism:- doctrine that nothing can be known etc,

What’s so special about the “ism” called “feminism”.

You say Dr Susan Maushart PhD is a “satirist”, (although she’s won major writer’s awards, and has been recommended by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner). Dr Susan Maushart PhD has made the most discriminatory remarks about males, fathers, children etc, with no objection shown from academics or politicians, although there has been much objection to comments made by people such as Fraser, Brogden, Abbot etc. I wonder why the difference?

So, apart from a definition of “feminism”, I would still need to know the following:-

*a detailed list of feminist policies,
* a list of web-sites and texts I would be permitted to read as a feminist, and a list of web-sites and texts I would not be permitted to read as a feminist (eg. Could I look at this http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm or look at this, http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php )
* a list of feminists I should regard as being “extremist”, and a list of feminists I should regard as being “non-extremist” (eg would Dr Susan Maushart PhD be an “extremist” feminist, or a “non-extremist” feminist, as no academic has objected to her male maligning comments, and she has also been recommended by the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner).
*a list of maligning names people can call feminists, (similar to the many maligning names feminists have called other people).

And now

*a list of feminists who are satirists (and can make discriminatory remarks), and a list of feminists who are not satirists (and cannot make highly discriminatory remarks).

Robert,
Mao Tse-Tung’s core philosophy (or propaganda) was based on “equality”. He killed many millions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 5 September 2005 4:21:13 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 seem very confused regards the rights of a male, and the rights of a “feminist” (IE. “I cannot be [a feminist] because I am a male”). Does that say anything to you?”

No Timkins, I am not confused regarding the rights of men and the rights of feminists – they are the same thing. It was just that I had my own idea about what feminism was – which is different things to different people. Though I am happy and proud to be included as a feminist by reasonable females.

And you have not answered the questions. How do I get through to you? I read all of your posts. You make statements and voice opinions regarding aspects of feminism you dislike and their agenda but you make no discernable statement with respect to the very simple questions I asked.

Instead of redirecting me, why not take a very small moment to write a simple yes or no beside the question. Here, I’ll paste it in again….
- Do you think that women should have equal rights to men?
- Do you think women should have an equal opportunity to do what they wish (to the extent that man does)?
- Do you think women are equally capable of leading and decision making as men?

Should be easy now…
Posted by Reason, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 12:18:22 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
Reason - your persistence is awesome and your patience beyond compare.

In the next exciting post.....

Will Timkins give a simple 'Yes' or 'No'.

Will he ask again for a definition of feminism?

Can he make a post without mentioning Susan Maushart?

Will Timkins ever answer my request for a definition of male politics?

May be he really is stuck on a perpetual loop.

Stayed tuned folks....
Posted by Trinity, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 7:58:35 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
Reason,
You still seem confused. You say that males and feminists are the same. Is that true is it?

If feminisms is objectively studied, there is the most minimal evidence to say that feminism is for “equality”. The term ”equality” is usually used as a propaganda termonly, and instead, there is much evidence to say that feminism is highly anti-male and also highly anti-child.

To help you in your confusion

A/ Do you think that women should have equal rights to men?
Men should have equal rights to women. At present, women receive far more government money than men for less income tax paid, women generally receive far less sentencing in law then men, many women now have the most minimal regard for men, fathers etc.
B/ Do you think women should have an equal opportunity to do what they wish (to the extent that man does)?
If the answer to a/ is followed then men will have equal opportunity to women
C/ Do you think women are equally capable of leading and decision making as men?
If a woman or a man follows general feminist procedures for problem solving, then neither should lead or make decisions. If faced with a problem, feminists have rarely solved any problem, but tend to make the problem worse, and then they will try and hide the problem, suppress data etc.
Feminist procedures to problem solving normally are
- 1. Immediately launch into mantra (eg repeat continuously “women’s choice”, “a woman and her children”, “patriarchal power structure” etc)
- 2 Demonise males and portray females as being perpetually oppressed (eg Dr Susan Maushart PhD)
- 3. Call for more government spending (normally on women)

The results:- high rates of abortion, low rates of child birth, high rates of divorce, low rates of marriage, high rates of welfare, high rates of taxation, etc, etc, etc. All are unsustainable in any society.

I could be wrong of course, so you or any other “feminist” (including the highly discriminating Trinity http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2466#14108) can provide specific details on feminism, by answering the questions at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2466#14197
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 9:35:37 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
And there you are folks

Proof beyond any doubt that Timkins is completely incapable of answering a straight forward question with a simple 'Yes' or 'No'.

Although he has answered one question and the answer is...

No, Timkins can't make a post without mentioning Susan Maushart.

Why?

One can only assume that he REALLY doesn't believe in equal rights between men and women and lacks the gall to say it.

OR

The tape is still stuck - where is a technician when you need one?

Don't hold you breath folks, looks like we're just gonna get repeats...
Posted by Trinity, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 10:11:04 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
Struth and double Struth!

I can't believe you people are still going on about this issue. Over 140 posts. Is this some sort of record for this site? Anyway, it proves that the original article is spurious and that the so-called "backlash" is no myth. The sexism that is feminism is a very hot topic.

And oh yes, for those people who have a penchant for sexist satire, like Susan Maushart writes apparently - although I for one was never one of her regular readers. Especially after she was dropped from the Opinion section of The Australian website about a year ago, poor girl - may be interested in this -

The uselessness of women
http://www.kittennews.com/kn_mag/04_apr03mag/johng_04.htm
Warning - slightly rude picture, may not be worksafe.

Yo, vivent longtemps la différence!
Posted by Maximus, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 1:02:58 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
Trinity,
I’ll explain how the situation has been.

Whenever a feminist supporter has called another poster a maligning name, I have written “Dr Susan Maushart PhD” in my posts, because it is people such as Dr Susan Maushart PhD, who have been gradually training people to call other people a wide variety of maligning names, and you have also called other posters a considerable number of maligning and discriminatory names, very similar to Dr Susan Maushart PhD.

I have found that there are people who believe that by calling themselves “feminist”, it will give them a passport to do and say whatever they feel like, but whenever these same people are asked questions about “feminism”, they invariably have the most minimal knowledge about it. They just mouth the word “feminist”, because it makes them feel “elitist” in some way

If the data was allowed to become more widely known, it would be realised that motherhood in Australia, is now at it’s lowest point ever in Australia’s history.

This would definitely be the case for mothers who have been brainwashed by people such as the feminist acclaimed, and Sex Discrimination Commissioner recommended Dr Susan Maushart PhD (who doesn’t even know if her 10yr old son has toenails).

From “Victims of feminism's tinpot tyranny” by Amanda Platell, "Sunday Mail" 4/9/05
“One of the largest surveys into what academics call "life satisfaction" (what we mortals call "happiness") has concluded that many defining principles of the feminist manifesto brought sadness, not salvation, to millions of women. Far from liberating women, says the survey, the feminist movement has created its own sexual tyranny. And, ironically, women are the victims.

The research spanned 23 years in 12 European countries, tracking the "life satisfaction" of 450,000 women from 1975 to 1998.”

So the defining principles of feminism, do not necessarily become life satisfaction, (when that life satisfaction is actually measured over time), and as Dr Janice Shaw Crouse has said, feminism is “one of the greatest mythmakers of all time”. http://www.worldcongress.org/wcf3_spkrs/wcf3_crouse.htm.

Very few “isms”, have every resulted in democracy, equality or life satisfaction.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 6 September 2005 5:41:38 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
Er, OK, Timkins.... so I take that to mean you don't believe in equality for men and women?
Posted by Trinity, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 8:23:39 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
Trinity
"equality for men and women?"

That depends very much on the details of that “equality”.

Hitler said that the Third Reich was going to bring “peace and prosperity” to the people of Germany for 1,000 yrs. Of course that was propaganda only, and Hitler’s version of “peace and prosperity” eventually brought about a massive amount of death and destruction throughout Germany and much of Europe.

So if a feminist says the word “equality”, I would like to know much more about their version of “equality”, and how they intend to achieve it, (to ensure that the term "equality" is not being used as a propaganda term only).

This could be a part of the “backlash”, as feminists have been given the benefit of the doubt for some decades now, but time is up, and they would now have to clearly state what are their detailed policies, texts, main players etc, (eg questions as listed at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2466#14197 )

If feminists don't want to answer questions about "Feminism", then they should drop the term, and call themselves something else.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 10:10:03 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
Slightly off-topic, but I just came across this quote from an American TV show, (sitcom) called "Designing Women", and thought it was rather amusingly relevant to the discussions here:
(The characters are having a men-vs-women debate, the character Julia gets frustrated and says...)

"In general, it has been the men who have done the raping, and the robbing, and the killing, and the war-mongering for the last two thousand years. It has been the men who have done the pillaging, and the beheading, and the subjecating of whole races into slavery. It has been the men who have done the law making, and the money making, and the most of the mischief making. So if the world isn't quite what you had in mind, you have only yourselves to thank!"

So what does feminism aim for? A little more access for women to the law-making, money-making and mischief-making of the world. :)
Posted by Laurie, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 11:29:13 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
Timkins....just call me a mushroom............
Posted by Trinity, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 2:02:04 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
Timkins just as an exercise please ignore those who do the wrong thing and answer the question based on a basic use of the term "equality".

I think that it is likley that for any cause or concept you care to name someone has abused it. I recall that you have indicated in other posts that you are a christian (please excuse me if I'm wrong). Are you happy to accept that some people have done great wrong in the name of christianity and henceforth reject the whole thing?

An acceptance of the concept of equality does not require you to go along with abuses and excesses. Feminists should be at the forefront of those speaking out against those excesses because the feminist cause is hurt most by them (and some do such as Patricia Peason on the topic of female violence).

Please please please try just giving an unqualified yes/no answer to the idea of equality based on actual equality. If you say yes you need not be bound to support anything which goes against that concept.

You might note that I have had a go at answering the questions you have raised, maybe not to your satisfaction but an honest go nevertheless.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 2:36:32 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
Laurie,
Women didn’t chop off people’s heads. They got men to do that, and the women sat in rows and applauded. And women readily used captured slaves, and women cheered when men went off to war, hoping they would bring back lots of spoils etc.

There is an interesting account of how the modern woman likes to “equally” divide up the spoils of a marriage in “Possessive' women to blame for haggling in divorces”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=S1GO243WT0HM3QFIQMGSM5WAVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2005/08/27/ndivorce27.xml

If there is anything to learn from history, it’s that people shouldn't blindly follow someone just because they say words such as “equality”, “liberty”, freedom”, “progress” etc. Eventually they have to provide specific details on those issues.

I still haven’t received detailed answers regards feminism, which now makes “feminism” even more suspect.

EG.
*a detailed list of feminist policies,
* a list of web-sites and texts I would be permitted to read as a feminist, and a list of web-sites and texts I would not be permitted to read as a feminist (eg. Could I look at this http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm or this, http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php )
* a list of feminists I should regard as being “extremist”, and a list of feminists I should regard as being “non-extremist”
*a list of maligning names people can call feminists, (similar to the many maligning names feminists have called other people).
*a list of feminists who are satirists (and can make highly discriminatory remarks), and a list of feminists who are not satirists (and cannot make highly discriminatory remarks).

Trinity,
You have yet to answer questions about feminism also. Must be some type of “feminist choice.”

Robert,
I haven’t been able to fully reply to your posts because I keep hitting word limit. I don’t belong to any religion, but no one should be discriminated against because of religion, gender, nationality, class, ethnic group etc.

Equality is a very broad term, so it would have to be broken down into smaller components, to see who has equality and who hasn’t. At present I think women in our society have many more privaledges than men, if the situation is objectively analysed.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 7:07:55 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
Timkins

Do you have any female children? If so, what do you teach them about being female in contemporary society? Do you teach them about human rights (male and female)? I will be interested in your reply.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Wednesday, 7 September 2005 7:24:24 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
Timkins,
I was going to say:
“I am sorry but your credibility is finally gone as far as I am concerned. You are unable to put a simple yes or no to some very simple questions. And I was really hoping for some dialogue.”

But since you posted:
“…but no one should be discriminated against because of religion, gender, nationality, class, ethnic group etc.”

I guess you answered ‘Yes’ to all my questions? Unless you state otherwise I will assume so.

At any rate, it is obvious to me that you have been hard done by in a divorce or in some way by either ‘the system’ or a woman in particular who probably screwed you for all you were worth. In either case, I feel for you. There are unscrupulous women (and men) out there who take advantage of any position if they can – but it’s not everyone. For my part, I’m glad that feminism existed. What opportunity it gave my mother and sister far outweighs any wrongdoings by a minority of the women helped.

Trinity,
Thanks for the support (and entertainment!). So, how have you found the last say 10 years? I have a sister who finds it challenging at time to feel equal, yet my mother feels very so. I think it is because she has 20 – 30 years of building a thick skin and inner strength while my sister was raised to believe in equality and is still getting used to the real world. What’s your perspective?

(I’m still not sure the loop machine is fixed…)
Posted by Reason, Thursday, 8 September 2005 1:23:45 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
Timkins, thanks for the reply. Glad you've finally stated an opposition to all discrimination, hopefully now we can all move on from that. Many will be pleased to see a post from you without mention of a certain feminist academic who you appear to not find funny.

I had a read the article you referenced in your last post and have some concerns with the apparent tone. It was great that it mentioned that most men are keen to move on.

If the research results are in the same tone as the article it could be used to support bad outcomes for men in property settlement on the basis that there is less emotional damage to us etc.

We may not care about keeping the TV we had when together but being able to afford a TV is important, we may be willing to move on from the old family home but we mostly want a home (with a shed). In my case I accepted that there would be a lot of change following the breakup but have tried to build stability for myself and my son once that initial transition was over.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 8 September 2005 6:22:12 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
Reason - will reply to your question when I have a little more time. Much appreciate your posts on this thread.

Timkins you state "but no one should be discriminated against because of religion, gender, nationality, class, ethnic group etc."

I have made similar statements throughout this thread - therefore, as did R0bert, so do I take to mean a YES answer on equality between the sexes.

T - you have no idea how much 'reading between the lines' can be made from your posts - any regular member to these forums can see the hurt and pain you are expressing by your consistent agenda of rejecting any 'feminist' posts yet still claiming no-one has answered you questions.

Mate, no-one ever will. Because you are set on 'reject-mode' to anything which does not fit your specific criteria.

Basically, Timkins, you can't see the forest for the trees.

We have all been hurt and I have to say if I hadn't received the incredible moral support from various men (with no hidden agenda) throughout my life I have no doubt that I would mistrust all men the way that you doubt all feminists/humanists.

Much love to all.
Posted by Trinity, Thursday, 8 September 2005 8:55:06 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
Kalweb,
A poster’s children would have little to do with the topic, but exactly what constitutes “feminism” would. A simple definition of feminism isn’t enough, as specific feminist policies have to be made known also.

Many people will call themselves “feminists”, undertake “Feminist Studies”, and even carry out “feminist” research. An example of feminist research involving nurses could be at :-

“Now researchers at the University of Western Sydney ask: Does growing up without a dad at home change a woman's life, particularly the way she forms relationships with men?”
http://apps.uws.edu.au/media/news/index.phtml?act=view&story_id=1316

This study is headed by a nurse researcher whose research methodology includes “Feminist and critical approaches” http://www.uws.edu.au/about/acadorg/cshs/snfch/schoolstaff/debrajackson

So what is a “feminist” approach to research, and how is it different to normal research? Would “feminist” research be biased in some way, and why is this study being undertaken on daughters only, and not on sons also?

Such questions should be asked, (particularly if feminism is being taxpayer funded), but questions regard feminism, feminist policies, feminist text etc are usually met with much silence, and very few details about “feminism” will be given out. I would think that there is now the most minimal level of accountability or openness within “feminism”.

Robert,
The way I now vote for political parties is to first read their policies on the Internet. Quite often political parties have few policies, (or they don’t provide much detail), but rely heavily on advertising gimmicks, propaganda, spin, dirty politics etc. There are also parties that get into power, and then release details of their policies, (when the public has less chance to object).

Feminists will often repeat words such as “equality”, “liberation” etc, but these are emotive, propaganda type words only, and when objectively studied, few feminists have released actual policy details, which mean that feminism (as a political or social system) is justifiably highly suspect.

For more on Maushart, also see
http://www.ipa.org.au/files/news_479.html
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/10/04/1033538773205.html

Reason, Trinity
You continue to make unsubstantiated assumptions about myself, but have answered very few questions about feminism, or provided specific details.

Does this constitute much of what is feminism
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 8 September 2005 10:33:44 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
Timkins

Thanks for your response. And you are correct re your first sentence! I was trying to hit your emotional belt - to no avail me thinks.

I have not espoused that I am "feminist". Far from it. I have said that I hold some feminist values - but I hold far more traditional values. I studied "feminism" at Armidale Uni - recovered after six months!

I visisted the web sites that you suggested. Mmm. Yes. On many points I agree. Everything is qualitative research - which most "rats 'n stats" people totally disregard. I have worked with some of these women and I have seen their research. I also know the bias that some of them demonstraate. But you know as well as I do that "bias" is inherent in all research. It's just that most do not acknowledge same.

I explored my Master of Ed. through Deakin. My supervisor was a bloke. My research was qualitative and based on critical thinking. My studies were around critical thinking and curriculum development.
I learned heaps.

I suggest that you stop the search for a concrete definition of feminism - there isn't one! Take human emotion for example, or a chair. Explore a number of dictionaries - there are many definitions of human emotion - and many definitions of chairs. It is the underpinning: metaparidgims, paradigms, philosophies, conceptual frameworks that are more important - surely?

Cheers
Hope that has cleared that up?
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Thursday, 8 September 2005 8:47:23 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
BD I noticed your post quoting the quran in another thread - "Men are the protectors and maintainers of women, because Allah has given the one more than the other,............." . It does not seem to be to far off your views about women (apart from the name used for god.

You might have more in common with followers of the Koran than you recognise.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 9 September 2005 8:26:12 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
Kalweb,
I tend to think that feminism is very much alive, but not operating in the best interests of women, children or men.

The study of 450,000 women by Dr Silvia Pezzini, basically concluded the following :-
Birth control rights have caused an increase in women's investment in education, their probability of working, their income levels and their self-reported 'life satisfaction'.

At the same time, other women's rights have been less beneficial. Mutual consent divorce laws have had a negative impact on women's welfare while the granting of maternity rights in the workplace has had no net effect.
http://rlab.lse.ac.uk/news/default.asp

Similar has been found in many other studies. The ABS data on mental health shows this, and so does work by David de Vaus

“However, the results from this contemporary survey of mental health and wellbeing in Australia are unequivocal about the general situation in contemporary Australian families. When a range of types of mental disorders are considered, marriage reduces the risk of mental disorders for both men and women. Although married men and women risk different types of disorders, this has nothing to do with them being married.”
http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/fm2002/fm62/dd.pdf

Generally, if a woman gets married and stays married then she will be much wealthier, happier, and healthier than a woman who follows the feminist principles of frequent divorce, frequent de facto relationships etc.

However this is not the message being sent out by so many academic feminists, feminists in the media, or by people such as Pru Goward, who will rarely say one positive word about fathers, husbands, marriage etc. Almost universally, they are portraying these things negatively, and they also carry out highly suspect “feminist” type research. This then becomes a extremely serious issue, as so many people are being mislead by such feminists.

By suppressing information, hiding information, giving out the wrong messages etc, so many feminists eventually become traitors to their own gender.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 9 September 2005 8:52:57 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
Timkins

Did you see (on ACA) the female academic who is proposing a Degree in Mothering? And Pauline Hanson's reply along the lines of: "It would be more appropriate to have a Degree in Commonsense". And have you heard the latest on Mothers' Day and Fathers' Day - to be replaced by "Special Persons' Day"?

All too much for this human unit!
Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Friday, 9 September 2005 3:55:46 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
Kay, she is certainly doing her bit to try and bring about a backlash isn't she. It was almost comical except that she seemed to be serious.

The basic goal seemed to be to give mothering a higher status. No willingness that I saw to place any value on fathering. The kind of stuff that hurts women who genuinely want equality. Maybe a bit more focus on parenting and the idea might seem less like political tokenism and more like a desire to help. Personally I don't place a lot of faith in the academics (and family professionals) to have any idea about helping others. If what I have seen of those who work in the field over the last few years is anything to go by it is a very out of touch industry.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 9 September 2005 7:18:35 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
Kalweb, Robert
I heard the woman who wanted the Degree in Mothering on the radio, and she said that she was a feminist, but not once did she mention fathers. Similar has been found in a considerable amount of feminist text, where many feminists do not recognise fathers as being parents, and many feminists also advocate the removal of fathers from families.

Such situations could be dismissed as being just plain silly, if the situation was not so serious. I have read that CSA has currently 1 million adults and 1 million children on it’s books. This means that at least 1 in 10 Australians are currently being directly affected by divorce and separation, and probably many more are being indirectly affected.

The overall effects on society must be substantial, as studies now routinely show that divorce and separation is mostly negative, not positive for women, and it must be even more so for children and also for men.

However the abolition of marriage was very much an early feminist principle, so many feminists cannot go back and revoke that principle I believe, but feel compelled to continue on with a doctrine or principle that generally does not work very well at all for women, men or children.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 9 September 2005 9:17:09 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
Timkins, agreed that there is a serious side to that kind of stupidity. The worry is that academics like that probably get to influence policy in other area's where they are not quite so obvious. I do not think that the rejection of marriage, the ignoring of the role of fathers etc is generally supported by most of the feminists who post on this site. As has been mentioned previously feminists come in a variety of flavours, some will be extremists, others sane and looking for fair outcomes (something I support).

I'm kind of hoping that through friendly dialog with the moderates I will be able to make them more aware of the consequences of some of the extremist activities. I also am interested in finding out where they think equality has not yet been achieved to help my understanding of the issues.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 10 September 2005 9:49:34 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 think that no one should call themselves a feminist, without being able to give full account of what feminism is, otherwise that person may have been brainwashed by other feminists into calling themselves a feminist (like some type of cult).

Equality could be like a sea-saw. If someone gains rights or privileges in some area, the rights or privileges of someone else can go down. Therefore a balance has to be found, taking into account the economics, culture, technologies etc of that particular society.

However, as I have mentioned in previous posts, there are now professional feminists whose job, (or business), involves portraying the female gender as being perpetually oppressed and disadvantaged, no matter what the situation.. However those professional feminists will normally overlook any disadvantage that men might be experiencing, because they will not earn income from doing that. Therefore they will rarely be able to look at a situation objectively.

In areas such as law, government subsidies, education systems etc, the female gender now has many more rights and privileges then men, but most feminists (and many women), cannot objectively see this.

I would think that the past feminists policies have been 3 parts right, 7 parts wrong, and most of those policies are simply not sustainable. Some objective studies now highlight the negative impact that those policies have had on women and on society as whole.

So perhaps the next challenge for feminism, is to be truthful and objective
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 11 September 2005 8:15:42 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
Reason

Limitations on this site means I can’t really do justice to this topic. I have been trying to determine some sort of trend over the past 10 years. In so far as equal opportunity for people – we’re in a rut.

Definitely an increased trend for men wanting to be active parents which our laws have yet to recognise. Laws that were necessary to protect mothers back when women were regarded more as chattel than as individuals are now discriminatory towards men who wish to be responsible fathers.

Socially, I mix with people in their late 30’s and 40’s. Men in this age group, generally, treat women as people. Whereas older men (not all) tend to see women as very different to them – limited to certain roles. The last time I dated anyone older than me – he wanted me to dress a certain way – more ‘feminine’ he said (I’m jeans ‘n Tshirt type woman). Younger men just accept me as I am.

Easier to see differences from 20 or 30 years ago, only 20 years ago that I would’ve had to seek my spouse’s approval for overseas travel even though separated.

It is easier for women to apply for and receive housing/business loans now. I would not have even been seriously considered for a loan as single woman back in the ’70’s. Probably didn’t earn enough anyway. When I started work over 30 years ago I earned 50% less per week than a male the same age, doing the same office work as I (after getting married I had to promise not to get pregnant!).

More things change, more they stay the same. I lost my last job due to not ‘playing the game’ with the boss (male 55 y.o.) and it’s the 21st century, am still in shock.

Still a way to go before people see each other as just people. This applies not only to sex but race, creed etc, we continue to judge the many by the actions of a few.

Will we achieve a true democracy? Not in my life time.

Cheers
Posted by Trinity, Sunday, 11 September 2005 9:37:17 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
Trinity,
You have just carried out a much used feminist technique.

You have used anecdotal evidence and personal experience, and suggested that it is representative of a whole. This has been found almost universally throughout feminism.

Eg 'What's wrong with using personal experience?' Well, the answer is, almost everything. The problem with such personal anecdote is that it cannot be used in any rational or meaningful way for evaluating marraige in our society. Many of Maushart's claims are quite false and dangerously misleading.” http://www.ipa.org.au/files/news_479.html

After studying much feminist text and feminist university courses, a Christine Stolba found much the same: “In the end, all Women’s Studies has done is "engage in much myth-making; unfortunately, myth-making is not scholarship. As its textbooks demonstrate, the field of Women’s Studies has turned ‘rooms of their own’ into narrow intellectual prisons presided over by matriarchs of mediocrity who mistake ideology for learning and scholarship." http://www.iwf.org/ARTICLES/article_detail.asp?ArticleID=68

Anecdote and personal experience also fills women’s media, but that media is probably some of the most unreliable media to be found.

So a part of the process for feminism to become more objective and truthful (and more believable) is for women and feminists to vastly reduce the amount of anecdotal evidence they use.

No one can adequately talk about democracy, equality etc, but base what they are saying on so much anecdotal evidence only.
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 11 September 2005 10:28:33 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
Timkins

I was politely responding to a question raised by Reason. I have given up on you and your selective igorance. You are your own mushroom.
Posted by Trinity, Sunday, 11 September 2005 10:34:42 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
TRINITY.....ur backsliding mate.. where did that love go ? :)

Now.. you will all enjoy this.. Last night in the supermarket there was a couple in front of me in the checkout line. The man was relating an experience he observed about a woman who went to a Ford dealership somewhere, asking for a test drive. The salesman said to her "Go get your husband, and then he can take you for one" wooooooooo.... how old was this salesman ? was he a dinsaur from the 50s ? nope.. he was in his 20s :) Of course she stormed out and went to the next nearest dealer where she was treated with courtesy, given a test drive and bought a car.

I had a good chat with 3 generations of women in my fellowship yesterday, I reported the result to Xena in the thread about Mrs Bishop and the Cloth for those interested.

One thing I feel is worthy of repeating here though, the feeling about 'Male responsibility' for leadership in the home, was not something that made anyone feel 'repressed'. (I never asked the 14 yr old who wanted to play soccer with the guys this question, I'll try again next week :)

We are all 'under God' and when men do their role as per the good book, women also enjoy their role. Complimentary, not competitive. When either side becomes lazy or over reliant or selfish, things fall apart. But they would do that no matter what 'system' is in place.

The most memorable discovery I've made in this debate is the connection between 'radical feminists' and abusive male role models.
Which leads me back to my above stated position on the biblical pattern.

Its not a 'mans' world...its God's world.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 12 September 2005 6:25:08 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
Trinity,
Thankyou for calling me yet another maligning name (ie “mushroom”). There is now a considerable list of names you have called other people, and you must be very kind, in a feminist type of way.

I have found the most minimal evidence to say that the following are not completely characteristic of feminism.

1/ State that all people should call themselves “feminist”.

2/ If asked questions about feminism:-
- State that feminism is “progressive”, and means “equality” and “democracy”, but provide no elaboration, specific details or feminist policies.
- Immediately attempt to silence anyone who asks questions about feminism, (eg. call them maligning names, state that they are trying to “send women back to the 1950’s” etc).

3/ Portray women as being perpetually oppressed:-
- Always portray women as being forever victims of men.
- Attempt to use anecdotal evidence only, and infer that it is always representative of the whole.
- If anecdotal evidence cannot be used, then carry out advocacy research, and use biased data.
- Make repetitive use of propaganda terms (eg “women’s liberation”, “female oppression” etc)
- Encourage feminists to malign and demonise males and then excuse those feminists as being “extremist” or “satirist” feminists, but never specify which feminists are not considered to be “extremists” or “satirists”.
- Never consider any situation where males may be discriminated against in some way (ie this is a crime against feminism).

4/ If asked to provide a solution to a problem.
- Immediately launch into mantra (eg repeat continuously “women’s choice”, “a woman and her children”, “patriarchal power structure” etc)
- Demonise males and portray females as being perpetually oppressed
- Call for more government spending (normally on women)

5/ Go back to 1, and repeat the loop endlessly:-
- In this way, more and more money and privileges will be given to women and anyone who calls themselves a feminist, and minimal money and privileges will be given to men or anyone who does not call themselves a feminist.
Posted by Timkins, Monday, 12 September 2005 9:10:48 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
Timkins (Trinity)

there is one point which I think deserves serious consideration which Trinity raised.

Loans, (and test drives for that matter) etc.. access to legal/financial services.

I have a feeling that the denial or the hesitant provision of these things, (by males) maybe due to applying the kind of picture I've been painting regarding the roles and relative authority positions in marraige to the wider community.

So it would be in order, to stress that this should not be the case, and more, should be avoided at all costs, as a social outcome and that teaching against such a state of affairs should be a companion part of teaching the Biblical approach to roles and responsibility(within marraige).

I hope I have not been interpreted as suggesting that just because I advocate the biblical pattern of 'Christ the head of the man, who is the head of the woman (in marraige)' as meaning "Women are incapable of equally responsible approaches to managing their affairs etc."

I certainly can see how this might come about, specially if the Church was a much larger part of community life than it currently is.
So, obviously, we need to guard against such a limited understanding of females abilities.

I see a very strong correlation between the emergence of feminism, and the failure of males to be what we should be under God. So, it becomes increasingly important to use education as a tool in proper socialization to counter this.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Monday, 12 September 2005 10:43:15 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
Well Said BD, you do a great job in failing to cloke your intent. But I must agree with your statement.

“I see a very strong correlation between the emergence of feminism, and the failure of males to be what we should be under God. So, it becomes increasingly important to use education as a tool in proper socialization to counter this.”

“and the failure of males to be what we should be under God.”

That would relate to being trapped, indoctrinated, elitist, self righteous, fearing change and difference and reliance on antiquated mythology to forgive you for your being.

“So, it becomes increasingly important to use education as a tool in proper socialization to counter this.”

Very True, we must use the education system to ensure that people understand how trapped they can become when religion is presented to them.

Spot on BD, is that just a taint of creeping americanism in “socialization”, (just checking).

Timkins, nice you got the joke, “5/ Go back to 1, and repeat the loop endlessly:- “

Cobber, I like many agree with what you say, the evidence is clear. I have always disliked feminism or any ism that wishes to control. We all have had our fair share of being ripped of by the ones we love. But cobber, it can make you stronger and more determined to find that elusive equality. It doesn't make it right, just that it is. If you can't change and go on searching for the equality we all seek, ( well lots of us) then sadness may be the only outcome.

For all we know, this life is all we have, so why stay stuck groveling within the past, when we can be out there searching for the equality future that will satisfy us.

It is so nice, comfortable, satisfying, a great learning and development period, when you find it. Thats if it lasts, eh.
Posted by The alchemist, Monday, 12 September 2005 11:54:52 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
The Alchemists,
You seem to be inferring that I “am grovelling in the past”, or inferring that I have had some type of bad experience.

That is simply a part of normal feminist procedure to silence someone, as contained in earlier post:-ie. “Immediately attempt to silence anyone who asks questions about feminism, (eg. call them maligning names, state that they are trying to “send women back to the 1950’s” etc).

I am very concerned for the future under a Feminist / Marxist ideology. Read carefully the post at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=21410

I would think that post contains most of the elements of what I have been talking about. That poster wants dismantling of the nuclear family, and the father is not regarded as being a parent. He is a sperm donor and paypacket only to the mother. The mother is assumed to be the best parent because she is female, and the children can also be raised the community (ie another word for the “state”). This is all Marxism, and Marxism has been tried in various countries and always found to be a complete disaster.

But also notice in that post how the father is regarded. He is regarded as a second class parent and second class citizen. That is feminism, and that is why feminists are so secretive about feminist policy, (and most don’t want to talk too much about feminism), because behind the façade of words such as “equality” and “liberty” etc, there is minimal equality or democracy in feminism.

So if you want to post to me in the future, or mention my name in a post, don’t call me names, and don’t make unsubstantiated inferences, but none of that is equality or democracy. That is a feminist’s version of “equality” and “democracy” only.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 10:17:54 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
Timkins, name calling,

“The Alchemist,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated, generalised accusations (eg “fixed into the narrow blindness and fear of losing the thing that sustains them, illusion.”)

But instead of such accusations, you, (or any other feminist), would be better to provide some specific details about feminism, as such details would help ensure that people do not have any illusions about feminism (and no “equality” feminist would ever want that)”
Posted by Timkins, Saturday, 3 September 2005 1:37:01 PM .

You either can't read, or adore being hypocritical and brain dead, (are you a senior bureaucrat by chance). Insults by maligning me with feminists, can only degrade your standing. You along with those you despise, appear to come from the same mold, and maybe the same vocation

“The Alchemists,
You seem to be inferring that I “am grovelling in the past”, or inferring that I have had some type of bad experience.”

Only if you think the cap fits. Most would see it as generalisation, and only referring to those recognising being trapped in that mind set.

Still it is amusing watching the loop go round and round. It does appear that it makes you dizzy, is that a mechanical malfunction, or programming.
Posted by The alchemist, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 11:19:46 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
Eeek. Timkins, you and so many others have so little idea as to what feminism was originally all about. It was not about forcing men to do the dishes, or about power, nor was there an ‘agenda’, or a desire to force ANYONES lifestyle to change. It was never meant to be a battle of the sexes.

It was just about fairness. Fairness for both women AND men. People saw inequality and moved to fix it.

But, over time, arguments were distorted and logic twisted, and people of both sides took their ideals way too far (as is what happens all too often). People on the right will now point to that radical man hating lesbian, and use her as an example of what feminism is, in order to criticise. It couldn’t be further from the truth.

Did you know that feminists used to convincingly argue for men’s liberation as well? Let that sink in for a moment.

One example was that while women were viewed and valued as sex objects, male sexuality was largely repressed. Women = sex, which meant men = opposite of sex. Not only were men to start to value women in ways OTHER than sexual beings, men were given the opportunity to be viewed and valued, among other things, AS sexual beings. A plus for both sexes!

Such was the original ideal. Now it’s just dumbass chauvinist pigs vs moronic man hating dykes. Both sides are completely, utterly, missing the point of feminism. That point is: it matters not if you’re male or female. What matters is if you are a freaking idiot or not.
Posted by spendocrat, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 12:05:14 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
Alchemist,
I don’t think you know what you are talking about

Spendocrat,
You seem to be carrying out quite a lot of name calling, which would be step2 in the loop (ie try and avoid answering questions about feminism, by carrying out lots of name calling etc)

I would really like to know about feminism, but very specifically:-

Eg
*a detailed list of feminist policies,
* a list of web-sites and texts I would be permitted to read as a feminist, and a list of web-sites and texts I would not be permitted to read as a feminist (eg. Could I look at this http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm or this, http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php )
* a list of feminists I should regard as being “extremist”, and a list of feminists I should regard as being “non-extremist”
*a list of maligning names people can call feminists, (similar to the many maligning names feminists have called other people).
*a list of feminists who are satirists (and can make highly discriminatory remarks), and a list of feminists who are not satirists (and cannot make highly discriminatory remarks).

Failure to provide specific details about feminism, most likely means that the "ism" called feminism is simply a fraudulent façade, or a rort.
Posted by Timkins, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 2:43:19 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
Firstly, clearly you CAN look at those websites, and ARE permitted to do so, as you have linked to them. Whether you choose to accept their views or not is up to yourself. Personally, the "woymn" one sounds a little crazy, but the "ifeminist" sounds quite sensible.

Extemist feminists- well, I tend to view most university "gender studies/women's studies" lecturers as fairly extreme, but to some extent, they have to be to get attention, and in a way, as is often pointed out around OLO, you sometimes need to look at the extreme view to see how the moderate view fits in.

I would consider most women in Australia, who think nothing of their automatic right to vote, work, and participate in life to be moderate feminists. Equally, I would consider most men in Australia, who think nothing of the fact that women can vote, work and participate would also be feminists. Feminism was/is about equality of opportunity for men and women.

Feminists who are satirists- well, are they funny? To the average reader/listener? Who is not deliberately looking to be offended? Then I would suggest they are using humor to discuss life, and the quirks of men and women.

This said, I dont know why I am bothering. I'm sure the Text Recognition Loop Program will kick in and only recognise "ism" and decide it must refute the use of "ism" as it cannot be entirely pinned down in one sentance.
Posted by Laurie, Tuesday, 13 September 2005 3:32:13 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 very existence of a movement and a term "Feminism" is a tragic commentary on our failure to live fairly as men and women together in society.
So, we have 'status quo' and some disenfranchised strong minded women like Mary Wolstencraft, who reacted to an abusive and tyranical father. They in turn gather support, and write pamphlets, which stir up the passions of similarly minded and backgrounded women, who in turn find a following, and next thing we know we have 'feminism'.

Similar to Marxism, which believed it only needed 10% of the population supporting it to take control of a country, Feminism developed its ideology and practices.

Just as Marxists used agitators to grab onto real or perceived 'issues' of supposed injustice, and capitalize on them for the sake of the movement, so did/do radical feminists. Persuading women that they are 'victims'.

While all this is going on, the broad 'culture' of the country is still in tact, and basically balanced, but signs of erosion begin to appear in time.

Now we are speaking of 'backlashes' which will only occur when a group has used its momentum to push things 'further' than they needed to.

I believe that if we truly followed the Biblical pattern for male/female relationships, and social structure, feminism would never have arisen. But our failure to love, and cherish, and our complacency, and greed, and lust for power, have all brought us undone, and now we are picking up the pieces.

God forbid, that we re-construct those pieces into a social and cultural Frankenstein.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 9:53:24 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
BD, I have not spent much time on the historical roots of "Feminism". Maybe it did take an extremist to get over the inertia to get things going (I don't know). Whatever the bits that brought it together there have been real issues which needed addressing (some of them having something to do with that biblical pattern for men and women you love).

- Women should have the vote.
- Women should be paid equally to men doing the same work.
- Women should be as safe as men to walk in the street, or their garden unmolested as men (more about social attitude than law).
- Women should have career opportunities based on their ability not their gender (not sure that men always have this either)
- Women should have the same freedoms to dress as they like as enjoyed by men. They probably have more freedom in the workplace than men currently but my comment is more in regard to those who insist on women dressing by their standard of modesty rather than a fashion commentary.
- Women should be treated as being as responsible for their actions as men are treated.
- Women should be able to exercise the same freedoms and responsibilities in their lives as exercised by men.

Once we are sure that those objectives are met (and similar ones I may have missed) then the issues are about the kind of society we live in - the balance between individual freedom and community etc rather than feminism or masculism (or whatever it might be called).

I would agree that there are areas where the shift has gone along way past equality but there are still area's where there is some way to go. The task of those who care is to work towards fixing the imbalances not pushing entire agenda's.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:15:08 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
Wow, BD what an excellent example and description of how religion has approached societies throughout history. Tiny minorities with big mouths and empty self righteous heads, trying to take over.

I am not sure as to whether Timkins got the text recognition loop machine, from you, or the other way round. Please explain. (oops, sorry Pauline)

Robert, you have the right approach and understand the subject. Even though something may have effected us adversely, approaching things in a humble and understanding way, always brings enlightenment and improves our lives, making us stronger. As you say, “there are still area's where there is some way to go.”

Irrelevant as what radical feminism has done and is trying to do to society, it has shown us all how lacking it is in its implementation and outcomes. Thus giving us the ability to counter it with reason.

We are lucky that the majority of both genders realise this and are beginning to speak out at the useless politically correct attacks on society, by the out of touch feminist (blanks). As most of the women and men say in their posts, we know whats going on, we understand the problem, and we are overcoming this mental malignancy.

How, like all loopy isms, they can't sustain their illusions for long, because reality always rears it head and shows us what they are, a sinister joke.
Posted by The alchemist, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 11:56:47 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
Thanx Robert, your insights always contribute to furthering the discussion. Lets have a closer look at some of those in the light of Biblical teaching:

- VOTE I can't actually see any Biblical problem with this.

- EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK "Don't muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain" (i.e. if its working for you, pay it ) No suggestion of less grain for female oxen :)

-SAFETY Never gonna happen while men are stronger than women, but I support the ideal and so does Scripture, which also underlines mens responsibilities to protect the fairer sex. (see book of Ruth)

-CAREER OPPORTUNITIES. I still struggle with the idea of women having dominion over men, but, the N.T. Picture always seems to see a difference between social life and Church/Worship life. In Worship, the God==> Man==> Woman pattern should be observed always, in Work, well, I see examples where women have excelled, so in non church activities, go for it.

-DRESS All should adopt a code of modesty as opposed to flaunting which is clearly aimed at our lower nature.

- EQUAL RESPONSIBILITY sure, why not ?

- FREEDOMS. Should be ok

So there u go
Posted by BOAZ_David, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 2:13:40 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
Laurie,
You have not provided specific details about feminism, just given generalisations.

I could say that there needs to be more “democracy” in the country. But that is too general, and if I keep saying it, I would eventually be asked to provide specific details about the lack of democracy, and also state what should be done to increase or improve democracy.

The same now goes for so called “progressive” feminism. For many years people have had to listen to feminists demonise males (and try and excuse it by saying that it is “satire” etc), and listen to feminists talk about “patriarchy”, and listen to feminists say there needs to be more “equality” etc.

So time is up, and feminists can now be very specific. Feminists should be able to point to specific feminist policies, and specific feminist texts, and make known which feminists can be relied upon, and which feminists can’t be relied upon etc.

BD
Some feminists were abused, although the vast majority of people who call themselves feminist would not have been abused. But I tend to think that feminism teaches people to be abusive to other people. Newspaper writers such as Susan Maushart, Emma Tom etc are the most foul-minded, foul-mouthed and abusive writers in mainstream newspapers, perhaps ever in Australian newspaper history. Doesn’t say much for all these years of feminism one would think.

Robert,
The list of “gender equality rights” you mention were acquired by women many decades ago, and much, much more besides. But the greatest challenge now for feminism, would be to be honest.

There has been the most minimal evidence of honesty, truthfulness, or reliability within feminism, and it probably won’t be achieved until feminists start to call themselves feminist / masculinists or masculinists / feminists. However many professional feminists would be out of a job if they were to change their name.

The Alchemist,
The term “text recognition loop” was first said by a feminist supporter, so as to avoid having to answer specific questions about feminism. That person has still not provided satisfactory answers to those questions on feminism.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 3:39:49 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
BD, thanks for the open response. That bit "I still struggle with the idea of women having dominion over men" seems to lie at the core of a lot of these issues. Some men obviously do better at managing that struggle than others. Where faith is optional (and no social pressure to conform) I don't really care what unbalanced power structures you use within the church. It is a problem if that approach is adopted anywhere that has a less than consentual involvement for people or where public money is used to support it (church schools etc).

I don't regard sexuality as necessarily part of a lower nature (ignoring possible puns on physical placement). Personally I consider prudity (I know that is different to modesty) to be part of a lower nature than healthy expressions of sexuality.

My comments about safety were more in regard to a recognition of someone elses right to autonomy than a personal responsibility to protect blonds :) . I don't see physical strength as the issue, rather a level of acceptance by some for taking by force what is not given freely. A gun can make up for a lot of physical strength.

Whatever we do there will always be some who fail to respect appropriate boundaries however I do think that community attitudes play a role in the numbers willing to harm others. That is part of why it is not OK to have teachers teaching that women who do not dress modestly invite rape.

At the end of the day each of us should take responsibility for the choices we make, my role is not to protect blonds but rather to work towards a society where no-one need fear violent attack as they go about their lives. Women have a responsibility to think about the level of risk they take (time and place) and make choices they can live with.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 3:44:29 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
Trinity,
Thanks for the response.

I have asked around a few of my female friends/colleagues. From what I can tell, there still seems to be a certain amount of chauvinism in the world. Many women I know get treated ‘delicately’ or as a sexual person (in the wrong settings) rather than as equals or even respected competitors.

From this, I get a mixed response. Some women use the image men hold to manipulate the situation to their advantage (i.e. get the man to pay, do the work, etc) while others feel outrage that their equality is questioned.

And from a quiz to my male friends/colleagues, the same kind of mixed response – recognition of equality to downright ignorance of potential in women.

The main thread in those who cannot see the stupidity in not finding women equal in all respects I have found is one of two issues:
- Fear of being ‘shown up’ or ‘outdone’ by ‘a woman’; or
- Anger towards a woman who has done them wrong (in either a relationship or work setting)

I guess it is easy to see how blind anger can taint a view (without pointing fingers or suggesting anything, I think we have seen a version of this on this thread!).

However, the fear side is a bit of a mystery. I guess if you are raised or chose to believe a certain way, fear take over when the unfamiliar knocks at your door.

In my mind, it is a fading mindset and in the next 20 to 30 years, the now younger men, more used to seeing women compete equally and successfully, will become the role models for the next generations to come through.

Well I hope so anyway.

I’ll just ignore the loops and loopys…. It does get repetitive!

Well, thanks for the support here. I expect we may meet in another thread regarding abortion and religion – there will be some serious ‘fundy’ work going on there needing a dose of moderation
Posted by Reason, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 6:51:17 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
Reason,
You have just used parts of No 3 on the feminist “loop” as described at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2466#14759

IE
3/ Portray women as being perpetually oppressed:-
- Always portray women as being forever victims of men.
- Attempt to use anecdotal evidence only, and infer that it is always representative of the whole.

Your “I have asked around a few of my female friends/colleagues” is basically using anecdotal evidence, and that type of evidence has no reliability or scientific basis at all, yet feminist text and feminist books are filled with it.

Lets run the world on anecdotal evidence.
Is the earth round or flat -> I’ll just ask amongst my group of friends.
Is inflation going up or down -> I’ll just ask amongst my group of friends.

It appears that so many feminists are now totally addicted to anecdotal evidence, but if feminism wants to be taken seriously, (and not just regarded as being a total rort:- filled with lies, bias, deceit, double standards, half-truths, misinformation, brainwashing and hypocrisy) then probably anecdotal evidence is one of the first things that will have to go.

But big ask for "progressive" feminists I think.
Posted by Timkins, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 7:44:36 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
Timkins

I guess I share some of your frustrations. I would also like feminists to provide succinct: definitions. philosophies, policies and the like. Even so, I think that you are pushing it up hill to get it here. From my observations, people on OLO seem to be conservative in their views - albeit quite insulting at times. This is hardly the forum to get your wishes - sorry.

If you read back to my earlier posts you will see that I have studied feminism at university level. But I also made it clear that I hold some feminist values and many traditional values. I don't see any reason to run on one bandwaggon and not the other. I enjoy balancing my views and leaving myself open for change. For me that is life - on going learning and change.

Cheers
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Wednesday, 14 September 2005 8:34:34 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
Timkins,
I was not responding to any of your comments. You have become very tedious and boring. Please note, these are not feminist words. They exist in the real world…but I can see the loop coming on anyway.

I don’t think you have it in you to be anything remotely resembling moderate on this issue. I am predicting the usual pointless rant from you (thankyou for denigrating/insulting/blah blah blah…).

If you so chose to find some sensible things to discuss instead of revealing your inner anger (thankyou for your unsubstantiated blah blah blah…) I’d be happy to chat further. As it is, I don’t need my Psych degree to see you have some real issues left over from a bad run in with a woman in the past (thankyou again… unsubstantiated…blah blah..)

And you portray all men as victims of the feminist extremism of the world. Your portrayal of this situation is over-inflated and based on your anecdotal (i.e. personal experience). I’d guess you won’t tell us what it was as it would simply confirm what most of the posters believe is fact: you had a bad time of it and blame feminist (thankyou… unsubstantiated.. blah… blah.. blah…)

What the heck. Sorry Tim, so I see no point in spending any more time responding to you.

Long live women and men in equality and mutual respect. Nothing more. Nothing less.
Posted by Reason, Thursday, 15 September 2005 12:55:08 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
Timken, I admire your persistence.

But then, do I perceive you sit back reading the posts of others with a wry smile? Do I perceive that you're a bit of a naughty man leading the others around a merry-go-round from which there is no escape, teasing and taunting them to stay on and to have the last word over you?

Yes, I believe I do. Good luck to you mate. It's always best to have a good chuckle at the other fellow's expense - especially when he doesn't even know it's happening. That's a class act. It simply goes to prove, we're not at all equal and the presumption of human equality could only be entertained by fools - or feminists.
Posted by Maximus, Thursday, 15 September 2005 9:26:45 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
Reason,
You say you have a Psychology Degree. Congratulations, but was it a special “feminist” Psychology Degree, or just an ordinary Psychology Degree, and did it teach you to automatically believe without question, anything someone else says?

Many “feminists” seem to want other people to call themselves “feminist” as well, (like some type of cult), but any careful person would want to learn much about “feminism”, before they commit to calling themselves a “feminist” also.

I have been trying to be very polite to feminists, and I have thanked them whenever they have called me maligning names, and I have thanked them whenever they have made unsubstantiated, (or made up), inferences about me also. So I thank you for calling me so many maligning names in the past, (eg “tedious”, “boring” etc), and for making so many unsubstantiated inferences about me in so many posts (eg “you had a bad time of it” etc). You seem a very well practised feminist (and a degree in Psychology as well).

However:- still no feminist has provided specific details about their “ism” called feminism, and I think they are simply following Step 2 in the feminist procedure loop.

IE
2/ If asked questions about feminism:-
- State that feminism is “progressive”, and means “equality” and “democracy”, but provide no elaboration, specific details or feminist policies.
- Immediately attempt to silence anyone who asks questions about feminism, (eg. call them maligning names, state that they are trying to “send women back to the 1950’s” etc).
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2466#14759

Continuous failure to answer specific question about “feminism”, only makes “feminism” even more suspect.

Maximus
I tend to think that feminists are becoming universally predictable. (see the procedure loop at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2466#14759 and the list of techniques at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2940#883)

At present I think most feminists would be no better than the “Spin Sisters” involved in so much of women’s media. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12885

The Spin Sisters within women’s media, and the Spin Sisters within feminism, seem to operate very much the same.
Posted by Timkins, Thursday, 15 September 2005 5:40:41 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
Lol. 'Special Feminist' psycology degree. Timkins, you are an endless source of entertainment.

The fact that the term 'feminist' cannot be clearly defined is not because it is some sort of 'rort', silly. It's because it's a vague term. It can be applied to reasonable people and to maniacs. You're arguing against the maniacs, others here are defending the reasonable people.

Do you see what I mean? Timkins has such a different idea of what feminism is, he is in fact arguing against a completely different thing that others are defending, rendering the whole debate rather pointless.

Timkins, it's just a vague term, ok? That doesn't make it bad. It just makes it vague. It's all about the context in which it's used, like so much of our crazy english language.

I consider the term to mean nothing more than someone who believes in equality. Others consider it to mean other things. Fine. But Timkins, if you believe in equality, as far as I am concerned you are a feminist.

It's not about a power struggle, it's about not worrying about things like struggling for power!

But we all have to have something to hate, right? Timkins hates feminists. BOAZ hates Islam. Perseus hates marijuana. Philo and Grey hate science.

I'm tired of hate. Pointless. Chill out everyone, it's the weekend!

I
Love
EVERYONE!

Seeyas monday
Posted by spendocrat, Friday, 16 September 2005 4:53:11 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
Spendocrat,
Thankyou for calling me maligning names (eg “silly etc). Many feminists have now called me many maligning names, and I feel very privileged, because I am being called maligning names by people who believe in “equality”.

I would completely agree that terms such as “feminism” can be very "vague" terms, and that is why I would like to know more details about feminism. But whenever I ask for details, I just get called names, and I am now fully convinced that name calling is a very essential part of progressive feminism.

Accurate and reliable information is very important, because if people only have a vague idea about something, then they cannot give very reliable opinions, and such things as public opinion polls would then not be very reliable. And it does appears that feminist are not very reliable sources of information, as feminism is too "vague".

So I am still waiting on some "un-vague" answers to my questions about feminism, or maybe feminism just doesn't hold up too well, if people begin to ask questions about it.
Posted by Timkins, Friday, 16 September 2005 6:19:12 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
REASON I'll devote my response in the Time for women to raise children, not their status" thread to Mahatma, and give a response to you in this one, as my contention also fits this thread.

You suggested that either matriarchy or patriarchy give "power and bias and are based on a greater sense of worth" -Incorrect conclusions, not based on sufficient factual data.

I am thinking more about your underlying assumption on which that assessment is based. Firstly, I reject your take, because if males sensed females regarded themselves as 'more worthy' they could at any time usurp that by militant action.

Again, I scratch my head at your qualifications on the one hand, and your strange understanding of culture on the other. It continues to appear that you did your degree, then forgot all u learnt and just soaked yourself in secular humanist/socialist/feminist ideology which you are now coming out with.

Now, you described me as:

a) Liar
b) Deceiver
c) Morally blind
e) Brainwashed.
c) Just want an old world power structure. (and I have a vested interest, so shot myself in the foot)

Bless u :) though it sounds a tad like flaming.

I reject all but 'e' and humbly admit that I have deliberately soaked myself in Christ related information, and agree that it has changed my brain chemistry such that 'brainwashed' is probably a true assessment of my condition. This of course, does not alter my ability to look at facts and draw reasonable conclusions based on the inferences of the facts themselves.

So,
-a reproductive rate of 1.75 per couple leads me to conclude "We are dyingout" not entirely unreasonable ?
-High divorce rates and dramatically lowering of marraige rates lead me to conclude 'We are experiencing social decay'.

Admittedly, my conclusion is based on my Biblical perspective, but I do believe they are supported by an overview of history and culture.

I've suggested a patriarchal re-structure and Biblical values as a solution to this. (tried and tested and not as you make it out to be.)

(waits for 'incoming' :)
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 18 September 2005 7:07:50 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
Boaz,

Maybe its only feminists who can call other people names.

And its only feminists who don’t have to answer questions.

That’s all a part of the feminist’s version of “equality”
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 18 September 2005 9:28:25 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
Indeed Tim,.. indeed.

Here is an example of 'MALE DOMINATION AND PATRIARCHY' from the Old testament..
From I Samuel
21 When the man Elkanah went up with all his family to offer the annual sacrifice to the LORD and to fulfill his vow, 22 Hannah did not go. She said to her husband, "After the boy is weaned, I will take him and present him before the LORD, and he will live there always."
23 "Do what seems best to you," Elkanah her husband told her. "Stay here until you have weaned him; only may the LORD make good his [d] word." So the woman stayed at home and nursed her son until she had weaned him.

Did anyone see it ? how this male chauvenist pig Elkanah, ORDERED his wife to do this and that... with the words "Do what seems best to you"

Now isn't that the most dreaded, brutal, repressive, ugly sexist behavior that anyone can imagine ? :)

Something tells me that the negative image of patriarchal society is much more of a myth than the documents I'm using as my sources.

Cheers.

P.S. REASON, I've done an ad hoc survey of women in my own church this morning and general passers by this afternoon on my walk, I cannot find even ONE lady who considers being described as a 'girl' is a negative offensive thing. What one DID consider offensive is the 'YOU WOMEN '! kind of statement that men utter when they are referring to bad female drivers. So, as I already knew, its about tone, and intent. I also found my assumption that 'girl' is a complement for the VERY reasons I suggested. Its not about 'shallow', but I'm beginning to suspect its more about you looking for anything you can hang criticism on, no matter how tenuous.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 18 September 2005 6:27:31 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
BOAZ_David

You can call me a "girl" any time you like. You can refer to me as a "sheilla" if you want. You can even call me "mate" but please don't come into the room and say: "Hello guys" (when rererring to both sexes). So American and irritates me beyond belief.

I was at a Feminist Conference back in 1985. Everyone was getting restless about 10.30am. Someone called out: "Come on girls, time for morning tea". She was berated by the visiting female US academic for denigrating women. We all just sniggered and rolled our eyeballs. What a load of bunkum.

Yes, as you correctly point out, it is not so much the term that is used - it is the tone of the use.

Cheers mate!
Kay
Posted by kalweb, Sunday, 18 September 2005 7:15:45 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
Kalweb,
I have heard of a situation where a conference was run a few years ago by the UN for International Women’s Day, and the chairwoman made the mistake of addressing the delegates as “Ladies and Gentlemen”. At that point a number of women delegates got up and walked out, and these were international delegates that had been sent by various countries.

The newly formed Feminist Initiative party in Sweden held its first conference, which appears to have been totally out of control.
http://www.thelocal.se/article.php?ID=2105&date=20050916

That party began with public support of 22% at the first opinion poll, but this has been systematically dropping as they release their policies, hold conferences etc, and public support is expected to be close to 0% by the next election. This would have nothing to do with men or “patriarchy”, as very few women are now supporting them.

Such situations would be just one of the reasons why I think that details become highly important whenever someone talks about issues such as “equality”, “democracy”, “progress”, “prosperity” etc.
Posted by Timkins, Sunday, 18 September 2005 9:48:49 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 30
  7. 31
  8. 32
  9. All

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