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 > We haven’t come a long way baby at all > Comments

We haven’t come a long way baby at all : Comments

By Melinda Tankard Reist, published 16/3/2007

We have to acknowledge the tragic truth: the movement for women’s equality, in many ways, appears to have failed.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All
I'm not sure I would go so far as to conclude that the women's movement has failed. It just hasn't completely succeeded yet.

And it certainly does seem to have become seriously sidetracked with this sexual litertarianism. I agree with the author about how disturbing the increasing sexualisation of girls at ever-younger ages is becoming.

I wonder how it came to this, and what the solutions could be.

Cheers!
Posted by Rhys Probert, Friday, 16 March 2007 9:30:44 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
I use to hear women talking about how their fathers would not let them wear makeup or have their ears pierced until for example they were at least a teenager.

Having a daughter of my own, I now understand WHY!

Research shows that fathers play an extremely important role. It has been shown that girls in mother only households become sexual active at an earlier age than in families where there is a resident genetic father.

Debate exists whether the girls are mimicing their mothers behaviour or there is a phermone which plays a part. It has been shown that girls without a genetic father in the household also reach puberty at an earlier age.

My daughter just the other day expressed the idea that she would have her first baby at 30, which I thought was an excellent idea and hopefully it is within a loving and caring relationship.

In the last 3 or 4 decades social norms or boundaries on what is regarded as acceptable behaviour has disintergrated. Once it was frowned on to be an unmarried mother, now it is totally acceptable.

In many instances there are siblings in families that only share the genetic heritage of the mother.

It has only been in the last 120 years that the age of consent was set at 16. Prior to that the age of consent was about 12.

I agree with the author that sexualising pre-pubescent children is not a good idea.

However we must be careful about oppression verses repression.

Is sexual liberation as toxic and as damaging as sexual repression.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=436592&in_page_id=1770
"Date Rape Myth exposed as binge drinking is to blame."

As Maximus pointed out in a previous post. It was reliable birth control which liberated women.

So in reality the sexual liberalization is because of the liberation of women. We do not need another MacKinnon or Dowrkin to poison the world again.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 16 March 2007 10:04:31 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
What a great article! I couldn't have said it better myself. Women have been sucked into this rhetoric about power and equality when they are really just being exploited in a different way.

While we now can own our own property, work for as long as we wish and have children when we want, the advent of sexual liberalism has tied us down and taken our value away in a different way.

Yes JamesH, a significant problem is the lack of a father influence not just for girls but for boys. Are women solely to blame for this lack? I can't get past the impression that a lot of the trouble with women these days and young women in particular is men that do not want to share the power dynamic, men that are bitter because some of their influence has been taken away. They are taking it back in an insidious way.

Men wield the most economic power in the media, in the pornography industry, entertainment industry etc. They have the most to gain from the exploitation of women. What is disheartening though is how easily women are duped into thinking that the freedom that they have to sexually "express" themselves, is a positive. It is in reality nothing more than giving more power to men and in the end, is enslaving them more.
Posted by Lizzie4, Friday, 16 March 2007 10:41:33 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
I am astounded that I finally find something to agree on with the author and the above comments. I think anyone with daughters would be saying yes and amen to this article. Pornography is nothing more turning men and women into objects. I think it is sick that my daughter can't walk the streets of any city in Australia and feel safe because perverts want the freedom to watch others having it off.
Posted by runner, Friday, 16 March 2007 3:27:41 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
What a weak, whiny society we have become. It may put a lot of noses out of joint, but maybe that's the true legacy of Feminism? Everything is someone else's fault and never our own responsibility, especially when it comes to our own children it seems.

Personal reflection and self-restraint go a long way, though not as much as crying on Oprah about how hard done by you are it seems.
Posted by shorbe, Friday, 16 March 2007 4:34:44 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
shorbe

You rock.

About 15 years ago listening to ABC radio I heard a program about girls talking about sex using phrases like;

"I gave him what he wanted"

"I let him have what he wanted" etc were used.

I was watching the Female Brain on SBS and the subject of thinking about sex came up an Dr Susan admitted that she thought about sex more often than she wanted to admit on public TV.

It seems to be apparent as you said that people do not want to take responsibility for their behaviour and would much prefer to blame someone else for their own behaviour and the effects of that behaviour.

My kids when they are fighting always blame the other, however it is usually because one feels ignored by the other. I refuse to take sides unless I see one treat the other badly then I point out the bad behaviour to them.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 16 March 2007 8:36:48 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
Welcome to liberation girls! What? You did not want sexual liberation with that?

So women are now yearning for more structure. There is too much freedom and choice. Men continue to corrupt good women and little girls at ever-increasing rates. Even those men forced to be absent from “their” families just contribute further to those same undesirable outcomes.

How is this possible, and who’s to blame?

You’ve nailed it, shorbe.
Posted by Seeker, Friday, 16 March 2007 8:51:07 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
Your comment that women need structure is correct. This sexual liberalism goes against what society thinks of women and also what women think of themselves. There is still the double standard (and always will be) of calling sexually promiscuous girls "sluts" and boys "studs". I am not disagreeing with your analysis but I do feel that it is a "Ha, Ha attitude. You have made your bed now lie in it". Children and young people need boundaries and this is what is lacking from both society and parents and the young people themselves.

It would be nice for a change to get some acknowledgment from the men who contribute to articles about women that there is a problem and that they are willing to contribute some constructive insight and propose some solutions rather than the usual bitter responses. But then, maybe I am trying to control the debate again. If so, it is only because I feel that it is a crucial debate in the future welfare of both our young men and women.

This is because the factors stated in the article about women not coming a long way at all affects both men and women equally.
Posted by Lizzie4, Saturday, 17 March 2007 7:46:48 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
Sexualising of young girls (and boys) is not something that has happened recently. Certainly, we probably saw less of it in the last century than what we do now. But people forget that in many cultures in the past it ws not uncommon for girls to be married off (rarely through their choice) by 12 and as young as 10. Not that I think this is acceptable, just trying to point out that it wasnt women's lib that caused young girls to be sexualised. Also, it doesnt mean that we shouldnt be fighting against it now.

Women's lib has given women the right to continue to work once married, to vote, to own property, to work in any profession or occupation, protection against violence (might still happen, but at least its illegal now), and generally lots of choice about all aspects of life. I think the movement has achieved plenty. Yes, there are some problems in society, but they are more about the nature of certain aspects of our society, rather than being the fault of men or women in particular.
Posted by Country Gal, Saturday, 17 March 2007 1:32:05 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
Women aren't called the weaker sex for nothing. They need protection. Take away the patriarchal structure sheltering them and they become, ah, cat's meat. This subconscious yearning by young women for a protective structure probably explains the popularity of dramas set on Jane Austen's books. Young women in that chivalrous setting didn't have to wonder, "Will you still love me tomorrow?" The commitment of the guy was already locked in before he could hope of ever "getting any".

A great book that explores the dilemmas of many modern women, including in the sexual arena, is "What Our Mothers Didn't Tell Us: Why Happiness Eludes the Modern Woman" by the brilliantly astute Danielle Crittenden.
Posted by Brazuca, Saturday, 17 March 2007 1:49:06 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
The womans movement accomplished it's goals. It's done for woman in 60 years what men have never done for themselves. And that's given men control over their existence. Men in 2007 are still slaves to the needs of women and society. My Mothers generation, bless their souls, did the hard work expected of them and still found the energy and conviction to fight the fight to be seen as human beings and not property. To be seen as and treated as equals in society. The laws have changed and women have been liberated and are no longer property. Chattel. Men are still not equals and are slavishly bound to maintaining the machine.
Feminism is something completely different and the porn industry is the result of their version of a liberated woman. Woman as prostitute. Lizzie4 was saying porn was dominated by men. Wrong. Women are big players in the porn industry and they are in no way victims. There getting rich and in some circle famous and other women(many)are following to exercise their liberation. It's farcical to watch and hear women cling to their social victim status.
Like my ol' Mom says. A woman earning 100,000.00 a year will still be looking for the man to pay her bills
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 18 March 2007 4:58:55 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
"Third-Wave of Feminism Sells Sex To Young Girls"
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,256651,00.html

"But third-wave feminism is about more than just words. According to Baumgardner, it's about a "joy and ownership of sexuality" and "a type of energy." For marketers of products aimed at young girls, it is also about the bottom line."

So, the above article puts a very different spin on the same question.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 18 March 2007 5:46:51 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
aquvarius, what you state is your opinion and it does not mean that I am wrong. You may think that by women making big bucks from participating in porn or prostitution this somehow empowers them. However, participation does not mean that they run the businesses, control all aspects of the businesses or achieve power and recognition in society. It is not the service providers that wield power, it is the customers and owners of the businesses. Businesses and markets are primarily owned by men. Women have achieved some inroads into this from the advent of feminism, but when you are talking about the kind of big businesses that exploit women and men sexually, these are owned by men and are used by men. If it looks like there is a woman in control, it is often a front in an attempt to appease people and gain legitimacy.
Posted by Lizzie4, Sunday, 18 March 2007 8:13:45 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
I think it's interesting that people harp on about pornography and prostitution. If we get over our Judeo-Christian hangovers for a second, we see that they're industries like any other. There may or may not be exploitation involved. To condemn them across the board, however, without condemning every business transaction across the board (ie. to be a Marxist) is a little odd I think. We're still terribly hung up about sex in our society.
Posted by shorbe, Sunday, 18 March 2007 10:42:28 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
aqvarivs, then dont find a man like mine - I have to pay his bills! Look, maybe its the circle of women that I acquaint with, but most that I know not only pay their own way, but also pay their fair share of joint expenses. There are some notable exceptions, but these seem to come from families that have taught them that the husband is the head of the household and has the casting vote on any issue - and so they perpetuate that, plus all the other old rot that goes with it, which includes "whats mine is mine and whats his is ours". I guess I do go out of my way to avoid these people, as they generally irritate me.
Posted by Country Gal, Sunday, 18 March 2007 12:46:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree, Melinda, we haven't come far at all. It's good to see this point of view being expressed at last and in such an articulate fashion too. Thank you very much.

Though emphasising the problems faced by younger women, this critique in no way lets older women off the hook either. We are all implicated. Even when breaking through that glass ceiling, most women are careful to ensure they look pretty goddamn good doing it.

At one stage in the seventies I thought for a while we might truly make it. There were women then who bravely blazed a trail for the rest of us to follow. They chose to dress for comfort and to leave the house without makeup. Unfortunately, these early attempts at liberation were never going to survive the corporate-led assault which crushed them.

Today, not only are we still working in high heels and pretending our aching legs don't exist, we're working to pay for the latest miracle procedure to bring us closer to conforming to that corporately-imposed norm of how we should look.

The irony is that while women are more shackled than ever to these superficial dictates, men too are now succumbing to the same pressures.
Posted by Bronwyn, Sunday, 18 March 2007 12:59:20 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
Lizzie4, Here are three links to articles on pornography and pornography and feminism. They cover the gambit. Might be some useful information there for you.
Judging from your last post your way behind the curve. Blaming men for female behavior is so last century. You've been liberated baby. Now own up and suck it up. You are responsible. When it comes to porn it's about a fifty fifty split on who owns and operates and with internet pornography live chats and live cam is almost exclusively female owner/operator. And Heidi Fleiss said in an interview that more women run and operate prostitutes now than men.

http://www.zetetics.com/mac/freeinqu.htm

http://caae.phil.cmu.edu/Cavalier/Forum/pornography/background/CMC_article.html

http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/essays/text/davidward/pornographyfeminism.html

These links don't support any one side really but, are general discussion and information.

Country gal, I don't want a man like him I want a woman like you. :-)
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 18 March 2007 1:14:36 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
Shorbe is right about us as a society being terribly hung up on sex.

More over it seems to stuggle with female sexuality, which seems to have been an ongoing struggle of understanding. Especially when it is heterosexual expression and not homosexual expression.

Sexual counselling has probably put more money in the pockets of Psychiatrists etc than anything else since Freud.

The porn market would not exist if there was not a demand for it. Almost since the first camera was invented there was what was labelled pornography.

There is the usual rhetoric about boys and men having their pleasure.

Is not, true liberation where a woman can choose to wrap her legs around a pole or not, rather than wrapping her legs around a pole because she has no choice?
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 18 March 2007 3:42:36 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
Is pornography the issue here? The article raises some good points but goes a lot further than that.

So where are tween girls getting their ideas from? And who propagates this stuff? What do 13 year olds spend their money on? I imagine it isn't on port sites or violent video games. Who dominates the industries that sell this fake sexuality?
Posted by bennie, Sunday, 18 March 2007 4:32:27 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
I think what needs to be recognised is the degree of generalisation on both sides of the argument. Saying that some men run the pornography industry doesn't mean that all men benefit from the profits made in the exploitation of women. Saying that some women desire 'patriarchal structure' doesn't mean that all women secretly deep down wish to be chained to the kitchen sink.

Having said that, the extent to which women in the pornography and prostitution industries are exploited is horrific, and vastly disproportionate to the number of men in the same industries. Just because a woman runs a brothel, doesn't mean prostitutes working in it won't be exploited based entirely on their gender.
Posted by Sredni, Sunday, 18 March 2007 8:59:57 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
Liberation:

Women fight in Target stores over so-called fashion designs created by the daughter of a pop star, they take time off work and are sucked in by all the hype.

Liberation?

As if.

Women - get a life, the only people you need liberating from are yourselves.
Posted by Hamlet, Sunday, 18 March 2007 10:32:08 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
“Judging from your last post your way behind the curve. Blaming men for female behavior is so last century. You've been liberated baby. Now own up and suck it up. You are responsible”.

Oh dear, aqvarivs I was not saying that men are responsible for all women’s woes. I stated that women are liberated in a lot of ways but this article points out that we have a long way to go. I do think that your language could do with a bit of polishing. “Baby?” I don’t know how old you are, but I am in my 50’s with adult children. And suck what up? And what am I responsible for? It is this sort of flippant comment that makes me despair of people taking the concerns aired in this article seriously.

I looked at the links you provided, however I am interested in the power dynamics of the porn industry and these articles were not helpful in this area. I am interested in this because I believe that it is acceptance of the porn industry by both men and women that is a significant reason for the sexualisation of our children via the clothing and entertainment industries and the media. That is, it has had a spillover effect into other industries. The following articles raise some interesting points. None of these are Australian, but with globalisation are relevant to here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/11/21/60minutes/main585049.shtml

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/pornography&masculinity.htm

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/magazine/story/0,11913,1001733,00.html

Of course we can all find articles and research to back up our opinions. That is the easy part. I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind but I do think that it is naïve of some to think that porn is not harmful, and to blame it all on women’s liberation demonstates a lack of concern that borders on egocentric.

People’s views change however, as they get older and it is amazing how different people’s views change when they have children
Posted by Lizzie4, Monday, 19 March 2007 3:49:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lizzie4,

http://www.wendymcelroy.com/xxx/

I haven't read the book contained in the above link.

What I find interesting is that the same tired old arguements are used (Dowrkin & MacKinnon) about how porn exploits women.

Very few people will consider that porn is exploitive of men as well. Financially, emotionally, sexually and psychologically.

I will reiterate that our society struggles to come to terms with sex and sexuality. In some ways it is liberal and in many other ways it is repressive. I believe that the porn industry exists as a consequence of this repressiveness.

Society in general seems to have a love/hate relationship with sex and sexuality.

Some in society would like for all of us to be either asexual or at least homosexual.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 19 March 2007 7:06:45 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
Lizzie4, what ever your age or family status if your blaming porn, which has a diversity of definition, on sexual proclivity or for the taste of fashion designers it's a grand conspiracy. Look a little closer to home. Womans magazines owned and run by women for women. Teen magazines owned by women and run by women for consumption by young girls. And I've yet to see female fashion designers model next seasons designs as complete body coverings aka 1900 swimsuits. Your post hints at it being men behind the grand conspiracy and women IF they're involved at all, is because they're trying to make do in this crazy mixed up world or are victims, but the men are deliberate abusers.

Your other post wasn't an opinion, it was an excuse. Putting it all on the shoulder of men. Those days are done. Take responsibility for what your own sex does and quit crying victim. That's what it means to suck it up. Take the heat for your own doing and way of thinking.

I'd much rather catch my daughter with a porn magazine than a teen mag. I can discuss appropriate sexual imagery a lot easier than I can try to explain to her how the attitudes expressed in those articles are sexually and emotionally manipulating her to think and view herself as an object. And that if she comes to FEEL she doesn't match up to the standard she can have an operation or two or five and be remade in the perfect image women hold for themselves.
This is much more perverted to my wife and myself than nudity or pictures of sexual activity.
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 19 March 2007 7:24:57 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
I mostly agree with Melinda Tankard Reist’s article and the last paragraph sums things up nicely . This habit in our culture of portraying complex and many-faceted human beings as one-dimensional objects is the prime cause of many problems in society. For instance: sexual predators only see one thing in a woman or child. They are too stupid to imagine the child as a child filled with hopes, dreams and a future. They can’t see the daughter, the sister, the student, the friend, the dreamer, the future rock star (feminist one like O’Connor), mother, wife, the blessed little innocent soul - these are dimensions sexual predators can’t imagine and/or rationalise away.

And pornography and some ideological/religious structures perpetrate a one-dimensional attitude to women. That women often under the “feminist”, girl -power banner are themselves participating in other women’s objectification, one-dimensionalising and perhaps harm must be acknowledged, as Riest does, and feminists are wise not to shy away from this.

I think the causes of the problem of young women being conned into thinking that liberation is just about sexual liberation can’t be blamed on any one thing.

Firstly, the pornography industry and the portrayal of women in certain media has strong influence on women’s lot. Women, for instance, aren’t as equal as men because they can’t walk, cycle or jog on the same streets, pathways as men because of sexual predators. And yet we are told that women are equal - liberated. If women choose to do the same thing that men take for granted, they are “putting themselves in danger”. Yet a person in a minority group who is subjected to the same intimidation and abuse would fill the news for weeks – and rightly so. The power of the media is scary. For instance: global warming has gone from green rubbish to a necessity for survival in weeks. The media has the power to assist making the world a safer and truly equal place for women. Feminists can show them how.

Second, family breakdown does leave some young girls without a positive male influence - Cont
Posted by ronnie peters, Monday, 19 March 2007 12:10:31 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
Cont. –one that treats mum with respect and ensures respect for his daughters. There are family situations where the child would be better off if the parents split - where the child witnesses their parents laying into each other regularly, this situation often does contribute to low esteem which may see young girls developing behaviours like compensating personalities (on the unconscious or conscious level the girl tells herself - I’ll do this, even though it is horrid, so I’ll be liked –so I’ll fit in). This can still happen to any family. Moreover, kids reportedly recycle family violence.

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/wireless/story/0,,3102-21400648,00.html

Third, the Federal and State governments are clueless men’s groups.

Fourth, the porn industry has a massive financial turnover - and well capitalism is not based on a system of morality, or even philosophy, just ideology couched in economic rationalism.

Fifth, given that mothers usually do the shopping I question what is nurturing about a pole-dancing kit or sexualised clothing for a child. Having said that, I find it ridiculous that anyone could see a child as sexual regardless of what she or he is wearing or coerced to wear – this, in itself , is more a sign that society has lost it’s commonsense (media again).

Sixth, feminism has made it very difficult for men to speak on women’s and family issues (we’re all bastards), no seriously, if we support feminists on women’s issues we must suffer from the “rescue me syndrome”; if we praise women we remind some feminists of a society that often put women on a pedestal (like the old troubadours did) so as to knock her off or that should she fall from grace then it is another example of female failure and weakness (another way men gain power); or it is assumed that we think women are too precious and dainty to voice their own concerns. I’m sure there’s more. This in turn sees male perspectives, even those who support some feminist positions, disregarded. I guess male feminists are one dimensional too.

Finally, education –teaching children to be resilient is paramount.
Posted by ronnie peters, Monday, 19 March 2007 12:13:24 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
Hmm... so much to say and so little space to say it.

I agree with the article on the face of it, though I do have reservations about the solutions to this issue.

Say we accept the contents of Reist's article. There is little there that you can honestly argue with.

What is the solution? If anyone's actually suggesting the banning of pornography (runner I'm looking at you) then it's impractical. Pornography's always existed and always will. When you drive it underground, it is subject to even less scrutiny. Plus, there's the issue of what you have the right to censor. I don't believe it's up to the government to tell us we can't watch porn.
If this article is a 'trojan horse' of sorts to encourage what could just as easily become oppression of women, then I'd have cause for concern. It's all well and good to say feminism has taken the wrong road, and perhaps it has, but the right road isn't telling women they should be more chaste. That's just jumping right back to the 1950s.

I'd say that it's up to women to simply stop behaving this way - in a collective manner, women of all stripes need to start engendering a culture that regards such acts as what they are. You can't rely on the media to change. Everybody loves to blame the media, but the media simply portrays what people are interested in, which is sex. It's up to the people to switch it off if they find it offensive, not to dictate to others.
The media is a mirror - a mirror which reflects and exaggerates - but reflects nonetheless. If there's a problem there, you don't go smashing the mirror.

Intelligent, young women should to portray an image that isn't based on sexual attraction. They also need to do this without having their cause hijacked by christian or 'family' groups which have other associated agendas and have been known to oppress women.

That being said, I'm a guy. I guess what I'm saying is this ultimately needs to be handled by women.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Monday, 19 March 2007 2:32:37 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 find myself agreeing with Ronnie Peters 6th point.

Recently I have re-read parts of Daphne Rose Kingham's book 'The Men we never knew.'

She writes;

"Ironically and unfortunately it is often the very demanding ways in which women have asked men to become sensitive and intuitive that makes it virtually impossible for men to respond to women's desires. All too often women's request include implied or stated insults of male inadequacy.."

Turnleftthenright,

the media is not a mirror!

The media only shows what it wants to show and only if it is sensational like Paris Hilton, if the media did not pay her any attention, she would be a nobody and very few people would even know that she existed.

The media pushes its own social agenda and as Myrna Blythe in 'Spin Sisters' points out, most of the journalist think that everyone should think and believe in the same things as they do.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 19 March 2007 8:51:39 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
ronnie peters, such statements as, "Third, the Federal and State governments are clueless men’s groups." Simply further sexist and bigoted commentary and does a disservice to the many men and women in government, at all levels of government, working to balance the social sexual relationship. Feminism has become what it originally set out to balance. Now it's just one more power hungry club of exclusivity.
It's time men and women dropped the membership drives and began to work together on the real important issues affecting our children, who in the near future will have to take over the reins as leaders, educators and providers. It's unfair and counter productive to burden them with yesterdays sexist war dead.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 2:46:20 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
JamesH

Yes the media is a mirror. Though it is a mirror that exaggerates.

You say that it pushes Paris Hilton - this is no agenda, but profit pure and simple.
People are interested in her, though heaven knows why. It's the age old habit of voyeurism. It's why big brother is such a success, and why celebrity tabloids turn a buck.

People are interested and it makes money. If people weren't interested then they wouldn't run stories on Paris Hilton, because they wouldn't get readers/viewers, and they wouldn't make money.

The media, like any other business, is in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

Your second point: journalists think everyone should think as they do.

Welcome to the human race. This conceit isn't just localised on journalists.
The more succesful journalists are those that gain attention, whether it be breaking a hot story, or writing opinion pieces that stir emotions. This is why controversial commentators such as Andrew Bolt get so much attention.

The media is a mirror and while it can create warped perceptions, those warped perceptions are the product of seeking attention and the lowest common denominator - not the guiding hand of some omniscient figure.
Yes, the press barons sometimes exert a little sway, but it's not the major influence people think it is. And they certainly don't let it ever, ever, get in the way of profit.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:58:18 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TurnRightThenLeft. Re: banning porn. No and yes. Yes, certain kinds such as websites that show women being raped. Scream and Cream and MILF (Mums I like to F*#k) sites are downright dangerous and immoral. Impressionable young boys can access this stuff easily. I say drive ‘em (the porn merchants) underground and thus help create a culture where this type of stuff is regarded as underground and unacceptable to normal, well- adjusted people.

Further underground there is already something much more sinister such as kidnapping and sexual slavery to feed the growing market for those looking for more and more extreme titillation. So by leaving this stuff out there the underground just grows and gets more extreme. Apply your logic TRTL to paedophile sites. Do you want to leave them proliferate? Please rethink your position.

Percy Shelley once said that poetry is more powerful than philosophy and has the power to change people’s thinking. And this instinctual and sensible comment has been confirmed recently with the discovery that the adult brain continues to change. Brain scans -- aren’t they wonderful? Scientists have found that our brains are altered whenever we learn something, and new connections are forged in our network of nerve cells. These changes are triggered by thought but more so by emotions. For instance, Vietnam Vets develop something like hard wiring that sees them responding to, I know it’s a cliché, the sound of a helicopter. War veterans can go into combat mode in response to the emotion that a certain situation evokes. Very scary. I’ve witnessed this reaction first hand with my Dad and family have seen a mild-mannered Vietnam Vet flip right out. It follows that being exposed to porn on a regular basis, especially without a countering influence, may negatively alter ones emotions in relation to women and change the thinking from a positive respect to a negative disregard.

Our genes also play a part. A difference in genetic disposition will see one affected and another less troubled.
Posted by ronnie peters, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 1:58:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just to clarify, re: the media. I was referring to the pop music industry and magazines which have a lot of influence over youngsters. Rages top fifty, for instance, is mostly teens crawling around the on the floor showing off there bits and not singing anything of substance. This is counter to say punk culture which sees this as hilarious behaviour. A punk rockers response: “Faackenell look at this, would ya’ .
"Faacken got ‘er by the short an’ faaken curlies – idiot cant.”

Girls providing little boys with a masturbation aid. Madona, who helped start this nonsense, is a mensa with an IQ over 170, so work out whose exploiting who.

The media is a mirror. That’s half the problem with censorship. The government uses community standards as the guide. So a community that is exposed to more and more extreme porn becomes the guide for more and more extreme porn. That doesn’t make sense to me. It’s a bit like Hitler asking the German population at the height of anti-Semitism if they liked his message. Sooner or later the extreme is sort after in reality and in this context here - women are the ones targeted.

I mentioned education. It is my belief that (because youTRTL are probably correct and there will always be negative influences and porn - I to am against banning certain movies that are regarded by some, especially Christians, as porn) our children must be shown how to be true individuals with the self confidence to piss the pack off. To tell the pack: “Faackenell I don’t give toss if you think I is weird - shove it up ya’ arse with ya’ g-string.”

TurnRightTurnLeft your opinions are well put and I agree with the rest of your points - especially the last two paras.
Posted by ronnie peters, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 2:03:34 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
ronnie - I think we largely agree on most points. While I would be stridently opposed to banning porn en masse, violence is another issue entirely - and I would class rape as very strong violence. This argument can be extended to paedophilia as well, though I do have some reservations about how the law is being applied in some cases.

Few would defend paedophilia as acceptable and I certainly don't - though a recent US case where a man received jail time for simply writing lurid thoughts about paedophilia in a diary was overstepping that mark.
While I believe censorship may be acceptable in cases of sexual violence, somebody expressing destructive thoughts in the privacy of their own home is another matter - provided they aren't actually hurting, or even influencing anyone.

It can be a difficult line to draw when sex, violence and censorship come together in this manner - but as I see it, the identfying mark is whether it portrays consenting adults. In other words - if the pornography corresponds with the laws regarding sex in general.
That makes a yes or no answer a bit easier, both for paedohilia and violent pornography.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 3:23:08 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
This is probably a bit lateral, but why are we discussing women as though they're a homogenous group? Remember the second wave of feminism?

Some will pole dance, lap dance, prostitute themselves, domesticate themselves, surgically alter themselves and so on because they want to. Others have these things thrust upon them but I suspect that most women are somewhere in the middle.

Still, there's no question that a woman, or a man for that matter, should be able to wander around in public without fear. Violence, from rape to sexual harrassment to the voyeurism opportunities available in kiddy clothing catalogues seem to be the bigger problem. Without these women and kids would be far better off.
Posted by chainsmoker, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 2:36:31 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
chainsmoker, good post. I'm still trying to make sense of why the choices of some indicate that feminism has failed. The author makes points which may suggest that it's not all roses but the issues she raises seem to be overall cultural failings rather than failings of feminism.

I know young women who seem very much in control of their own choices about sexuality, they like the rest of us may not always make the best choices but they are their own choices.

Young women who can have sexual relationships (or not) without feeling that they must conform to someone elses standards. Who don't appear to be stuck between the slut/frigid tags that those who have less sense of control over their own lives struggle with.

As a society we can do much better than we do at helping young people appreciate that their value lies in who they are rather than how well they meet others expectations. We can teach our sons to value women for more than a certain type of look, we can teach our daugthers to value men for more than their income.

I think that the issue lies with what we teach kids to value in others, what we as adults all too often value in others.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 9:44:54 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
A very interesting article. I am the mother of a young teenage girl and two young adult men.

The issue I find saddest in Reist’s article is the continuing ambivalent feelings both women and men have about that half of the human race who do not have a penis and sexuality in general.

The attitude portrayed is a prevailing misogynist attitude. The sad thing is that misogyny is not only a man thing, but also afflicts some women.

Why is it that when a boy dresses up in an ‘adult’ manner and looks all ‘masculine’ he’s so cute, but when a little girl does the female equivalent she is sexual prey? It’s somehow OK for a boy or man to flex his masculinity so to speak. Now why is that?

The appalling lyrics of some music, the lap dancing, pole dancing and overt public sexual display, actually does not only reflect poorly on women who participate in this, but most especially on men who condone, consume and apparently demand this.

Adults, parents in particular, both men and women, have to educate our sons, that women, no matter how they are dressed, no matter what they say, are NEVER to be seen as prey. My husband has at times very strongly confronted his sons during their growing up when ‘jokes’ were made, certain music was played or the manner in which girls were spoken about.

As to children in general, that’s more a question for us adults. Why are parents so obsessed with establishing and imprinting the sexuality of their children as early as possible?

So, women have come a very long way. It is many, many men and some women who still have problems seeing females as being a human being and not only a potential sexual conquest. Let’s have a debate about what is a healthy attitude towards sex, sexuality and sensuality instead or is it time for a Men's Movement?
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 10:21:13 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
yvonne, if your going to say men condone, consume and demand the negative aspects of overt commercial sexualism, then we must ask why women rush to fill that need. And please no aguments that it's because women are victims.
Your "men condone" is language of the victim not the language of a citizen of equal rights AND RESPONSIBILITY. Women also "condone" or they wouldn't be in the business.
It's a very tired old saw that only MEN (those evil bastards) want SEX. Woman left alone would never utter such thoughts.
It's time to start talking about PEOPLE. Men and women, together having responsibility for their society and not still using antiquated verbiage like misogyny or misogynist attitude. Men and women that dislike feminism DO NOT hate women. Most, if you speak with them, you will find they are equally nonsupporting of a mens MOVEMENT.
You seem to be in favour of a fractured society split along the needs of sexual identity or why the, "or is it time for a Men's Movement?" statement?
It seems to me that more and more women are being charged with rape of young boys. Especially those in positions as guardians of our youth like teachers. I guess the little boy must have made the poor victim adult woman stoop to such behavior.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:23:42 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
The Australian (not mensnewsdaily)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21403291-7583,00.html

"Stephen Lunn: Most girls are crazy about algebra in a changing room

March 19, 2007

IT'S straight from the David Lee Roth school of sociology. The American Psychological Association created something of a to-do last month when it released a study linking the proliferation of images of sexualised girls with mental health problems such as eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression."

It is real shame that there is not some sort of decent quality control on research/studies.

But then that would misogynistic wouldn't it?
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 22 March 2007 6:08:00 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
I was pleased to see another woman (Yvonne) contributing to this thread as it seems to have been taken over by men pushing their own agenda and making no effort at all to address the problems brought up in the article. It is interesting that this is the third? article printed on OLO over the last few months about women and the result (after a quick analysis) is the same. Why is that? From my point of view, contributing my opinions about the issues raised is just like hitting my head against a brick wall.
Posted by Lizzie4, Thursday, 22 March 2007 7:49:45 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
Aqvarivs You can’t offer a sensible argument can you?

Why do you go on with this nonsense? Who do think you’re fooling? Do you think posters are stupid? You go on in relation to my posts with nonsense like the following: “Embedded feminist”, “poor Ronnie Peters”, “ blind defense of woman as victim”; JamesH is willing to explore a subject implying others don’t (so why all the anti-feminist conclusions); I’ve” chosen victim”; “my blindfolded cheerleading”; you imply that I don’t think women have a “right to anti-feminist thought...and it says a lot about you doesn’t it” (It didn't say anything (invalid) because it is a baseless opinion).

Aqvarivs, you say my "only statement" is that anti-feminism is harmful (untrue I said it can be), I “give feminists carte blanche” (rubbish), you suggested that I claimed that women “don’t have the right to anti-feminists thought” (that is untrue, quiet the opppisite, I said that there was nothing wrong with anti-feminst thought so long as it was seen for what it truly is - in this case gendered conservative propaganda); “what a load of crap” (If I was on your side with your untrained eye you'd probably say the opposite; you say that I claimed that women don’t have the right to antifeminsts thought and you claim I claim “victim as the highest moral ground” (no I don’t this is misleading propaganda).

Now all these personal slights take up roughly half your post and you’ve apparently just cut pasted the usual anti-feminst clichés; added a few verbs and presented them. Actually the other half was more from Aqvarivs’ catalogue of anti-feminist slights. It’s hilarious. How passé. And you go on about “my personal bias”. You’ve just proven your own bias Aqvarivs. If you are truly consistent in your reasoning then you must be seeking victimhood with your claim that I have launched “personal attacks” at you.

Of course, you’ve convinced yourself that you’re totally committed to an even-handed appraisal of the situation. You fail quality control.
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 22 March 2007 8:01:36 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
aqvarivs, well said.

The tone of the post left me wondering if the daughters are chastised when males they display attitudes which value primarily as income providers? If the family laughs when the pregant woman assaults the guys with the bad manners in the "Which bank" add.

There are issues that need addressing all round, some fail to get the bit that we are to some extent all victims and creators of the society we live in.

It's not some simple landscape based on male privilige and oppression of women but rather the results of history. Technology is allowing us to make some fundamental changes to the roles men and women play in life.

We can embrace that whole heartedly and work to free men and women from historical boundaries which no longer need apply, we can say that only women deserve to be freed from historical boundaries or we can do as some do and say that women have a god ordained role. I'm not aware of any serious calls for this but I guess we could also propose that men be freed from historical responsibility and women keep the old roles.

I'll go with the first option where both women and men are given all the opportunity that we can provide to (the biological aspects of pregnancy still eludes us).

I won't accept the approach some seem to advocate that the womens movement is about women so don't expect it to help men and we should not divert attention from it with a mens movement.

I liked the point I quoted a while ago from William Farrell that it's time for a gender transformation movement.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 22 March 2007 8:25:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ooops sorry Aqvarivs I mistakenly posted in the wrong thread.

JamesH The American Psychological Association is pretty well unbiased. However, I don’t believe that there is any such thing as absolute objectivity. It is a matter of degrees of objectivity and this often depends on the amount of discipline the researcher has and their integrity. Guidelines for academic research of this kind are fairly thorough.

There are no guideline on sites like OLO, mainstream papers and clearly biased papers like Men’s Daily on how they conduct or use research. I notice when properly monitored research is presented to support and argument it is often countered with anecdotal “evidence” from positioned papers like MensDaily. Anecdotal evidence is a good starting point for further research. But to rely on it is wrong.

JameH, I agree with the research and the Australian article but it is, I think, a good example of misuse of information. While I agree that Roth’s film clip may objectify women, it pales into insignificance compared to the proliferation of today's sexualised clips. Moreover,Roth’s is a one-off, fun-type clip where the girls are not engaged in root-me posturing. Roth never claimed to be a sociologist; so singling him out for criticism is unfair. But that’s how the media operates. It's a red herring.

Feminists especially the far left feminists as well as conservative women on right have been very vocal against pornography that objectifies women.. So has it ever occurred to you that it is the producers, the male-controlled music industry, the programmers (mainstream) that is pushing this objectifying material? Once again we see the blame deflected from male dominated/sexist system to women and a bit player.

Punk rocker's told us that in 1976.

Lizzie4 I agree.and disagree. My perspective is that of a married male(34 years) with wife, daughters, women friends an so on. How do you further your knowledge if you exclude us from discussion? Yes I object to the way lobbyists hijack women’s issue threads to push their own agenda. Solution? Good manners (myself excluded), fair play and encourage them write their own articles.
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 22 March 2007 9:41:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
R0bert, my personal philosophy is one of individual responsibility. Once anyone "allows" a "reason" to point at anyone else for their problems it releases them from responsibility and as a victim of others demand favoritism. I don't like feminist(today) or the idea of masculinist. Not because there is no social necessity for change in many laws and regulation to improve equality but, because feminist and what would be mansculinist are divisive. To say feminist care about everyone equally is pure BS and propaganda. They don't even care about women equally, or for each other with in their own movement. And a mens movement wouldn't be inclusive either. I encourage my daughters(and son)to read and when I find a teen magazine in the house I question my oldest about what she is reading and what it means to her. I always ask about the individuals responsibility, whether it was an article in the paper on crime or politics, or out of one of her mags on teen relationships. My wife has a much harder time with it and worries that our maturing women will do some terrible harm to themselves in the name of womans sexual freedoms and liberation that is promoted in these magazines. It goes much beyond that though to school and all the nonsense and peer "education" they get there. Just fitting in as a young teen is battle enough these days. Nothing makes me cringe more than hearing my daughters whinge, "So and so's Mom lets her do it.
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 22 March 2007 12:44:12 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
Ronnie, my comments in no way suggested that men should be excluded from this thread or from any threads that comment on articles about women. It is essential that they contribute, but it would be more helpful if they could do so constructively as for example husbands, partners and fathers.

I agree that a lot of the comments do not display what you call good manners or fair play and what I consider to be an arbitrary dismissal of the issues.

I am also not arguing for men to write their own articles although it may be cathartic for them if they did and I am honestly wondering why they don’t.

The last comment from aqvarvis was telling and I think at the root of the disparity between the concern shown by most women posters and the lack of concern exhibited by some men. That is that “My wife has a much harder time with it and worries that our maturing women will do some terrible harm to themselves in the name of womans sexual freedoms and liberation that is promoted in these magazines”. There is a fundamental difference in how women view the concerns raised in this article compared with how men see it.

It is a very convenient idea to dismiss these types of issues as merely a result of individual reponsibility. Reducing these types of problems this way means that no action is needed by society, governments or business. It also ignores structural issues that influence individual choice.
Posted by Lizzie4, Thursday, 22 March 2007 1:34:36 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 expressed myself poorly in my previous post. Aqvarivs, I'm actually agreeing with you. To me the tenor of the article was of 'poor girls, victims of sexual liberalism'. That makes me sad, because it implies helplessness, not empowerment and freedom to make choices for oneself that feminism purports to be about. As a human being, who just happens to be a female.

My point about all the sleazy issues that were discussed in the article was that not only women are participants and victims, but men also. So if it is demeaning to women, it is equally demeaning to men. BOTH take equal responsibility. There is a lot of casual, superficial sex going on nowadays. I just refuse to think that it is only harmful to women and girls.

That's why I think this is not about 'feminism', but about our attitudes towards sex and sexuality. Whatever your gender may be. I thought I made clear about adult responsibility towards growing youngster for BOTH sexes. Not just girls.

What I was trying to say was that misogyny does not only come from men, but women also. So a girl with anorexia or some warped image of womanhood, probably did not get that from the important men in her life, but from other women or girls. I think that women are much harder and more critical of women than men are. I have yet to meet a man who likes a stick thin female. It is generally other females who regard this as highly desirable.

We can't blame men for the magazines, whether they own them or not. It is women who buy them. With articles written by women. I wholeheartedly agree with aqvarivs, straight pornography is far easier to discuss than most of these idiotic teen mags.
Posted by yvonne, Thursday, 22 March 2007 2:24:48 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
I agree with you yvonne.

The problem is how do we find a balance.

I am aware of just how critical and judgemental 'some' women can be. One day at work the girls were dissecting Camila Parker to nth degree, me I opened my big mouth and said "But you tell us blokes that beauty is more than skin deep."

Basically it was one of those girls talks where sensible blokes keep their mouth shut and their opinions to themselves.

I might have scored a point but spent the next week paying for it.

I agree Roonie that anecdotal evidence is a good starting point for furhter research. Especially when one hears enough anecdotal evidence which appears to be of a similar nature.

Jordan I. Kosberg wrote in an article titled "Heterosexual Males: A Group Forgotten by the Profession of Social Work."

"Social work literature is biased against heterosexual males, leading to "unfair and untrue" stereotypes about men and hampering social workers' ability to counsel men, an Alabama professor has concluded after reviewing articles in two social work journals from the last decade."

Now some people will see this as an issue whilst others will think it is a load of rubbish.

One enormous difficulty is that the use of language is imprecise, that is thirty people could read the same book and there will thirty different answers as to what the book was about.

"It happens all the time. People only tell one half of the story," says Eugen Lupri, a University of Calgary sociologist whose research shows similar patterns of violence against men.

"Feminists themselves use our studies, but they only publish what they like."

So there are two sides to the coin which can use misinformation, which makes it an extremely difficult, if not impossible task to get a balanced perspective about issues.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 22 March 2007 3:55:41 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
Melinda wrote "Women’s freedom was reduced to the freedom to be sexual playthings for male arousal and pleasure"

I dunno as the sentence clashes with itself as part of womans freedom was 'free choice' so why would she do the above.

And as long as women fail to look at all relevant factors, they will fail to achieve sexual satisfaction in all areas which is their right. As a man, I think women control each others behavior with rules and regulations and they are their own enemies here, and in the process fail dismissally at the above even when they try...eg 'slut' is more womans derogatory term on another, a man would used 'betrayer of trust' (but its our fault for seeking fidelity without realizing it is an unrealistically difficult goal to achieve with our natural instincts, urges and behaviour...we will be better off saying 'if relationship and pleasure separate, then keep the friendship of it safe')

To male arousal and pleasure, we have no problems here. From time of becoming sexually mature we have/develop the skill to have ejaculatory orgasms. Girls struggle, usually focus on clitoral orgasm and which more 'release from urge' without ejaculation.

Guys, imagine for a moment of everything that goes with sex but without ejaculation...all the time. Enough to drive us nuts eh...well, that is your average woman.

Why wont she work on this?...that needs books to explain including the evils of sisterhood on itself..., bottom line, it takes a really fit, hard, experienced male...most of us fail on this front. For the woman, to relax and force the mind let the body go with its natural responses...

Once majority of women are able to achieve ejaculatory orgasms, it will be interesting to see what they then write...

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Friday, 23 March 2007 1:17:59 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
Lizzie4

"I was pleased to see another woman (Yvonne) contributing to this thread as it seems to have been taken over by men pushing their own agenda and making no effort at all to address the problems brought up in the article."

First of all, thanks Lizzie! I always love that invisibility thing!

More importantly, I don't think it matters who contributes, but I do agree the debate has strayed from Melinda's premise that feminism hasn't really advanced far.

RObert

"I'm still trying to make sense of why the choices of some indicate that feminism has failed."

To me, feminism is about women being taken seriously and being able to effect some change for the better in a world that has always been dominated by male values of individuality and competitiveness.

We are all diminished as women when individuals amongst us choose to prostitute themselves to please men, whether it's pole dancing or dressing provocatively, it's all much the same. And no I'm not a prude. I just happen to think we're all being sold short by women who make these choices.

As Melinda said, we haven't come far at all. We're as enslaved to men today as we were when we stayed home full time and kept house for them.
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 23 March 2007 1:39:44 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
The problems raised in the article are general societal problems. Is anyone really arguing that feminism is responsible for modern pornography? In case you hadn't noticed, porn predates feminism (by a couple of thousand years).

The advent of the Pill in the 1960s, primarily the disconnection between sexual intercourse and pregnancy/the having of babies, is STILL working its way through society. Hence a whole lot of confusion about sexuality, morality and ethics. For the first time in human history, we can now reliably choose when (or if) to have children, without abstinence.

There are plenty of interesting women out there, why does the media insist on concentrating its resources on vapid nonentities like Lindsay Lohan? Is this really what people want to read?

My daughter was given a make-up kit as a 4th birthday present - the offending object was given away to charity - my daughter, being a sensible four year old, had no interest in it.
Posted by Johnj, Friday, 23 March 2007 9:37:51 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
Bronwyn, "To me, feminism is about women being taken seriously and being able to effect some change for the better in a world that has always been dominated by male values of individuality and competitiveness."

Yes, individuality and merit are hardly feminist ideals. Women ought to be given positions of power because they are victims and thus deserving.

"We are all diminished as women when individuals amongst us choose to prostitute themselves to please men, whether it's pole dancing or dressing provocatively,"

No woman in history has ever prostituted herself, pole-danced, or dressed provocatively for the pleasure of any man. They did so using man as a means to an end, and still do.

"As Melinda said, we haven't come far at all. We're as enslaved to men today as we were when we stayed home full time and kept house for them."

And if anyone ever wonders why feminism failed this last bon mot is the clincher. Women stayed home full time to keep house for men. This is mans continual enslavement of women. I kept looking for the line barefoot and pregnant. Men are very devious indeed they have used love of a woman and the desire to have children with that chosen one and raise a family as a means to enslave them to their will. (insert evil laugh here)
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 23 March 2007 11:52:02 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
aqvarivs

I used the term 'enslaved' in a figurative not a literal sense so you can save the evil laugh. Women certainly were (and still are) enslaved, not by men, but by societal norms and their own acquiescence to them.

You've misread me on every count. I'm no man hater. I don't view women as victims. And I would only ever consider it important for women to aspire to positions of power if they could use that influence to help create a better and fairer world. It's what I once hoped feminism would be able to achieve.
Posted by Bronwyn, Saturday, 24 March 2007 12:52:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"As Melinda said, we haven't come far at all. We're as enslaved to men today as we were when we stayed home full time and kept house for them."

What I find really interesting is that in the past being home was most likely the safest place to be when compared to the occupational dangerous jobs. Lets consider the fact that OH&S has led to an improvement in job safety, prior to that, what was it 12 men died during the construction of the Sydney Harbour Bridge.

If one looks at the OH&S data, men still head fatalities at work by a large margin.

Research published in New scientist magazine, "Women are natural born flirts" found that is was largely women who controlled the meetings and their physical actions (gestures) had a direct effect on males.

''You can predict male behaviour from female behaviour,'' said Grammer. ''But not the other way round.''

In 'Sex, lies and monogamy' the short form is basically the human female evolution strategy by hiding her fertility and having sex (most of the time) keeps males interested in them, rather than investing time chasing multiple partners.

So the question is who enslaves who?

Esther Vilar "The manipulated Man" writes;

"Women let men work for them, think for them and take on their responsibilities - in fact, they exploit them."
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 24 March 2007 7:14:29 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
Bronwyn, "To me, feminism is about women being taken seriously and being able to effect some change for the better in a world that has always been dominated by male values of individuality and competitiveness."
How should I interpret this? How am I to view a statement that assigns individuality and competitiveness as male only values, that woman are not to be considered as individuals nor are they to be competitive? And that makes these two male values the cause of womans need for a female exclusive ism to counteract the negative impact such values have on womanhood.

Bronwyn, "We are all diminished as women when individuals amongst us choose to prostitute themselves to please men, whether it's pole dancing or dressing provocatively,"
How should I interpret this? That women are driven to pole-dancing as a socialized need to please men? That women suck the fat out of their bums and inject it into their lips to please men. Cake on the old make up to please men? Wear clothing that leaves nothing to the imagination to please men? Sister you need to get out and actually talk to some real men. None of the men I know are interested in any women who behaves like that. All that stuff women do for women and themselves. Don't saddle men with that responsibility. Men are visual and don't mind looking at fake women knowing that they are indeed fake. They don't want to marry fake women. Fake women have major head problems. They have issues that demand their full self absorbed attention.

Bronwyn, "As Melinda said, we haven't come far at all. We're as enslaved to men today as we were when we stayed home full time and kept house for them."
How should I interpret this? I don't see any figuratively speaking anywhere in that statement. I do see a put down on women who choose to be mothers. That there is an implied one sided servitude, a lesser woman cowed by the reality of the oppressive patriarchal homestead.
I don't see proud womans choice.
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 24 March 2007 7:51:29 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
aqvarivs,
"None of the men I know are interested in any women who behaves like that. All that stuff women do for women and themselves. Don't saddle men with that responsibility. Men are visual and don't mind looking at fake women knowing that they are indeed fake. They don't want to marry fake women."

Count me in on that. There are men out there who do go for the over the top types but none that I know. Thinking about your words brought to mind the oft heard complaint of very pretty women, they find it difficult to get dates. There are guys out there who like the high maintenance look, the artificially coloured, flavoured and padded but the men I know prefer natural (or more suttle enhancements).

Bronwyn, I've held off responding to your post because I've been uncertain if I misunderstood your comments. I wanted to see how others responded. My reading seemed to suggest support for a feminism that does not widen womens choices, rather which exchanged one percieved master for another. That social pressures to be a certain way are kept, just fine tuned to be suit the preferences of some women rather than the perceived preferences of men. I say perceived because I'm not convinved that men have been as in charge as some feminists claim. I drift off topic ;(

The feminism I support works to make women (and hopefully all humans) freer to live by their own choices, not to be bound by someone elses codes of proprietry, place and role.

Many women enjoy their sexuality in ways that don't fit perceived social norms (as do many men). Many men and women place great importance on pleasing members of the opposite sex, there can be a downside to that but there are also upsides. Those who follow their preferences without unreasonably harming others (and all the stuff about consenting adults etc) are not letting anybody else down, they are living as free human beings.

As I mentioned earlier, I may have misunderstood you. If so it is unintentional.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 24 March 2007 2:04:43 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
I'm going to have to stick up for Bronwyn here. Though, I don't agree with the general thrust of the article. I don't think that the issues discussed are an issue for feminists per se. Women now have the choice to behave stupidly and self-defeating, no father or husband to safe her from herself. Men have had that luxury for eons.

The issues discussed I thought are really about society's attitude towards sexuality, for both men and women. I have sons and therefore see society's mores and some odd ideas about love, sex and physical attractiveness affecting both boys and girls. This is not only affecting girls/women.

But regarding feminism in general, it is without a doubt that feminism has opened up choices for women in society. It is ludicrous to suggest that our society was not directed by men for men until relatively recently. Women only had those supporting roles as approved of by the men in her life and/or her community.

Women and men nowadays can heap scorn on the feminist movement, but that is only from the viewpoint of ignorance or loss of memory of what it was like for a women. It is only a relatively recent phenomenon that women are admitted to University for instance. Now a women can be judged as a person first. But that is something that many are still getting used to.

Both men and women are still on the look-out for that manipulating Eve using her feminine wiles to get us kicked out of Paradise and getting away with it. But the truth is I think that all of us, men and women, can relate stories from the workplace and private lives that reflect sexual manipulation/abuse by either gender.
Posted by yvonne, Sunday, 25 March 2007 9:57:16 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
"It is ludicrous to suggest that our society was not directed by men for men until relatively recently."

Because most of us (generalization) operate from a english anglo saxon/celtic background.

I for example was bought up to be 'chivalrous' towards women, even when they treated me badly.

Around the 15th century a law was introduced that any child born to a married woman was the prodigy of the husband, regards of the fact he was not present at conception and for example away on a crusade.

"Great Britain, which passed its first support law, the first Poor Relief Act in 1601, 1 which made the parents, grandparents and children of the poor responsible for their maintenance. This statute was subsequently reinforced in 1662 2 and 1718 3 ."

"Criminal legislation was enacted against deserting husbands in 1740"

Yep it certainly was society directed by men for the benefit of men, there were certain labour laws introduced to protect women and children, but not men.

During the industrial revolution industrial accidents killed many men, which then had a flow on effect of thier families experiencing many hardships.

One of the problems at interpreting history is that we interpret history from the perspective of our modern value judgements, and this current period of time will future historians some really big headaches, (that is if all the data is preserved like OLO and there is not a techicological black hole which makes all this inaccesible to future historians).
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 25 March 2007 10:58:43 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
Any woman in todays(western)society not freely doing what she wants needs to quit charging. I can not think of anything as a man that I can do that women as a sex are exempt from. Oh wait. Dying or being mutilated on the battlefield. Yes, I forgot there for a moment my superior station in life.
The real historical problem at the root of western society is early colonialism and a lack of "White" women from the onset. This perpetuated and reinforced the male view of placing a higher value on white women. "Placing woman on a pedestal" and man as protector of that value. This has always been mens cultural mistake and developed an unfair and racist view of the native women. White women therefore became a valuable commodity only because of their colour. Where in fact the native women with their genetic disposition and knowledge had a lot more to contribute to each burgeoning nation. If white women had to have come to these colonies and have had to compete with the native women as they should have, our society would have been more richer and much more dynamic. Feminism has knocked white woman off that pedestal and each successive generation of men are freer to mate outside the earlier boundary of white male seeks white female.
The only thing wrong with feminism is that they are not willing to take the responsibility for their decisions and rather hold men the reasons why they are the way they are.
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 26 March 2007 4:14:53 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
aqvarivs

“How am I to view a statement that assigns individuality and competitiveness as male only values, that women are not to be considered as individuals nor are they to be competitive?”

When I referred to “individuality”, I was not focusing narrowly on the degree or otherwise of individual choice. I was using the term more broadly in the sense of a society centred on the values of individuals striving for themselves and the strong advancing while the weak suffer, as opposed to a society based on the principles of collectivity where people co-operate and work together to enhance conditions for all members of the group.

I believe that there are, loosely speaking, male and female values. I know there are many exceptions and that you can’t generalize, but I still see it as a useful idea. It's not a male bashing exercise, it's not a superiority thing, so please don't see it that way. There is evidence out there though to support this idea. Anyone who has spent time working with mixed groups of children in a problem-solving situation and watched how they interact will understand what I am driving at.

The values I would describe as male values are those of individuality, competitiveness, power-play and aggression, while the values I consider to be female values are those of co-operation, consensus, empathy and compassion. Feminism to me has always been about creating a world based on the latter rather than the former. I had always hoped that as more women attained positions of influence that they would help create a fairer and more harmonious world. If anything, I think the reverse has happened. Women are out there competing and ever more aggressively and many are doing very well for themselves as a result, but I can’t help feeling that humanity as a whole is the poorer for it.
Posted by Bronwyn, Monday, 26 March 2007 11:03:21 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
"while the values I consider to be female values are those of co-operation, consensus, empathy and compassion."

Having read the research into the bullying behaviour of girls the above statement bought a smile to my face.

I often hear about female compassion and empathy and when I see it happening, it happens in a conditional way.

Daphne Patai wrote that after her experiences within the women's studies classroom she nolonger believes that having more women in power will led to a more compassionate and safer world.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 26 March 2007 12:18:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Bronwyn,

This isn't a personal attack. I simply wonder in what world you live in. The disadvantaged are rewarded immeasurably by the advances produced by the strong advancing. It's the freedom gained by the individual that has lead to this worlds scientific, medical and technological leaps and bounds over the last two hundred years.
Your socialistic attitude may be admirable in a society not having to fear being dependent on another for it's existence but, I doubt it would be once those dependent on others tax dollars for their existence begin to demand from the "haves" parity for the "havenots".
Those horrible "male values" are the only thing keeping the world afloat at the moment. Take them away and Palestine and Sudan and Saudi Arabia, and Australia, and every other society would collapse immediately.
The collective. My God. The collective are not innovators or developers of ideas. They exist as I do, to work for someone to bring product or service to the rest of the community. Yes they profit. And so do I. And together we give back to our community by ability. Not by our dependency. Communism failed. It never was going to work out anyway. You can make all the labour camps you want but, you can not stifle imagination nor enslave it to the benefit of someone else with out reward.

It's as hard to find a good woman as it is probably to find a good man. Once you do. You don't equate her to the rest of the mob. You love and cherish her and have children and get up each day and go out and work even harder to bring back more. Your driven to be your best and to acquire the best for your family. That is what it is to be a man and every thing else stems from that.

Including any charity. I give to give people a hand up not to create another dependency. To motivate, to allow an opportunity for development of self. To educate so they can then contribute and by extension help elevate someone else.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 12:37:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs

"This isn't a personal attack. I simply wonder in what world you live in."

I live in the same world as you do, I just happen to have different politics that's all, no need to try and marginalize my views by implying I haven't lived or I don't live in the real world or any of those other put downs you're alluding to.

"Communism failed. It never was going to work out anyway. You can make all the labour camps you want but, you can not stifle imagination nor enslave it to the benefit of someone else with out reward."

The fact that I believe a society should be grounded in the collective or common good does not mean that I advocate communism. Communism relied on force and violence to impose its order and I reject it on that basis alone. A capitalist system that gives priority to the common good would be far fairer to the earth and to all its inhabitants than the dog-eat-dog system we have moved to in the last few decades where the market reigns supreme. The 'one-year-old-today' IR reforms epitomise the difference I'm referring to here. Where's the reward for individual effort for the workers at the bottom of the supply chain? The comparative little there was to begin with is being removed bit by bit. Poverty and crime is going to increase as a result and our society as a whole will suffer further.

"Those horrible 'male values' are the only thing keeping the world afloat at the moment. Take them away and Palestine and Sudan and Saudi Arabia, and Australia, and every other society would collapse immediately."

Once again, our differing politics gives us an opposing view. I happen to believe, as do millions of others the world over, that it is America's aggressively acquisitive and militaristic foreign policy that is the cause of most of the turmoil and unrest in the world today, particularly in the Middle East. If ever one man personified an extreme example of what I mean by male values it is George Bush.
Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 10:06:24 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
Bronwyn, "Where's the reward for individual effort for the workers at the bottom of the supply chain?"

Motivation to get educated and get a better job and let the next person who needs a start position step in. Working the counter at Micky D's ain't a career unless your studying management. But hey. let me know when their wages hit $25.00/hr. in your utopia and I'll quit my job and sign on for counter service. You want cheese with that. How about I super size it for you.
What's that $2.00 happy meal going to cost in your NEO-capitalism $30.00. plus another $15.00 in taxes?

P.S. My take on George W. is he does what his wife tells him is best. He doesn't strike me as a fellow who is the author of the ideas he puts in motion. You might be giving GW credit that belongs to one of your fembots. :-) One never knows do one!

I wish you the best of luck. I know there are millions around the world unhappily working being rewarded by merit. I see and talk to many every day. They always want me to give them something for nothing. It's just not fair. The guy stemming outside of my workplace should be a dentist or surgeon. I'm sure he would be just as good as the man or woman who actually excelled in their studies and invested the time and effort in their chosen profession.

And Bronwyn, I don't think I ever really broke the poverty barrier by much in 31 years of employment. I certainly didn't in the army and as a civilian I've always chosen to work with the underprivileged and disenfranchised. It cost me financially to do what I want and to live by my beliefs. I believe in a hand up. I don't believe in carrying people from cradle to grave. Or the enslaving of the able to the needs of the collective. I'm no Borg drone.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 12:10:42 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
aqvarivs wrote " This perpetuated and reinforced the male view of placing a higher value on white women.

Confirmed that view. Just been reading laws enacted during the 17/1800's and cases of the time and judges reasons for decisions.

There was little effort to address the whole issue but push a limited factor favouring women, eg when women lost their supporting men through death/separation the church used to take over until laws passed which moved to make man responsible or allowed woman to inherit the whole estate- and I saw no reference to woman own responsibility to earn and look after herself...children was used a lot to explain this away beyond the reasonable point and as in no effort to look at the details of that care...

I think on that score, we have advanced to look at the woman/group than at the carefully cultured image by group action of women. What I am at a loss is to understand why at that time did the men not see this and went along with the image nor see the one sided womens benefit of it, particularly the unnatural effects it was leading to on society like in the laws passed at the time which were effectively antimale...its just me, but feminism and acting in their interest as a group has existed a lot longer than women care to admit...

Sam
Ps~interesting point, at law a child was always seen as the property of the father, and whom can enforce the 'ownership' by demanding 'possession' of the child after the age of 6(when they no longer needed breast feeding to survive which does not apply since bottle feeding)and the woman had to comply(ie woman free to live her life by herself, and the father raises his child)...women as a group acted to change this law till child an adult ie 'possesion' but not law to 'ownership' of child, ie father still had to pay for child's care as the 'owner' without the connected right to bring up his own child...'up there for thinking, down there for trouble if not very careful...eh'
Posted by Sam said, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 2:01:54 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
Bronwyn writes: “The values I would describe as male values are those of individuality, competitiveness, power-play and aggression, while the values I consider to be female values are those of co-operation, consensus, empathy and compassion.”

So women are socialists and men either capitalists or terrorists (or both), depending on Bronwyn’s hormonal mood. While it may be simplistic homogeneity, if true, we are indeed a schizophrenic society irreparably fractured along our gender lines.

Maybe we should just ignore each other for a while… Come to think of it, maybe it’s already begun; it would certainly explain the porn star pole dancing of in-your-face intensity, we’re currently witnessing.
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 27 March 2007 9:59:21 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 have indeed come a very long way.

Its just not the way that you had hoped for, a way shrouded in warm fuzzy ideological pretentions, totally devoid of the basic nature of the human animal.

You forgot to take a look before you took the leap.

Cornerstone of equality is CHOICE. Ultimately the ability to choose for yourself. And what you see out there in the world is evidence of the choices made. You sound dissappointed in your own cohort. Dispondent even.

It takes two to make a sex object. That path is about as limiting as making oneself a money object. But they are paths most commonly travelled be the sexes, playing into a status quo that we know best. A path of least resistence.

Its not easy using freedom responsibly. Most folks cant handle freedom. They prefer constraints, in this case social, which ironically seems to be what you are advocating for in your not so unsual indirect, passive-aggressive, veiled manner.

Old saying...

'careful what you wish for you just might get it.'

Another one l like a lot, is 'clean up your own mess, dont expect someone else to pick up after you.'

Good luck.
Posted by trade215, Thursday, 29 March 2007 3:51:07 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
What I find interesting is that if everyone agreed on how poorly done bye and exploited women were in this post, it'd have at least a couple of hundered posts by now.

I love Bettina Arndts statement that;

"Women do not like being shown their true colours."

There is often a huge gap between the ideal image of women and their actual behaviour.

I've just been reading Caroline Overingtons blog "Can You combine career and motherhood."

Where one blogger wrote that after publicly and loudly stating ones position on a contentious issue, that is embarassing to admit to changing ones position in the light of new evidence or a well constructed arguement.

But then if kept ones mouth shut and ears open until all the evidence is reviewed there would be no need to have to embarassingly admit to changing ones opinions that were previously written in stone.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 1 April 2007 6:07:26 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
Instead of having a few hundred posts from women, complaining or otherwise, we have had many men whinging about how women have lucked out and how easy it is for them.

Probably because most women are too busy.

What's the issue with you blokes? Worried we might find out we don't really need you? We’ll still love you, you know, we won’t discard you on the scrap heap when you get old.

There are men like Trade215 who seems to know what the human animal needs. The female one apparently needs constraints on account of not being able to handle freedom. Puleeze!
And: "Another one l like a lot, is 'clean up your own mess, dont expect someone else to pick up after you.'" Can’t you just hear the collective roar of laughter from every mother and wife in the land?

Aqvarivs resents women not dying on the battle field. Don’t know which century he lives in, but there are women dying on the battle field. It is men who feel uncomfortable about female soldiers. Not women. Just because it’s men who start wars doesn’t mean there aren’t any women who want to participate.

Fellows, anything you can do women can do too. (I’ll only say ‘better’ to my sisters, don’t want to crush your self-esteem even more). Denigrating women isn’t going to change that. We're just the other side of the human coin. No better, no worse, just as valuable. Can't have a coin with only one side!
Posted by yvonne, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 8:21:36 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
"It is men who feel uncomfortable about female soldiers. Not women."

Wrong.

If ever a statement supports Melinda's argument that we haven't come far it's this one.

The fact that women are lining up alongside men and learning how to kill and maim with the best of them is hardly an advancement. If we could use our hard won equality to persuade men from the battlefield to the negotiating table we would at last be making real progress.
Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 3 April 2007 11:58:05 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
The fact is that there are women who want to join the armed forces and do. You imply that because women now can make that personal choice women have not advanced. What? Some of us have not been taught properly on making acceptable ‘female’ choices? I thought we were getting away from needing to be told what right female choices are. I’m spitting chips here Bronwyn.

It is presumptuous to make a judgment on anyone’s choice without knowing, not assuming, why and in what context a choice was made. That’s why I found Reist’s argument unconvincing.

I get frustrated with the idea that there is a certain female behavioural code that must be adhered to otherwise a woman is accused of ‘behaving like a man’ (or lining up beside them to learn how to), ‘playing up to a man’, ‘seeking approval of a man’. It is patronising.

To me the main thrust of the article was about feminism and the fact that we haven’t come a long way yet. I think that feminism is about equality of the sexes. It is about empowerment to make choices for ourselves. In this regard we’ve made great progress in a relatively short time. Feminism is about acknowledging our rights as human beings.

The theory that there are male values and female values I find highly debatable. We assign them by stereotyping. It depends on the culture of the society in question. So to imply that women have some special ability over and above men to better society is chauvinistic. To imply that ‘successful’ feminism can is arrogant. Hey, that sounds like a pre baby boomer male!

We have important women specific issues that need to be addressed, such as lower average earnings, the difficulty women have climbing the ladder in their careers. Combining motherhood with work/career and that more women live in poverty than men. These are important women's issues not just issues based on making incorrect choices. Any of these issues would have fitted the title of the article better.
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 7:52:46 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
yvonne

"It is about empowerment to make choices for ourselves."

I agree this is important. I just happen to believe that feminism can offer more than this that's all.

If the choices we are now empowered to make for ourselves as women are bad choices for society as a whole, I don't see that as progress. This is where I was coming from with the example of female soldiers. I see it as a bad choice for society that women choose to take up arms when they could instead be using their empowerment to help solve conflict in much more creative and far less damaging ways. I think the choices we make as women should always be ones that advance society as a whole.

I'm sorry if this comes across as presumptuous, arrogant, patronizing, or chauvinistic. That certainly wasn't my intention.
Posted by Bronwyn, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 11:21:56 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
yvonne, I posted, "I can not think of anything as a man that I can do that women as a sex are exempt from. Oh wait. Dying or being mutilated on the battlefield. Yes, I forgot there for a moment my superior station in life."

Your reply, "Aqvarivs resents women not dying on the battle field."

How did you ever come to such a negative start point? It seems almost contradictory to your last post. For the record I enjoyed your last post. And agree. I would have liked it even more if it had included personal responsibility for ones thinking and actions. I believe that was the main thrust of trade215 posting.

Most disappointing though is the underline "hate men" that slips out when ever you hit your stride.
"Fellows, anything you can do women can do too. (I’ll only say ‘better’ to my sisters, don’t want to crush your self-esteem even more). Denigrating women isn’t going to change that. We're just the other side of the human coin. No better, no worse, just as valuable. Can't have a coin with only one side!"

Isn't that what you did just there, denigrate all men?
Posted by aqvarivs, Thursday, 5 April 2007 12:10:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aqvarivs I most definitely do not hate men. That comment you quoted was tongue in cheek. My father was my most inspiring person, I learned much from him. I have two wonderful young men as sons, besides a daughter. And am married to a great guy.

What I'm trying to get across is that choices made by a person ,whether man or woman, are that person's personal responsibility. That's the whole idea of empowerment. You get to bask in the glory of good choices and get the chance of acknowledging and fixing up yourself a poor choice. Young children are guided and assisted, not autonomous adults.

Whether choices are right or wrong is a whole different debate. It should not make one iota of difference whether this choice was made by a male or female.

Bronwyn, empowerment to make choices is the single most important thing that happened for women. I don’t know how old you are, but it was not so long ago (in my young adult days) that an adult woman could not.

And just like men have been doing for centuries, women now also get to make choices, good, but also bad choices. Women now can make mistakes and live to tell the tale. That’s what women’s liberation did.

Reist argued that because women can now behave sexually in a self-defeating way it is not progress. But in a weird way it actually is. 40 years ago not one of these girls would have been able to redeem, if you will, herself and change her life. Now she can, just like boys always could. The consequences for a woman when she made a ‘mistake’ were devoid of pity, let alone empathy.

Feminists’ contribution to humankind in general is to show that women have an equal voice in debating and finding solutions for a better human society. Not better or less, equal.

This is in no way to condone the issues Reist raised. Girls are anguishing about their appearance and what’s expected, as are boys. Who are boys pandering to?
Posted by yvonne, Thursday, 5 April 2007 7:55:07 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
yvonne, very well put.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 5 April 2007 8:16:22 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
Yabon iff yor commen wss tung inth cheths thin igh woolf havf sondeth lif thiff.

Not, "Aqvarivs resents women not dying on the battle field."
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 6 April 2007 12:01:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I commend anyone who voices their opinion, however I feel Women in western society are riding on the back of persecution of women in third world countries and middle eastern countries. Women frequently do suffer discrimination in Australia, more often than not, it's positive discrimination.

A public transport organization in Tasmania, gained an exemption from the equal rights commission for a period to only employ Women, apparently there was a gender imbalance. How about Female dominated careers such as Nurses, Receptionist, Secretaries, no I don't see a push to employ more men.

Advertisements on television tell us that violence against Women is not OK, so a man or women can hit a male and thats OK? what are they implying.

Women and Men don't compete on the sporting field against each other because a male is seen as stronger, yet in employment areas where physical strength can result in more productivity women are paid the same, I'm not advocating a vast remuneration difference, however if a bloke can lift 5 bricks and a women only 4, at the end of the day the man has achieve slightly more, so why not pay him, slightly more?

Come on, I know the squeaky wheel gets oiled, but Women in Western society,have drums of oil now,, you even have a longer life expectancy than us poor blokes. Pick a new topic to lobby, because Women are better than Men when it comes to speaking up for themselves
Posted by Rational comments, Saturday, 7 April 2007 2:00:15 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
Rational comment, you have lots of valid points.

Re the violence ads, I completely agree with you. I personally know a man who was victim of 'domestic violence'. It was argued that a man can't be, because he can't be 'in fear of his life'. Being run over by a car or having your child threatened on numerous occasions, having personal property broken/removed and rung at work every half hour for days on end apparently doesn't count.

It should be 'Violence - Australia says No'

Women are as capable of cruelty and aggression as men are.It is a romantic notion that women are 'softer'. It is a Madonna complex that we have. It does a disservice to women and men who do not fit a particular romanticized ideal of femininity and masculinity.

Men are going into the nursing profession, but are not as keen, because as with most female dominated professions the pay is less then what would be earned for a commensurate education in a male dominated profession (eg policing). This is slowly changing.
Posted by yvonne, Monday, 9 April 2007 7:34:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
yvonne,

I knew a man whose wife poured petrol onto him and set him alight.

There is a play based on a true story about a woman who poisoned a number of men. "The trial of ...."

It seems that society has always had difficulty in dealing with female violence.

Just as society seems to struggle with female sexuality or expressions thereof. In fact some of the feminist players have even gone so far as to promote lesbianism and that heterosexuality was about oppression.

I think it might have been Dowrkin who promoted the idea that women were not able to give consent for heterosexual relationships, because they had been subjected to 'brainwashing and conditioning'.

So on one hand it is OK for women to entertain and pleasure each other, and on the other it is oppressive if women and men receive and give pleasure.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 9 April 2007 9:18:07 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
Yvonne

Well stated. I’m sure we share a lot of common ground here! The main point of difference between us, and I don’t want to harp on it to much but I do think it’s the critical stumbling block, is the fundamental philosophy we both hold regarding individual choice and responsibility. (I also think it might be part of the reason I seem to be at odds with some of the other posters here too!)

We both agree that it is important for women to have freedom of choice. If I read you correctly, however, you hold to the view that women should be able to exercise that choice in whatever way they see fit, regardless of its effect on others. You argue that if a woman makes a mistake, so what, she can learn from it and grow as a person, just as a man has always been free to do.

To a point, yes. But I would argue that our choices always affect others and that it is important for all of us, men and women, to be conscious of this. To me, when a woman chooses to dress in an outrageously provocative manner, for example, it is much more than her harmlessly exercising her freedom of choice. To me, her action compromises the rights of all women who want to distance themselves from the bimbo image and have their views taken seriously, which I'm sure is the vast majority of us.

I'm sorry if I'm repeating myself here, but I think it's important to make the point that we don't live in a vacuum and that our choices always have a ripple on effect. To me, when feminism, or any other movement for that matter, is framed purely in the language of personal choice, it’s transformative possibilities for society as a whole are overlooked. You mentioned age. I was born in '54 so I am old enough to remember the argument, strongly advanced in the seventies, that the feminist movement would help to bring about positive social change. Perhaps that's my problem!
Posted by Bronwyn, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 12:50:05 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
Bronywn, I'm largly in agreement with your last post but suspect that your comment "To me, her action compromises the rights of all women who want to distance themselves from the bimbo image and have their views taken seriously, which I'm sure is the vast majority of us" is a reflection of a fundamental difference of view about the individual too that which I hold.

In my world one individuals choices and actions do not reflect on others who happen to share some characteristic with that person (eg gender) unless they show support for those actions and choices. To use a popular example - female friends are not regarded as stupid or shallow because of the actions of Paris Hilton nor is Paris regarded as thoughtful, deep and intelligent because of my friends choices and character.

What a woman has to say is not lessened by how she is dressed, my ability to focus on the topic at hand may be weakened but not what the woman says.

R0ber
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 7:33:22 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
Bronwyn, you are right that when a woman makes a poor choice it could reflect poorly on women as a whole to some. But does that make that opinion right?

Of course no human lives in a vacuum. Personal choices do affect others. But is it true that actions made by some women reflect on all women? If yes, then how can we free ourselves of the notion that there must be one right way to behave as a modern liberated woman? How can you and I grow as human individuals with a burden like that? How can I fulfil my chosen life’s goals when some may be contrary to your beliefs as to what makes you a successful woman?

Authority and power over our self used to belong to the men in our lives. Are we now to swap this for other women or the feminist movement until we are ‘ready’ for self determination?

Feminism is losing stature and relevance amongst young women precisely because they perceive some choices to be someone’s personal choice and refuse to take on the responsibility or guilt for those choices just because it was made by someone of their gender.

Sexual behaviour, personal appearance, going to war are not seen as women’s behaviour or men’s behaviour anymore. My young adult and teenage children certainly don’t. In respect of sex eg., they see 2 (or more!) persons-who can be ANY gender.

They tend to focus on the behaviour of the participants, not the gender per se and discuss the morality of the behaviour in terms of that individual’s and society’s well being.

I’m from ’58 and to me feminism means women’s liberation. By liberating women, society benefits, that’s what makes it justifiable in the first place, not its purpose. A movement for the benefit of some individuals could only be condoned by a society if it is perceived to be better for that society to allow it than not.
Posted by yvonne, Tuesday, 10 April 2007 9:58:50 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
I found this today http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/earticle/3053

"As the sociologist David Altheide has argued, ‘fear does not just happen; it is socially constructed and then manipulated by those who seek to benefit’ (26). While this description of socially constructed fear tends to inflate the role of self-interest – the extent to which fear entrepreneurs exploit fear in order to gain some direct benefit – its emphasis on the role of human agency in the making of fear is nonetheless a useful counterpoint to the idea that fear is something natural or purely psychological."

I think the telling phrases is 'fear does not just happen; it is socailly constructed and then manipulated'.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 11 April 2007 7:29:14 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
RObert

I agree, on a one-to-one basis, someone like Paris Hilton doesn’t in any way reflect on the way you might view other individual females that you have come to know and respect. But, on a collective basis, the influence of women like her is unfortunately very persuasive. We are constantly bombarded with images of young, thin and increasingly homogenous looking girls, all conforming to a very definite look, and this has a huge affect on young and impressionable women. Asian girls having their legs lengthened, girls developing eating disorders and the growth in the plastic surgery and botox industries are all spin-offs of this. The collective cost in terms of money down the drain, in time lost and in the wasted opportunities that more worthwhile pursuits could have brought is enormous. It is only a very self assured woman who can turn her back on all of this and truly do what she wants to regardless of how she conforms to society’s norms.

yvonne

I am not prescribing “one right way” at all. I agree with you that it is important for all people to have as many choices open to them as possible. My argument is that when a tipping point of women make the same individual choice, it adversely affects the choices open to other women. For example , if a majority of women try and conform to the image I described above, it makes the choice of women who wish to age naturally that much harder. Or when the majority of women choose to chase high-powered career paths, the women who want to stay at home and nurture a family find it more difficult to follow their personal choice. I'm not offering any answers here or prescribing any "right way". I just want to point out that there are always trade-offs. Women's liberation as you describe it will only ever be available to a certain group of women.

To both of you, we will probably soon have to agree to disagree on this but I have enjoyed the discussion.
Posted by Bronwyn, Friday, 13 April 2007 1:51:25 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,

For what it’s worth, I agree with you on both counts.

Furthermore, R0bert’s obsession with PC and sitting on fences, constrains him to always play it both ways – isolate Paris, her sizable fan base and growing cohort, while at the same time, promise to respect her (opinions) [in the morning] “What a woman has to say is not lessened by how she is dressed, my ability to focus on the topic at hand may be weakened but not what the woman says”.

There are fences that accommodate sitting on, and then there are those that just invite impalement. While R0bert may fancy himself as a shining light, he’s no more than a current-induced filament in a vacuum.
Posted by Seeker, Friday, 13 April 2007 9:39:29 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
Bronywn, I agree that we are all impacted by the way some individuals are portrayed, not by their specific choices but by societies determination to make public figures of people who just don't seem to have anything worthwhile to say or do. I'd be more inclined to address that issue on a greater focus on lifting the profile of what is valued.

Seeker - OK so you don't like my attempts to look at both sides of the issue. Get over it.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Friday, 13 April 2007 10:09:53 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
Often the mythical glass ceiling is blamed for women not reaching the higher levels of business.

Yet one factor which tends to be ignored and that is the old school tie, which basically means that even if you are qualified for the job, you will not be employed because of the below reasons.

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,21546439-462,00.html
"Jobseekers are being warned about "social" discrimination in the job market. Executive recruiter Slade Group says social discrimination - which can be based on the way you speak, where you live or where you were educated - is particularly prevalent in entry-level and mid-level roles."
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 14 April 2007 7:10:05 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
It's one thing to have a general non discriminatory human resource policy. It really doesn't matter on the floor who believes what. They are there on an hourly contract at x dollars/hr. and if they don't work out they can be replaced with out incurring a heavy loss. Management on the other hand is hopefully a tighter knit of mutual views and experiences. It isn't the place for extreme differences of view. There is a corporate direction and every person at that level must be simpatico; agreeable, likable, congenial, sympathetic, on the same wave length. People go where they know from experience they can find that type. Injecting a radical, whether it is a man or a woman into that environment can cause untold damage and financial loss. Many a corporation has gone down the tubes due to political infighting. A woman with something to prove is no more wanted than a man with something to prove. Of course the man doesn't have the easy out of blaming his failure on his sex. I don't really know how much longer women will be able to use that excuse, it's a pretty lame horse these days. My boss is a woman and she wont have any of it. I've heard what happens when someone says to her, "It's because I'm a woman isn't it?"
Hello. Coroners Office. Who's calling please?
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 15 April 2007 6:35:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
aqvarivs,

one of my female bosses could never resist giving me a hard time coming out with sexist comments like 'You men are all the same.' and other comments which I will not post here. Funny isn't it us blokes get accussed of generalising all the time, which is something women never do!

Sure I could bring a sexual harrasment case, but beleive hell would seem like heaven when compared to what life would be like at work if I ever did that.

Anyway one day I had had enough and she came up to me and said "Here's some bed time reading to keep you entertained!"

Before I could even think, I said "What are you offering to sleep with me?" then I thought 'Boy have I done it now!'

She went a lovely shade of pink and has been as nice as pie ever since.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 15 April 2007 8:05:57 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
SEXISM

I recently had an "encounter" with a girl. I kicked her, I kneed her, repeatedly, over and over... kick..knee... kick, kick... mainly aiming at her mid section, trying to avoid her breasts. Well.... don't worry, it was in a gym and she had a thick pad she was holding against her chest.
The funny thing was, the 'drill' was to practice kicking (she had a turn at me also) where the kicked person was supposed to hold their ground if possible.
Now.. my weight is just over 100kg, and hers about 65 tops and I did hold my ground, so in stead of me being pushed back, she ended up pushing herself back. One of our trainers, a female who has a bit of a reputation for being 'rough' (in speech and attitude) yelled at me "Come on..don't be a total pr*ck" (i.e. for not allowing myself to be pushed back and giving my training partner a false sense of being stronger than she really was)

In short, I was expected to 'act' in a much weaker way so my female partners self esteem was not damaged by realizing she is not actually as strong as a bloke. Had she been a bloke, with the same weight difference, nothing would have been said. Its no biggy to me, I just found it interesting that a girl (the trainer) took a 'sexist' view of things when she herself would be reluctant to accept that girls are physically weaker than blokes.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 15 April 2007 8:23:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am the oldest male child and have two older sisters and one sister just younger. Trust me I know all about women and what they can get up to but, for myself I like it. I like the difference. I appreciate femininity. I can sit for any length of time just watching women walk past me. Not in some pervert behind the hedge scene but just watching them walk. I love the play of motion. I like looking deep into their eyes when they are mad as hell and they know that they are powerless to do anything but be angry and I wait patiently for that glimmer that comes deep in the back of the eye as they realize in the midst of their anger that I to am equally powerless but never the less I was there, and then I get my hug and the laughing starts. I perish the day women become grey unseen sexless automatons. I know that some fembots believe that is the height of female freedom but, egads, for me that would be the end of days. Men are stronger than women in many ways and I think also that women have their strengths that may often go amiss because they are more subtle. As human being we are set apart from every other creature on earth through our ability to express Love, not just copulate. It's a very special language unique to humans. I believe it is Gods language, the language of the spirit, the soul of the human experience. I think however much good was originally done in the name of womens rights something was also broken by the politicalisation of the sexes. Some where along the line I must be French. Vive la différence.
Posted by aqvarivs, Sunday, 15 April 2007 9:38:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Last year JamesH said: "I hear groups of women constantly portraying men in a negative fashion, inded, it seems to be a favourite sport amongst them."

Referring to JameH et al one could say: "I hear groups of men constantly portraying women in a negative fashion, in fact it seems to be a favourite sport amongst them."

If you JameH et al find it so objectionable to indulge in that kind of ""sport", why are playing that game then? You regard it as wrong for women but, according to your posts and the references you use on OLO, clearly regard it as right for men, especially in relation to women who don't fit your schema of a the good girl?

Of course you find it even more incomprehensible that a man could disagree with you. - to the point that you think them female. You have to bring in all these theories and opinions of males (like me); about how we must be headf*#cks, pleasers, brainwashed or have some disorder or male weakness. You guys are hilarious the way you posit these as if they are gospel when I fact anyone with half a brain would see they're baseless assumptions to demean the others’ point of view - that's propaganda boys. You seem to hate feminists and yet use the more radical feminist’s arguments and methods against any male who disagrees with your perspective.

It would be so much easier to get to the many true problems facing males if folk with your views would play the game with a lot more grace, lot less hatred, belittlement, negative political game playing and please get rid of your self-serving pretentious and patronising rubbish about women. Okay we believe you aren't misogynists - maybe.

You haven't come a long way at all fellas. And you're holding the girls back. Thus you're holding the betterment of humankind back. Kisses and hugs and lots of love to you all. Who’s pretentious –me? No! xoxoxoxoxxox.

RE: marriage we must never "walk away" without exploring every way of staying together. Found this for you RObert.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wb959zm4WfM
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 26 April 2007 1:18:16 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
ronnie, "marriage we must never "walk away" without exploring every way of staying together" - I have mixed feelings about that.

Many people do seem to walk away too easily. Any relationship breakdown comes at a cost especially where kids are involved.

From the other side I've known people who would not walk away when a partner left, who have managed to make a bad situation worse by refusing to accept what had occurred.

I'm not sure of this but my impression is that a significant proportion of muder suicides where a former partner is killed are situations where someone won't let go.

Likewise too much pressure to stay can be harmful to people in abusive relatinships.

I don't know the answers to how society can get that balance right. People need to be able to get out if their partner is abusive, they need to let go if their partner leaves but a committment also needs to mean more than convenience.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 26 April 2007 7:38:16 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
The reason I posted the link and the comments above was to show you that your words have influenced me. I come to OLO and usually write off the top of my head. Analysis doesn’t need a text book response if you can deconstruct the argument or opinion presented. However, I do endeavour to present an argument of my own when needed.

Often like you I have mixed feelings and am ignorant of the troubles others have endured. So I’ll state how I feel to see if someone can inform me better. It is an opinion forum –isn’t it? Sometimes my ego gets in the way and it's hard to admit reconsidering. But I do.

I still am probably at odds with you on certain things. Nevertheless, the reason I posted is to show that you have influenced me somewhat. I am a bit pressed for time and that makes it difficult to get too heavily involved.

If you think I’m ignorant about the lot of divorcees, the opinions in most men is naff. But then maybe there is a bit of bravado there to hide the fear of such a life-changing situation.
Walk Away
Written by Dropkick Murphys

So you say you fell in love and you're gonna get married
Raise yourself a family, how simple life can be
Somewhere it all went wrong and your plans just fell apart
And you ain't got the heart to finish what you started

(chorus)
The ones that you loved
The ones that you left behind
The ones you said you'd try to find
Are they trying to find you

You walked out that door to find out where you belong
To fulfill your own selfish dreams, I think you might have forgotten
The ones that you loved.

I actually posted a poem which was the “distraught dad’s” version of this (similar chorus). A mate of mine, who is mentally ill, just nearly killed himself after a breakup. He got into amphs and grog which he knew would react with his medication and shoot him down. It must hell to face divorce.
Posted by ronnie peters, Friday, 27 April 2007 2:23:35 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
RObert I meant to post this first. The song is about “deadbeat dad’s” who do walk away “too easily” to “follow their own selfish dreams”. Nothing to do with physically abusive situations. Pay attention please.

Since I’ve read your posts I come to realise that this also applies to “deadbeat mums”. So, for instance, when I watch that video, the context is reframed and, for me, a de-gendered interpretation is considered.

However, no matter how much it bothers you, divorcees, or “masculinists” who figure excuses for the male gender - men do “walk away” more often than women. This seems to be because men are more mobile and less committed to child raring and/or more responsible for creating income and hence more susceptible to opting out. For instance: a male can up and leave when things get tough like if his wife gets pregnant or he didn’t realise the commitment involved, whereas, the woman is usually bound to stay. Even, if the male stays, he can follow his dreams and not consider the wife’s aspirations. Present - but absent. Alone together. It happens.

As far as abuse goes, once a man raises his hand to a woman or visa versa it is time to get out, break the cycle, do the marriage guidance and all that.

I think cultural change (education) is an important part of the process. For instance: I read somewhere (anti-feminist discourse) that taking the kids to a park is seen as this heroic task. For God’s sake it is but part of normal fatherly behaviour. We need to reclaim fatherhood from the macho boofheads.

If I have my head around this correctly, men like yourself and other divorcees feel aggrieved that they a lumped in with the “deadbeat dad” group who “haven’t the heart” to follow through with their responsibilities. These are the kind of men that I think give all us other males a bad name amongst women and are the kind that feminists rightly rile against. Men need to honour parenting as the normal and wonderful experience that it truly is for a father.
Posted by ronnie peters, Friday, 27 April 2007 2:30:47 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
Dr Kubler Ross studied the process of grief, and for Ronnie I learnt about this long before the internet became available for information. I think I still have her book somewhere.

There are 5 stages, denial, anger, bargining, depression and final acceptance. The process of dealing with grief is individually different and the time frame varies from individual to individual.

Now Ronnie, you say that is easier for men to walk away.

Have you ever asked these men and really listened to what they are or are not saying?

In the past I have known guys who were alcoholics and they left their families because of the destructiveness of their drinking. The one's that I meet, later would say that they regretted the decisions that they made.

My own brother's wife told him that she didn't love him anymore and asked him to leave.

He has attempted suicide, he even mistakenly believes that if he was to move across the otherside of the country, life would be better and he could get on with his life and it would make the pain easier to deal with.

He is so angry and in so much pain, he thinks that by cutting off the source of that pain it will make the pain go away. The only trouble is that it just doesn't work like that.

He finds even having contact with his son extremely painful and being around my brother is like waiting for a bomb to go off. Added to this is that our parents died relatively close together about two years before his marriage ended.

Yes I think I doing well especially as someone once put it "that I am not normal and have aspergers."
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 28 April 2007 10:06:42 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
JamesH said: “ Yes I think I doing well especially as someone once put it ‘that I am not normal and have aspergers.’"

You’re clearly implying I said that. It is a direct and malicious deception.

I said: “ You got personal with me once that was outside the bounds of normal behaviour. I even considered whether or not you were an aspergers sufferer.” I also said : “Use your intellect wisely.” So it is clear that I was referring to your apparent inability to recognise the normal social cues (a problem that aspergers sufferers must deal with). They have a reason because their behaviour is mostly beyond their control - you don’t.

I also said: ” Any man (that’s you JamesH) who attacks another’s family and then hasn't the decency to apologise like a real man must be so dysfunctional and bitter he doesn't even realise it.” (My parentheses added). Now you conjured some insult-loaded theory to attack a seventy-five year grandmother who you’ve never met because you disagree with her son’s qualified support for feminism. That’s dysfunctional behaviour.

Also, you irrationally tried to lay blame (and guilt trip) for a suicide of a distraught dad on me. This person proved to be unstable. That you couldn’t see that had the unstable person been given family contact it may have been a multiple suicide suggests to me that you aren't thinking clearly. You need to realise that some things are earned - good logical and sensible behaviour is how you earn parenting privilege. You refuse to apologise for your attacks on a pensioner,for God's sake, so I’d have to say that your behaviour is not well intentioned nor honourable.

The OLO moderators also thought your personal attacks on this wonderful pensioner were wrong and deleted your post. Not only that, there is the way you supported and encouraged the deplorable behaviour of Happy Bullet et al. HB was also deleted for offensive behaviour. Now it takes a lot to get deleted on OLO so you were way outside the bounds of sensible normal discussion. Do the right thing.
Posted by ronnie peters, Saturday, 28 April 2007 3:04:03 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
A note to Christ and everyone else.

A long time ago an old digger showed how a real man behaves. I disagree with a lot of numbat’s opinions but respect til my dying days numbat. What a true fella. What a great example of honourable and decent behaviour. I just love this man's character.

rancitus:Whatever I meant to say you perceived that I insulted and demeaned you for that I apologise. Furthermore I had no right to call you what I did again please accept my deepest apologies.
The above has not changed my views on boxing and I think lesser men fight and even lesser enjoy seeing a bloke being bloodied, beaten and humiliated.
Yes I did box when I was a boy, it was at the local Police boys club. Yes I did win and even then for me to "win?" I had to beat and humiliate another boy. So since then I have eschewed boxing yet again I was an army Sergeant and learned un-armed combat and bayonet fighting. That seemed different as I was training to kill my countries enemies. Yet I now see it was perhaps not at all different, yet if I were young enough I would be a part of our nation's armed forces. Maybe I am a poor twisted wrinkly, but I am what I am for better or for worse. numbat
Posted by numbat, Sunday, 28 May 2006 3:44:26

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4497#42523
Posted by ronnie peters, Saturday, 28 April 2007 3:21:33 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
From the article “But we also have to acknowledge the tragic truth that the movement for women’s equality, in many ways, appears to have failed.”

And the failure would be far greater should her reproductive status been reduced to that of a life-support system for a “fetus” as demanded by the pro-life movement which Melinda Tankard Reist is spokes-woman for

“to lap dance a man to orgasm,” (whose orgasm – the mans or the womans?)

Actually, in a club, if the man orgasmed it would be a criminal offence but if the woman orgasmed, it is likely to be assumed to be “part of the act”. What goes on in private bedrooms is up to the consenting individuals

Seems to me “equality” favours the woman, in this instance.

“Liberation means being “free” enough to undergo surgical “enhancement”,”

Personal choice is a precious option which should not be criticized, even when it is not what we might choose for ourselves.

I could go on and end up suggesting that Melinda Tankard Reist is what is commonly called a “wowser”, intent on criticizing the legal habits and pursuits of those who do not conform to her over-valued and opinionated “precious view”.

I note Melinda’s last article has been deleted from view here, the only reason I bothered to post here.

Hopefully we will see more of her in the future, nothing like a good old “bigot bash” to get the blood flowing.

Oh before you ask, I am father of 2 well adjusted and surgically un-enhanced daughters (I relied on unconditional love to give them all the self esteem they need but if they wanted to improve what nature gave them, then I would still support their right of choice regardless).
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 29 April 2007 12:24:32 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
Very well put Col Rouge.

Author of Heterophobia, Daphne Patai wrote about a University Professor who felt that they had not done their job properly if any of the students remained heterosexual at the end of their course in Gendered Studies.

I suppose postive expression of sexuality are OK as long it isn't with men.
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 29 April 2007 9:57:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well said Col Rouge. I'm a 49 year old woman and have seen the benefits of women's lib. I have 2 wonderful young men as sons and a beautiful teenage daughter. All shook their heads in amazement at Reist's article.

They didn't think anybody else was to blame for anybody's behaviour.

Freedom comes with being personally responsible for the choices you make. You can't blame somebody else for your own choice, or take somebody else's poor choices as a personal failure. Or take the credit for that matter. That's only for parents to toy with regarding their children.
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 2 May 2007 3:33:41 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
Two interesting articles have appeared in recent days.

Emma Tom "If chicks ruled the world it would look much the same!"
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21777884-12274,00.html

"Contrary to popular mythology, women are not the fairer sex."

and the Bettina Arndt,

Exposing the anti-male myth

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21788998-5000117,00.html

Society hasn't really come that far at all, because rather than being gender inclusive, society continues to remain gender exclusive.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 25 May 2007 6:32:25 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 15
  7. 16
  8. 17
  9. All

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