HRS does speak for this bloke and I dare say, many others.

Why don't you go & burn your Y fronts somewhere else in protest?

OLO opinion pieces are generally loaded with latent irony. This one's bursting at the seams with self refuting irony of the highest order.

Please, do keep up the passsssionate feeeeling. It clouds rational judgement and logical contemplation, both critical to the 'shoot yourself in the the foot' accidental irony exemplified by the author.

Quibbling over semantics like 'what is sexy' in a piece deriding sexist objectification, on the basis of the physical (biology), by one who champions a redefinition of, er, sexual biology based psychological constructs like 'female' psyche is very funny.

Redefining/reclaiming 'sexy-ness' by a proponent of an ideology seeking to transcend the inherently illusory nature and self constraining force of gender based ego identity, sounds like a 3rd rate existential crisis, screaming out for self awarness.

Funniest though, is all this gender psyche nonsense, projected as it is, with generally mutually inclusive derision and ressentiment, reeks of the same stuff... INSECURITY.

An insecure response to an insecure projection. Around and around in redundant circles we go.

You're playing into their hands with an article like this one. You dis-empower yourself with such emotive, egocentric frustration.

A previous post aludes to the fact that there's no (free) choice and its all constructed. Indeed it is. Works both ways and can only exist as a reflection of each other. No duality here. Which is the inherent nature of gender psychology and behaviour. Self validating (sexist) projection of delusion.

There is no such thing as 'sexiness' or 'sexy'. This is an example of a constructed illusion thats pinning everyone down and another example of the brilliant accidental irony with which the author self flagelates. Greer as a pinnup for 'sexiness'... hahahahaha, such brilliantly passionate irony. Viagra? Anyone? Unless ya kick with the other foot, of course. "Sexy' is a vague ego trip attached to the psychology of sexual intercourse.

There's only sex. The rest is in yer mind.

ps. dem apples are great. keep up the brilliantly passionate writing, lest the emotionless clarity destroy your capacity for wounderful irony.

Awhile back R0bert aked about the circulation/readership numbers for Zoo. The latest official ABC numbers I could find go back to June 2007:

http://edsites2.itechne.com/Acp3Images/edDesk/c9572133-3a37-4929-a421-ecf9cdd107a6/ready_reckoner_weeklies.pdf

Surprisingly - to me anyway - Zoo readership stood at 470,000 with a circulation of 116,405.

That's a lot of blokes.

The article suggests that the magazine should be... what? Banned? Boycotted? Perhaps its editors taken out and shot at dawn?

Actually, it isn't entirely clear what the objective of the piece is, except to let off steam and claim that Germaine Greer is sexy.

Many years ago I was shown the work of an advertising agency.

"These are our most successful campaigns", I was told.

I pointed out that none of them actually appealed to me at all.

"They are not supposed to, dear boy, you're totally the wrong demographic."

Which leads me to wonder what the point of someone - who is most clearly not within the Zoo demographic - making so much fuss? It is unlikely to deter the Zoo readership, who tend to make up their own minds whether upsetting feminists weighs heavily with them.

The only purpose visible is that the author wishes to tar all males with the same brush - generalizing from the particular, which is a particularly transparent and unconvincing tactic.

As for Germaine Greer being sexy, I can only assume this is a woman's viewpoint, highly appropriate to the pages of a woman's magazine - "Germaine - still sexy and germane at sixtyeight."

I doubt if you will find a man condemning the frivolous and demeaning rubbish in Cleo and Cosmo.

You see, it's not our demographic.

Find me an article written by a feminist that says something positive about the male gender.
Posted by HRS, Sunday, 6 January 2008 5:12:40 PM

HRS is correct on this, I have read an enormous amount of feminist material and about the only thing positive said about men is "a dead man".

Both Hoff-Sommers and Patai in their books give clear examples of how students in gender study classes are given exercises on stoking their anger and this is achieved by concentrating on the worst things that a small number of women experience and then extrapolating this to apply to all men.

Feminist, Rad feminists or women who call themselves feminist use feminism as a cover for male bashing, sometimes this is direct but more often indirect by painting a picture of all women being victims.

If feminism was truly about equality then it be accepted for men to express and talk about their bad experiences with women, but this is not acceptable, whilst on the other hand, bitterly talking or writing about women's bad experiences with men is.

Another example is how the figures for feminist claims get highly exaggerated.

HRS

“It really doesn’t take much before a feminist becomes abusive, which is ironic really considering that feminists don’t believe in abuse.”

Nice try, HRS. But you want to have your cake and eat it too. While professing that the majority of men as a group are innocent of the claims feminists make about the dark side of men's patriarchal ways, you do a very good job of proving these claims right.

The technique of the anti-feminist bully is mathematical in its consistency (as opposed to people who engage with genuine feminist debate). The technique is to abuse, villify, misrepresent, slander, demonise, degrade and oversimplify feminists on a sustained and repetitive basis, and then smugly cry ‘abuse’, ‘angry feminist’, ‘man-hater’ yada yada, when one of them decides to take the gloves off.

It’s also very revealing that you keep repeating this supposed 'irony' that feminists ‘don’t believe in abuse’. This is also the hallmark of a bully – the over-reliance on the tendency for most people (especially women) to walk away from abusive treatment in order to keep the peace, or because engagement is getting them nowhere.

Which is exactly how these OLO gender topics evolve. Or haven’t you noticed that, apart from me, all the feminists have left this discussion, and the usual anti-feminist bombasts have now captured the space?

SJF, it's a waste of effort trying to engage HRS in any kind of sensible debate about gender and/or feminism. HRS is a sock puppet for the former OLO user "Timkins", who was banned for serially abusive comments to anybody who differed from his obsessive views about women.

Arguing with him just encourages him.