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 > Don't patronise ladies who raunch > Comments

Don't patronise ladies who raunch : Comments

By Nina Funnell, published 26/2/2009

Patronising and judgmental, the matrons in 'Ladette to Lady' obviously missed the memo on distasteful snobbery.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Yet another article written by a presumably intelligent writer who extols the virtue of women acting dumb, dumb and dumber.

Is this part of a plot by female academics such as Catherine Lumby to keep other women forever subordinate?

Does Ms Funnell expect women to be something other than trophies in stilletos, commodities or sexualised objects for the gratification of men?

Why not write in praise of educated women?
Posted by Seneca, Thursday, 26 February 2009 11:01:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I note too, that we women are still "baring" the children.
Posted by Seneca, Thursday, 26 February 2009 11:05:11 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
"In recent years much column space has been reserved for discussing young women and their increasingly drunken, bawdy and sometimes violent behaviour. But according to academic Catharine Lumby, underpinning the concern that young women are out of control is a series of problematic beliefs and assumptions regarding class, gender and power."

Much column space has been reserved for the global financial crisis. But according to me, underpinning the concern that the market is out of control is my shrinking super and fear of unemployment.

So friggin' what that every writer's motivation isn't identical, dispassionate, and reflective of pure altruism? It's a valid topic and affects everyone.

Personally I prefer ladies to be ladies. They're much nicer when they can converse without swearing, drink without belching, and socialise without acting like a trollop.
Posted by bennie, Thursday, 26 February 2009 12:59:25 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
'They also swear, smoke and have sex. Without question these women exhibit ladette qualities.'

I am sure that Shayne Warne also displays gentlemen qualities. Wouldn't you love to take one of these 'ladies' home to meet your mum.

I know many men would like one of these ladies for a night and then find someone who is faithful, hasn't got a foul mouth and does not make an idiot on oneself because of drink or drugs to marry. Who is the author trying to convince?
Posted by runner, Thursday, 26 February 2009 3:59:08 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
Ahh some funny comments. I always get a chuckle out of 'sexualising' and 'objectifying'. It's as if women have no sexuality, and if you ever are attracted to a women, you are objectifying them. Then we have that old classic that educated women cant possibly also be sexy good time girls.

I'm on your side Nina! The inevitible result of the feminist movement was for women to become more equal to men. Yes that means getting drunk and casual sex and swearing and all sorts of things.

Somehow I think people have their head in the sand and think if you give women the same freedoms as men, they will somehow, being women, still not abuse power, not ever be shallow or free with their bodies, not ever express themselves in every way imaginable.

'Still considered the “fairer” sex, women continue to bare the responsibility for upholding moral standards on behalf of the community.'

Exactly! But I think in the eyes of the feminist, this comes as a great surprise to find that women aren't inherantly more civilised and virtuous than men. They WERE the "fairer" sex in many many regards, only because of pressure to conform and behave to a higher standard than men. Take away the pressure, and shock horror, women exhibit so called 'male' behaviours.

'They would take great offence at the suggestion that they have been unthinkingly duped or coerced into their current lifestyles.'

Hooray. Good on them. Nobody's victims and taking responsibility for their actions rather than blaming the media or the patriachy.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 26 February 2009 4:40:29 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
Houellebecq-I agree entirely with your post that women are not acting as victims but as free agents. A lot of this went on back in stricter moral times it was just kept hidden.
My Dad was at one time an insurance salesman back in the earlier quarter of the 19th century and he said what he saw going on when the husbands left the house was a real eye opener for him. This was in a time before the contraceptive pill he often says with amazement.
Posted by sharkfin, Thursday, 26 February 2009 10:52:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Runner- I know many would like one of these ladies for a night and then find someone who is faithful, hasn’t got a foul mouth and does not make an idiot of herself because of drink or drugs to marry.

What makes you presume the women want to get married, like the men they are just enjoying good sex. Marriage is actually a better institution for men than it is for women that has constantly been shown by the long livety figures. Married men live longer than single men but married women don’t live longer than single women.

The idea that marriage is the goal of all women is no longer valid and is an example of the male double standard in presuming it is.

Let’s call a garden spade a spade,and let’s call a spade that will have casual sex with an accomodating lady or an accomodating man for the night by the same name too. A trollop if that’s the name you think fits. And it fits either male or female.
Posted by sharkfin, Thursday, 26 February 2009 11:04:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shock! Horror!

Women behaving like...well...human beings - with all the good, the bad and the ugly that being human entails.

Who'da thunk it?
Posted by Fractelle, Friday, 27 February 2009 7:11:28 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
I've always preferred the company of women to that of "ladies".

Having said that, I avoid the company of yobbos of either gender.

And I agree with Nina Funnell that those matrons on the TV show are awful - far more so than the "ladettes".
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 27 February 2009 7:34:45 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
One of the most erotic things I ever saw was when I was walking towards a beautiful young girl one day and as she approached a fountain she turned to the side and spat in it. Animal magnetism!
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 27 February 2009 8:47:00 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
The over protective nature of society towards young girls some decades ago was due to the difference in the consequences of loss of control between girls and boys, incl pregnancy, rape, STDs with resulting infertility. The norms of society were largely built around this.

While technology, the availability of abortions, drugs etc, and the attitude to unwed mothers has changed, the risks to girls is still disproportionate. And as a result I am still more protective of my daughter than my son.

While awarding everyone the right to behave equally has been achieved, ingrained behaviours are slower to change.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Friday, 27 February 2009 11:31:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"So rather than scoffing and despairing over young women, and scolding them when they behave like young men, perhaps it would be more fruitful to try to understand and account for the cultural significance and reasons behind the raunch trend."

Nina, why not explain "the cultural significance and reasons behind the raunch trend"?
Posted by Seneca, Friday, 27 February 2009 11:44:14 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
It's not the s_xualising of the women in that show that creates the compelling, but cringeworthy moments - it's the gaping social chasm between Britain's upper-middle and upper classes, and pretty much the way that all Australians live. Aussie John Symons and Malcolm Turnbull live in big houses in Point Piper, but social class distinctions don't define their lives in anywhere like the same ways as their UK counterparts.

While both Australia and Britain have class systems, and both share some outward forms (private school systems, private members clubs) most Australians are oblivious to the unspoken ones in Britain. Clangers that "posh" Australians could easily drop in the UK without realising it would include:

* Pockets on business shirts in London(social DEATH)
* Taking a jacket off in a traditional London club
* Unhealthy fascination with an aristocratic title (Americans are also particularly bad at this)

What hope does an Australian male from Shore or Scotch have if they commit these faux pas, let alone one of the ladettes from Bogantown Plains?

The Ladettes need a "translator" too. If all they want is to get out of it at home is a guernsey on reality tv, followed by lads mags, then fine.

BUT...if they REALLY want to learn the cues and nuances that will help them rival, beat or join the ranks of the girls from Loreto or PLC back at home - then they gain keys to more social confidence and power, which can lead to more economic power.

Or maybe I'm intellectualising a bit much over some standard reality commercial TV?
Posted by Hugh Abbot, Friday, 27 February 2009 3:25:17 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
These shows are highly contrived.

You can bet that if one of the ladettes is not acting within the confines of her designated part she will be admonished to 'bogan' it up a bit more. It is all about ratings.

It is not reality, only a reality TV show which is a completely different animal.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 27 February 2009 4:13:08 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
The author is attempting to use feminism mean that she should be able to make any choice without scrutiny. However, there are other (less convenient) feminist ideals.
All choices are made in the context of a variety of influences. These should be critically evaluated. One is the (now discredited) self-esteem movement. Your friends may well be telling you that you won't be judged for slutty behaviour. Just because they are telling you what you want to hear doesn't necessarily mean they are doing you a favour. Another influence on this trashy behaviour is the idea that it is ok for women to behave this way, because it is socially acceptable for men to behave poorly. This claim is indefensible garbage.
You would also hope that these women would think about the effect of their behaviour on others. When they pick up random men from nightclubs, they create a world where other women can't go out without being harassed by sleazy guys. When they sleep around, they tell men that they should not bother getting in long time relationships. When they reward highly assertive men with sex, they help to create a world with sexual harassment. I could go on and on. These women are only feminists until they need to make any sacrifice.
If feminists are to help women to find happiness, they might also encourage discussion about the choices that different women make and what that woman gains and loses. Women who act this way make it hard for themself to form a long-term relationship with any man who can afford to be fussy. Other women need to be told this, if only to make informed choices.
Freedom of choice doesn't mean choices without scrutiny
Posted by benk, Friday, 27 February 2009 4:17:25 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
I actually saw this show the other day and it is just unbelievable how much of a set up it is. The old hags with their mock outrage and their condescension. Fat old bigots living in the dark ages. The sad, gullible youth they choose. Fools who think fame will be their ticket to freedom instead they get humiliation and contempt. Its just so predictable. They always kick out the troublemakers first. The ones who wont "play the game". Then they get rid of the boring ones. Leaving us with the same plastic airheads that seem to populate television these days. Bloody appalling.
Posted by mikk, Friday, 27 February 2009 5:29:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Somehow, Seneca, I imagine your invitation will remain unanswered. I doubt whether Nina, or anyone else, could satisfactorily explain the cultural significance or reasoning behind the raunch trend. What's there to explain in a trend whose gaze barely shifts above the level of its own garishly studded navel?

Just as any intelligent critique of raunch culture is unlikely to emerge, so too is it equally unlikely that Nina and her pole dancing friends could ever begin to understand the despair felt by first wave feminists as they watch their young stilettoed sisters gyrating ever lower and more inanely to win male approval.

To think these earlier feminists once believed their collective struggle for empowerment might one day challenge the political and economic structures that entrench the disadvantage experienced by women and other marginalized minorities.

Yes, indeed, how dare they be so patronizing!
Posted by Bronwyn, Saturday, 28 February 2009 12:47:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benk your post states – that when women pick up men from nightclubs they create a world where other women can’t go out without being harrassed by sleazy guys.

I think the world has always been a place where women have been harrassed by sleazy guys. Isn’t that the reason Mohammed commanded the Muslim women to wear their covering robes and veils because they were being harrassed in the streets by men even back in those times.

There has never been an army of males yet who haven’t raped every female in sight as soon as they have taken a city or town . It just shows you, it’s not the women in nightclubs that cause them to behave this way.

I agree with your point when you say that all the available sex, and that includes all the lovely motel style brothels that are million dollar businesses, make it hard for women to form stable committed relationships in which they can feel secure enough to have children because the men are 40years old and still don’t want to accept any responsibility when there are so many other women to be had. A lot of women don’t seem to mind not having children over much any way if the man doesn’t want them these days. Society expects them to work full time and care for children too or else hand their children over to the care of strangers and it can place a huge burden on their shoulders.
These men and women live great lifestyles but the impact on these childless societies is yet to be known. It may lead to extinction.
Posted by sharkfin, Saturday, 28 February 2009 12:52:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have to admit to not watching the show, however, thanks to Marieke Hardy of The Age newspaper I have heard one of the best quotes ever, from one of the Ladettes herself to the matrons:

"I just think you're trying to turn us into decorated f--kdolls for the pleasure of men," Ladette Mt Isa.

Hilarious. As Homer would say. "It's funny because it's true."

http://www.theage.com.au/news/entertainment/tv--radio/leave-the-lovely-lively-ladettes-be/2009/02/25/1235237713301.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1
Posted by Fractelle, Saturday, 28 February 2009 9:01:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*I just think you're trying to turn us into decorated f--kdolls for the pleasure of men," Ladette Mt Isa.*

Ah Fractelle, no point marrying them and paying their bills,
if there is no pleasure :) Let them cry in their pillows or
buy a dog.
Posted by Yabby, Saturday, 28 February 2009 12:42:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As a fun twist the producers could bring in the woman from "You are What you Eat" or similar to explain to the obese "Lady" just what's wrong with her, perhaps some fashion consultants to explain to all the "Ladies" just how appaulingly they dress. Now that could be fun.

I've not bothered with the show much but I do recall one segment where the ladets's were advised to play hard to get. The context seemed to be to trick men, to teach that no does not really mean no.

I've also wondered about another version "Lad to Lord", where lad's were taught "Lordly" behaviour. From the tabloid reportings of Prince Harry's social life maybe they could have him in the first season.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Saturday, 28 February 2009 2:50:59 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
R0bert

We must've been channelling the same zeitgeist. I was about to promote a "Lads to Lords" program; in the interest of balance of course.

Turn a bunch of beer swilling chundering yobs into effete toffee-nosed lords, for no more reason than entertainment.

Not partial to either yobs or snobs, prefer humans of either gender myself.
Posted by Fractelle, Sunday, 1 March 2009 10:08:28 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
Bronwyn thank you.

Could it be that "the reasoning behind the raunch trend" is no more than a means to sell media to the masses? This then advertises the goods required for the appropriate "raunch look" be it merchandise or plastic surgery.

And to think that young so-called "feminist" academics valorise this culture of booze, burgers and boobs
Posted by Seneca, Sunday, 1 March 2009 4:33:53 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
Y'know, I may be missing something here, but I can't help but feel this all boils down to a pretty simple answer.

Ar*eholes are ar*eholes, be they male, female, rich, poor, loud or judgemental.
I try to avoid them regardless of what manner of pretensions they favour, be it their ability to swear or their distaste for inappropriate attire.

Ain't it a wonderfully diverse world we live in?
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Sunday, 1 March 2009 6:52:05 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
We are worshippers of science so why should we complain when science sets half the human race free. For the first time in recorded history, women, who make up slightly more than half the human race, can control their fertility, can reasonably expect not to get life threatening diseases from having sex, and can drink with full equality in pubs.

Twenty years ago, you could tell a university educated woman, because she was not afraid to use the F word, and swear or get drunk. In the last twenty years, many more women are feeling free to express themselves in what was called colourful language. More power to them.

Our civilization is still dependant upon women, and it has been said that men are a breeding experiment conducted by women. If it were not for women, and the standards they expect from men, very little would be achieved. Love is an enormously strong motivating force, driving the housing industry, the fashion industry, and the creation of children. I once had a business that attracted eighty percent female clients, and it was fascinating to talk to them about their hopes and desires. Almost all of them wanted to meet a man who was fun, a great lover, with whom to spend the rest of their lives.

The very intelligent ones complained that as soon as a man realized they were more intelligent than he was, the last thing they saw of him was his derriere disappearing out the door. Alcohol has always been a way to cope with the realities that a person would rather not face. For some it is addictive. Girls and boys are very different, but in some ways the pressures are just as great on each.

Boys will be boys, and girls will be girls, and the way boys used to raunch around, forty years ago, is now being repeated by the ladies. The difference is simply that now it is in the open, instead of being hidden, and instead of parents turning a blind eye, its now in their face
Posted by Peter the Believer, Monday, 2 March 2009 6:01:42 AM
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
What an interesting observation, PtB.

>>Twenty years ago, you could tell a university educated woman, because she was not afraid to use the F word, and swear or get drunk. In the last twenty years, many more women are feeling free to express themselves in what was called colourful language. More power to them<<

Considerably more than twenty years ago, I was living in the East End of London, and I recall that there were many, many women there who were not university educated - in fact, who had left the education system at fourteen - who were equally free with an entire thesaurus of swear words, and were entirely unafraid to get drunk.

Now I think about it, the major change since then has been a form of role-reversal.

The erstwhile potty-mouths have made an effort to (as they see it) clean up their act, on the basis that they believe that self-control is a pre-requisite to being considered good-mannered, while at the same time, the old-school blue-stockings have gradually taken up the F-word cudgels on their behalf, on the basis that it shows them to be liberated and empowered.

I'm not sure about this, though...

>>Boys will be boys, and girls will be girls, and the way boys used to raunch around, forty years ago, is now being repeated by the ladies.<<

This concept - that it was only the guys who used to put it about a bit - has always puzzled me.

Surely, from a purely statistical perspective, there would have to be the same number of each?
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 2 March 2009 10:33:14 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
Pelican has hit the nail on the head - the show is almost entirely contrived and is aimed purely at securing maximum ratings. I don't understand all of this ideological agonising over something that is purely a ratings ploy.
Posted by Mandy9, Monday, 2 March 2009 11:44:31 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
Mandy, I've no doubt the show is exactly as you and Pelican describe. I've never watched it myself, so wouldn't know how much 'ideological agonising' it would actually be capable of generating.

I do know that Nina's comments here though do indeed raise several broader ideological and philosophical questions.

One in particular that caught my interest was the suggestion that young women view the criticism levelled at them by first wave feminists as an attempt to regulate and control or, as in Catharine Lumby's words, as looking suspiciously like the same patriarchal order the old guard itself once opposed.

Being to some extent a student of the old guard myself, I certainly couldn't let that go unchallenged. I remember well the lofty aims of the early feminists, of how they dared to dream of a different world, a world that would be a better and fairer place for all women, a world in which women could throw off the shackles confining them to the subordinate role of ornamentation, and a world in which women could work alongside men as equals to effect change for all.

To see young women today, whose choices have been broadened due to the efforts of their sisters before them, turn around and liken these early trailblazers to the old 'patriarchal order' is just so wide of the mark that it requires some sort of correction.

I don't think older feminists are wanting control. I'm sure they're more than willing to hand the baton onto the next generation. Many must despair though at the way their collective ideals have been abandoned and their humanitarian aims sold out.

I doubt they're trying to regulate the younger generation. They just want to remind them that feminist ideals run to much more than achieving the individual right to behave badly, that feminism doesn't require a selling out of femininity and that, if women aspire to equality with men, they need to move beyond their preoccupation with seducing them.

How this relates to the show in question is beyond me, but I think these perennial issues are always worth discussing.
Posted by Bronwyn, Monday, 2 March 2009 2:37:46 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
Bronwyn- : Feminism doesn’t require a selling out of feminity and that if women aspire to equality with men they need to move beyond their prepoccupation with seducing them.

I don’t think that will ever happen Bronwyn as the attraction between the sexes will always be eternal. Women have been freed to act spontaneously on those attractions because of the contraceptive pill and because they are no longer expected by society to have children but are praised and applauded if they have high flying careers and heaps of money in their pockets. This leaves them free to live as men. Isn’t that what womens lib always encouraged and praised them for doing, taking on the career role of men. Well this is the result.

Womens liberation got the balance wrong, they should have fought for more recognition and status for the female role in societies , not for the recognition of females doing male roles in societies. This only reinforces that the male role is superior to the female role,with the job of mother being the most looked down on job. Worse than a janitor.

I believe that history will look back on this time as the beginning of the downfall of the Western Empire. The fact that we do not produce children is leading to our self extinction.
Posted by sharkfin, Monday, 2 March 2009 9:49:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sharkfin -
The fact that we do not produce children is leading to our self extinction.

And exactly what is wrong with that? If we choose to become extinct then that is our perfect right. If we choose to live in such a way that precludes children then that is a perfectly valid option. Why is it better for us to continue than to become extinct?
Posted by phanto, Monday, 2 March 2009 11:04:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
sharkfin

"Womens liberation got the balance wrong, they should have fought for more recognition and status for the female role in societies , not for the recognition of females doing male roles in societies."

I totally agree with you. Many of the early feminists did envisage a society where the nurturing role of women was raised in status to equal the more warrior/entrepreneurial masculin role, and where both men and women would, within the confines of nature, be free to choose whichever role they'd prefer.

Such feminists once imagined an alternative to the dominant androcentric model. They imagined a world where the more feminine values of nurturing, caring, co-operating and sharing would replace the dominance of the more masculin values of competition, aggression and acquisition.

Other feminists weren't interested in changing the world so much as they were in changing women's position within it. It's more this stream of feminism which has triumphed. Women haven't changed the androcentric model of society at all. They're participating in it differently than they once were, but to many like myself, they've sold out on many of the earlier feminist ideals. Women are now competing with men and on men's terms. Femininity has been devalued and feminine values remain as marginalised as they ever were.

I don't agree though with your assessment that the 'Western Empire' is in downfall because women aren't producing children. To me, the West is in downfall because it hasn't managed to change from the aggressive, competitive and aquisitive model which is to my mind ultimately leading it on a path of self-destruction.

So you could say we both predict the same gloomy outlook if for different reasons! We share some similar views on feminism and femininity though which for me anyway is a refreshing change.
Posted by Bronwyn, Monday, 2 March 2009 11:27:07 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
*Women are now competing with men and on men's terms.*

Bronwyn, that might be the case in the business world, well
fair enough, women can't have it all their way.

As it is, some women expect men to contribute to the housework,
up to their standards, not mens standards. Women call the
shots in the bedroom too, when she has a headache, so be it.

Certainly not all women, but some women want everything on their
terms!

Sorry, unless you can find yourself a henpeckable husband,
many men will simply refuse to play that game.
Posted by Yabby, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 9:11:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sharkfin yu wirte

'Let’s call a garden spade a spade,and let’s call a spade that will have casual sex with an accomodating lady or an accomodating man for the night by the same name too. A trollop if that’s the name you think fits. And it fits either male or female.'

I happen to agree with you on this one. The article is however written about loose women, whores, sluts or whatever other name you wish. The author is championing this 'freedom' which says it all. With attitudes like the author is is no wonder many men think like the Mufti who refers to loose women as meat. I personally feel sorry for young girls who are trying to live an upright life when they have to have feminist like the author contributing to the breakdown in society because she wants the 'right; to sleep with whoever, whenever and without anyone raising an eyebrow. Selfishness actually describes this view more than feminism.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 10:04:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I happen to live in Sydney, and my observations in the last two years, are that there are little feet pattering everywhere. I put if down to the recognition, by the now almost adequate Baby Bonus, of the maxim that home made are best. Whether girls raunch or not is really immaterial. What really matters is that women fulfil their unique role in society of producing a next generation.

To this end a Church I know, has special programs aimed at lifting the self esteem of women as they move from the raging hormone era of 16-24, to the child rearing times of their life. Many women feel enormous guilt from their raunching days, but they should not do so. This Church does not do any judging at all. It accepts all women as wonderful and teaches that God made men and women, and Christ accepted even a Samaritan woman, as part of his following. He healed a woman who was an untouchable, to a Rabbi, as He was, and when He as a man without sin, stared down a crowd who wanted to stone a woman to death, caught in flagrante delicto, and refused to do so himself, He proved himself the non-judgmental champion of womanhood everywhere.

I know how much love most women have to give, and most give that love to their children without qualification or stint. The days when girls were frightened into chastity are gone. The days when they were terrified of getting pregnant are gone and the spectre of a shotgun wedding has disappeared hopefully forever. As a young man I knew two young women who went away and had babies and gave them up. They had families afterwards, but there was always a small sad corner in their eyes, as they mourned for their firstborn. That is no longer the case.

It is wonderful to live in a society where women are respected. It is great to see women enjoying life, and walking with their children, as often as not with their man by their side. A little raunch is immaterial
Posted by Peter the Believer, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 10:55:58 AM
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
Panthos-: If we choose to become extinct then that is our perfect right. If we choose to live in such a way that precludes children then that is a perfectly valid option.

You may choose this if you wish, as long as you also choose not to accept any of the services rendered to you by other peoples’ children when your generation becomes too decrepit to work any more.
Will you be one of the ones who tries to buy the limited doctors and nursing services with money when in reality it should only be the people who had children who are entitled to these services, (I am not of course in any way applying this to those who genuinely could not have children for medical reasons.)
If war breaks out you will expect a reasonably young army to defend you, you will expect other peoples’ children to die for you. You may not of course become extinct by gently dying out, you could just as probably suffer the fate of other races who were too weak to defend against aggression and be horribly overrun and slaughtered. Don’t count on the United Nations to save you they don’t usually act until the massacres have reached huge numbers, if then.
Posted by sharkfin, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 6:29:56 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
Sharkfin -

They all sound pretty selfish reasons for having a child. If I asked my parents why they had me and they gave any of those reasons I wouldn't feel very loved.

I can't choose extinction - it has to be a consensus.
Posted by phanto, Tuesday, 3 March 2009 9:23:27 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
Panthos-: No individual can survive easily without the support of a non hostile group or community around them usually called tribes although the academics prefer the word ethnic as it fits in with their more politically correct idea of the brotherhood of man.(but that’s a whole other debate). When I had my children I wasn’t even thinking of things like that, I was into the whole love and marriage and have children fairytale. Many years later I can see that I followed the programming of nature as all species do. The programme laid down for survival of the species. You either choose children or you choose to become a dying race and hand the sovereignty of your country to others.
Posted by sharkfin, Wednesday, 4 March 2009 7:55:26 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
Sorry should have been Pantho forgot to delete the s.
Posted by sharkfin, Wednesday, 4 March 2009 8:27:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
*Many years later I can see that I followed the programming of nature as all species do.*

Well exactly, often it has little to do with choosing, everything
to do with genes and hormones dominating. People have kids to
satisfy their hormonal/genetic needs and urges, so are acting
out of self interest.

But lets get things straight. wether sharkfin had kids or not,
hardly matters in the bigger scheme of things. With the planet
increasing by 80 million people a year, your two or three really
don't matter.

What we do know from basic evolution theory is that if a species
keeps multipling unsustainably and the environment becomes overloaded,
poof, nature will eventually sort it out with one big thud.

With 6.5 billion humans rising to 9 billion, the species is hardly
at the point of extinction, far more likely to end with a thud,
due to overstressing the environment.

Then it will be back to cockroaches and ants thriving, as the
planet keeps spinning.

We humans will have been a mere blip in the history of planet earth.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 4 March 2009 9:21:29 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
It seems that sharkfin is saying that women should not behave raunchly because it would harm their prospects of becoming mothers and we need mothers to produce kids so that we will have someone to look after us in our old age.

Shouldn't each woman be free to choose to have children or not? Is her life worthless unless she has produced offspring? Is it not better to have a society based on freedom of choice than on the fear of growing old? If freedom of choice means that we have no one to care for us when we are old then too bad. I don't think anyone owes me care. I have no right to anyone's care. If they give it as a gift or in return for wages well fair enough but it is not my right. People should not care out of guilt or because that is why they were brought into the world. You cannot dictate to anyone how they will live their life.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 5 March 2009 12:18:33 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
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

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