Mmmmh?

"But, perhaps the biggest challenge still is to imagine and construct healthier and sustainable gender norms and relations for both men and women"

I think I read something like this about 20 years ago.

I wonder WHO gets to decide what the healthier and sustainable gender norms are?

How about forgetting the gender stuff, and just seeing how each individual relationship works? What's wrong with stirring the dip, if you like playing hostess? Or staying home to raise the kids while your wife works? Or for that matter, while your husband works?

If two people are going to make it, surely within that couple, they have to find their own way, make it work for themselves, and sod what opinion-makers, or Hollywood, or Behrendt and Tuccillo say?

Maybe I'm naive - and I'm single, after all, but I think relationships are a bit more complicated than one person having a party and the other one stirring the dip.

I think our obsession with categorising everything is compounding the problem. Sterotypes are really a marketing tool developed to sell movies, mod-cons, government policy etc. It's hard to escape them, we just need to accept that, while there may be trends and similarities, people are individuals who need to work it all out for themselves.

I always wanted to write one of those 'dating rules' books but reality got in the way. I know what the writers mean but it's pretty 'glass half full'.

It took the cognititve therapists in the 50s and 60s to say, well, yeah, just because he or she ain't in to you, that ain't a reflection on you. Hard lesson to learn that one - and not necessarily overly political either. Just life.

Still, it's good to read commentary that is alive to silly American kiss, pout and whine fantasies.

After 100 years of producing crap what would you expect of the movie industry? Maybe the authors would prefer weak emasculated men who allow themselves to be dominated by females. We have enough whimpish men today who neglect to lead and love their families. Often the woman who starts out wanting to wear the pants finds herself exasperated that the one she has in subjection (mainly by sex) won't discipline the children or make a clear decision in life.

I would rather a faithful woman in the kitchen with an apron cooking for her man a meal then a loud mouthed woman dressed like a prostitute half sozzled at a bar. The sooner the feminist stop bucking what is natural and accept the fact that many woman like having a man (not a whimp) the better. Funny that many of the daughters of feminist have rejected their mothers mantras.

Fascinating.

I haven't seen the movie in question, nor have I read the book. I strongly suspect that this situation is unlikely to change.

But one thing about its description in this piece simply shouted out at me.

Gigi.

Is it just coincidence, or was it a piece of Hollywood subliminal trickery, to name the main character after the eponymous heroine of a fifty-year-old musical, where...

"She's a bright little teen-age tomboy living in Paris at the century's turn and highly resistant to the notion, insisted upon by her grandmother and great-aunt, that she should grow up. Particularly is she resistant to their intention that she should learn all the graces and qualities of a lady so that she may become an accomplished courtesan."

http://movies.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9E00EFDC173DE53BBC4E52DFB3668383649EDE

An accomplished courtesan? What could Hollywood have been thinking?

I have to wonder how the authors of this piece would have reviewed that particular "Gigi".

"...the hero is clearly built up as an elegant, blasé young bachelor with an amiable indifference toward the child, it is plain that he's being set for dazzling when the butterfly bursts from the cocoon. It does and he is — all in the spirit of good, racy, romantic fun."

The subtext of the 1958 "Gigi" is quite appalling. It is entirely accepted, for example, that the role of women is as mere chattels. No preparing of dip for her, though. Just the life of a kept woman.

It would be difficult, I suggest, for anyone in 2009 to watch without squirming with vicarious embarrassment.

But the question it leaves me with is simply this: what was its impact?

As the authors parting shot has it...

"...perhaps the biggest challenge still is to imagine and construct healthier and sustainable gender norms and relations for both men and women."

I'd suggest that we have at least made a modicum of progress in that direction. And more importantly, that Collette's Gigi-in-celluloid had absolutely no adverse impact on that progress, whatsoever.

It could have been worse Pericles, they could have named her Gigli.

"I would rather a faithful woman in the kitchen with an apron cooking for her man a meal then a loud mouthed woman dressed like a prostitute half sozzled at a bar."

And those seem to be the only alternatives in runners world.
No thought to a capable woman able to discipline the children herself when needed or one who makes decisions with her partner. No understanding that men can be men without needing to dominate their partners or have them subject to manly authority. No understanding that women are able to make informed choices about how they dress and or how much they drink without a man to direct them.

As for the article. Mostly great but the start of the article focussing on the women as victims of men thing was off putting. Far better to focus on a rething of relationships and expectations than genderised point scoring.

One of the central themes that I've seen from the add's for this film and the Sex in the City show and films is that of relationships being an end in themselves. They become an item on a checklist for people which needs to be ticked off to get the right life with little thought to what it's really about. Relationships get treated a bit like a car, most of have to have one, we have some preferences about what type we would like to have but if thats not within our means then we will have a different one.

R0bert

I haven't seen the movie either, and probably won't because it looks inane. I daresay that despite whatever pop culture messages are out there the majority of men and women will just continue on doing the best they can to get along and trying to make the most of their lives and relationships. And there may even be a bit of joy in there, and a bit of fun and mutual appreciation and cooking and lovemaking.
I know that there is a certain amount of amusing dysfunction on this blog and, if some of us are honest, it is the reason we come here - a bit of a glimpse at ways of thinking that are really "out there", although it detracts seriously from worthwhile public debate. But really, the following is too much: "I would rather a faithful woman in the kitchen with an apron cooking for her man a meal then a loud mouthed woman dressed like a prostitute half sozzled at a bar."
The madonna/whore stereotype nonsense really is beyond the pale. If a woman isn't being kept under wraps, performing her duties in the kitchen, then she is likely to go wild. The fear and hatred of women really comes through here. Women's freedom is to be feared and measures taken to prevent it. What garbage. It is actually possible for a woman, like me for example, to have a busy, engaging career away from the kitchen and have no desire to dress like a prostitute and drink in a bar. Is there no middle ground with you people? Even if I did, inexplicably, feel like doing the latter stereotypical activity, I doubt my partner would mind too much. He would just assume that I am in charge of my own life and am making my own decisions. He knows, and he is the stronger and better man for it, that women are not objects to be controlled but individuals who are in charge of their own destiny.

Look while I respect and agree with the Authors, the reality is everyone is different some people are into those ideas. Oh well it takes all sorts.
Runner I am married to a strong women with a mind of her own, and that's just the way I like it. I have no interest in having a live in servant. Rather I want (and have) a friend and lover who challenges me and is better than me in many respects. It's say nothing about my "manliness" as I define that note her just as I don't define her womanliness". But I will say one thing, I'm far more confident in my manliness then you are, in fact I think you’re scared of women.

For over a hundred years, life according to Hollywood has followed a simple gender script ...

Men win wars and grand finals, defeat bad guys, climb mountains, lead nations and corporations, save damsels, seek vengeance when wronged, go on road trips, defend their principles, go from rags to riches and back again, fight crime or turn to crime, have mid-life crises and testosterone-driven coming of age crises … and generally save the world on a regular basis.

Women, however, spend all their waking moments either looking for a man to love them, worrying about whether they have what it takes for a man to love them and, if they already have a man who loves them, they are fretting about whether the man will stop loving them.

There might be a message or two in earnest chic-flicks like HJNIY, but they’re mostly fake. Basically, they remain firmly ensconced within the male-centric paradigm that women’s fortunes are inextricably linked to their desirability.

The only way this will ever change is to have a 50% quota of women’s bums on director’s seats, telling stories about the true reality of women’s lives, instead of Hollywood’s endlessly regurgitated fantasy that women spend their entire lives in pursuit of a man’s love.

JamesH

It’s just occurred to me. By applying the ‘He’s Just Not Into You’ Law to your posting history, could it be that the reason you’re so mean to feminists is because deep down you really like them? ... Just kidding.

Runner

‘I would rather a faithful woman in the kitchen with an apron cooking for her man..’

So would a lot of men, especially if the apron is ALL she’s wearing.

Dr Claire Kelly,

Thank you. No need to post my comments now.

Actually,

Yeah. And that Bruce Willis, there's no way the same thing could have happened to him three years in a row at Christmas in the Die Hard movies!

This article reminds me of a scene from a movie I've forgotten the name of. A black guy was convinced that pool was a racist game because the whole goal is to sink the black ball into the hole using the white ball. It is based on a the white man's fear of the potency of the black man's superior sexual potency.

Sometimes.... it's just a f*ckn movie man!

More twaddle.

As an observant school boy, in the 50s, I saw those downtrodden house wives.

I saw those tough men, come home, with the unopened pay packet, & hand it to their little play thing. I saw the tough guy hold out his hand for his pocket money for the week.

Any time there was entertaining going on, it was at her insistence, not his, he'd rather sit around in his jocks, & socks.

I saw the down trodden wife at bridge, tuesday afternoon, & at tennis, wednesday. Sure, many of them had to do a day a fortnight at the school tuckshop, but that was bearable, & could be fun, with afternoon tea, somewhere afterwards.

I'm sure these silly girls write this stuff, trying to convince them selves they have it made. Wrong girls, you've given up the good life my mum had, silly things.

If most of today's overworked, overwrought young mums ever had a chance to experience the down trodden life of a 50s mum, you would never get them back to work, in an office, or what have you. But keep it up girls, industry, & the government have all these computers, & we need those working mums to drive them.

I even made my down trodden lady sail 20,000 miles around the pacific with me, before I'd accept she was not one of those ghastly career types. Just why she had to take all that child bearing stuff so seriously, I don't know. But then, I never have been able to understand women.

And here was I thinking that all the dinosaurs died millions of years ago.

Your nom de plume is so amazingly accurate Hasbeen, its scary.

Never have truer words been written: "But then, I never have been able to understand women." Thanks for showing your igorance Hasbeen. A very apt epithet too - well done. As one of those "ghastly career women" I can tell you that I have a very much more interesting, exciting and intellectual life than your doormat of a partner.

'much more interesting, exciting and intellectual life than your doormat of a partner.'

Ah, that old doozy. Any women who enjoys caring for children at home and cooking is by definition a doormat? Feminism is about choice, different strokes and all that...

No, Houellebecq, not a doormat for staying at home and looking after children. That is a noble occupation. A doormat for allowing Hasbeen to browbeat her into complying with his wishes.

"A doormat for allowing Hasbeen to browbeat her into complying with his wishes."

What absolute bollocks, all this does is betray your own prejudice and lack of humour. It is plain that Hasbeen was writing tongue in cheek. It says a lot about anyone who could get indignant about Hasbeen's comments or a romantic comedy that they cannot laugh at themselves.

It is true that feminists only have a sense of humour when it is at the cruel expense of men, but the film and Hasbeen's wry and dry sense of humour allow you to have a chuckle if only you will not take yourself so seriously.

In any event, look around you and you will find that many, not some, women rejoice in the choice of managing a household, caring for a family and in many cases, involving themselves in the cottage industries that go with it. Some women enjoy being looked after by their husband, as much as some men (man?) like the woman to take care of household finances an so on. Most couples are flexible these days and flip flop back and forth of their roles and this includes that of being the wage slave.

You are correct in that it is all about choice, but you are wrong as feminists usually are to then flop back into the familiar rut of blaming men for 'subjugating' women who make that choice. What is apparent though is that women could do without the extra stress of your political correctness.

Returning to the film, men could also complain about their treatment in it, but thank goodness none have been foolish enough to take umbrage and maybe have taken some lessons from it. For example, why string a woman along for years taking advantage of her generosity. Be man enough to make your intentions clear from the outset.

This argument exemplifies my original point... surely, if Hasbeen and his wife find that structure to their relationship to be right for them, what right does anyone have to call him a bully, or her a doormat?

And I, like Cornflower, agree that many of his comments were meant to be tongue-in-cheek. I don't think he is actually calling career women 'ghastly'. Humour doesn't always translate well in text, but I think from the whole tone, he is making the point that while much has been gained for women (and men), much has been lost along the way - something I think anyone would agree with.

Dr Claire Kelly

Some might enjoy a chuckle at Hasbeen’s scenario about the power and the glory of being a fifties wife, but I sensed an underlying malice in the humour. That’s my right as a human being ... as it is Miranda's. Just because someone is writing tongue in cheek does not oblige us all to find them funny. I would say that’s a ‘choice’. Wouldn’t you?

‘…if Hasbeen and his wife find that structure to their relationship to be right for them, what right does anyone have to call him a bully, or her a doormat’.

That also works in reverse. If many women find that feminism and the struggle for women's equality with men gives structure and purpose to their lives, then they have the right to voice their views without being patronized as ‘silly girls’ or bullied by vindictive accusations of hating men and despising stay-at-home mums - as often happens.

Cornflower

‘… In any event, look around you and you will find that many, not some, women rejoice in the choice of managing a household, caring for a family and in many cases, involving themselves in the cottage industries that go with it.’

Fine. And many – not some – women rejoice in feminism and the challenge of renegotiating a gender relations structure that fits the changing times. Many women love the challenges, the insights and mental stimulation feminism brings them – as well as the friendships and cameraderie. Many women can genuinely say – myself included - that feminism has brought enormous benefit to them as wives, as mothers, as professionals and as citizens.

While insisting on the right of women to choose the life they want, your posts regularly deny this right to feminists – who are, after all, just choosing to live the life they want based on a philosophy they believe in.

Fair enough!

Sorry to have caused offense.

SJF

No, there is no diabolical trickery or plot against (your brand of) feminism. Do really need to wear your belt so ridiculously high?

It is just a romantic comedy and a bit of fun, so try to sit back and enjoy it.

I am not sorry you have your dander up because you did that to yourself and you alone have to take responsibility for your choices in life.

Hasbeen, I know a few of those ghastly career women, they have a chip on their shoulder larger than the sydney harbour bridge.

Not all, some!

If they don't get their way, they blame the patriarchial oppression in order to win.

I know a few blokes who go and hide in the toilet, some place safe.

Mind you there a few particularly nasty blokes as well.

Thanks for the sense of humour, & the support you blokes. The vitriol may have got me, with out it. Some of those responses, were pretty silly. How could they take my post that way?

For the record, when I met my wife, she was a paying passenger/crew on an American cruising yacht. She was taking time out from a pretty high powered career. It was she that draged me back out into the islands. After 50,000 miles, mostly single handed, I was getting tired of the Pacific ocean jumping on my head, every time I went out of sight of land.

Still, the sight of a huge tropic moon, comming up out of a calm Solomon sea is best shared, so it was fun.

It was she who talked me into the tourist industry, where we did have a lot of fun. It was she who argued that 46 was not too old to become a father, & then, after the second kid, decided that the tourists were fun, but we needed more income now.

It was me who spent 8 years, running a farm, just out of town, being Mr mum, doing the tuckshop thing, while she returned to her career, in a major regional city.

Then, after yet another baby, she wanted to stay home, & play mum, so we had to move to the big smoke, the only place my rather rusty professional skills were in demand. The farm couldn't keep us.

Now I tend our 20 acres, populated by 3 horses, 2 dogs, one cat, 3 birds, & quite a few fish, left behind by those kids, as they spread their wings, while she runs around playing grand mother.

I have spent the last 36 years of my life catering to one lady's dreams, & desires, but that's OK, I'd all ready fulfilled mine, when I met her.

Dose that make me a SNAG, or just a wimp? I don't know, or care. You see, as well as never being able to understand women, I've never given a damn what other people think of me.

Awww, Hasbeen, isn't that nice?

Enjoy your retirement old timer.

I for one do not remotely care what your life story is, nor your wifes.

If your intention in writing that earlier piece was to have some fun and to be some sort of joke or "tongue in cheek" thing, you FAILED dismally.

There are so many out there that are as dinosaurish as you that think that this is the way the world works, that you think that you have somehow countertrended the rest of society and yet can write such tripe speaks volumes. Have a bit of a think about it next time yeah? Maybe run it past the missus first, she seems to be the brains of the outfit for sure.

hasbeen,

You should know by now that there are some women you can never please. One thing us men can never understand is why so many women are so self-obsessed. All we hear about is women this and women that. I mean men don't talk about why men are still in the majority when it comes to the dirty and dangerous jobs like the military and mining. We never hear of the hard-working 50s man who spent his whole life in a job he hated just to provide for his family - only to drop dead from a heart attack at 55.

I think we will only have achieved equility when feminists start jumping up and down demanding to know why so many more male soldiers are be killed in Iraq or Afganistan than women (have any female Australian soldiers been killed in Afganistan?) When they say, 'Why aren't women being blown to bits like men?'

Of course, as this constant navel-gazing by 'wymen' testifies, women see themselves as much more valuable than men. They will never settle for equality because they don't see us as equal.

JamesH

'I know a few blokes who go and hide in the toilet, some place safe.'

Sorry, mate. I hear on good authority that women are wising up to that old exclusionary tactic and following them in. (One of those aforementioned 'authorities' is a certain well-known lady MP and the urinal in question is at a certain well-known parliament house.)

Cornflour [sic]

'I am not sorry you have your dander up because you did that to yourself ...'

Now, Cornpetal. You're being much too humble. You know very well that your spectacularly obnoxious brand of gender conservatism should take at least some of the credit.

SJF

In your feminist world it might well be one of the pinnacles of feminist attainment to confront a man at a urinal, but you can rest assured that the greatest majority of women would be disgusted and angry at the lack of respect and privacy shown and would be demanding an apology.

If as you claim "One of those aforementioned 'authorities' is a certain well-known lady MP and the urinal in question is at a certain well-known parliament house", it doesn't say much for her does it that she would support a Ladette-like oaf (not her I hope!) who could bring the Parliament into disrepute.

If this is representative of your home brand of feminism it is frivolous and immature. Feel free to take a mop and bucket with you when you seek to emulate her stunt.

What is it with your feminism and urinals?

SJF:"(One of those aforementioned 'authorities' is a certain well-known lady MP and the urinal in question is at a certain well-known parliament house.)"

Lends a whole new meaning to "pissing in his pocket".

How would you feel about a man entering unbidden into a female toilet and browbeating someone engages in a private act of excretion?

As usual, this topic has become a parade of women angry because some men don't seem to agree that women are not, in general, downtrodden. They are even more incensed that some women have made their own choices not to be "feminists".

Perhaps if they learned to get over their own inflated sense of self-importance they may come up with a feminist ideology that actually appealed to those women who just want to be women.

Perhaps, they might find that their relationships with men improve to the point that eyes don't glaze over 30 seconds after they open their mouth.

Perhaps, they might even find that fighting biology, while no doubt very satisfying in a masochistic sort of a way, is basically less fun than working with the equipment you've got.

IOW, instead of trying to make men into hairy women, or women into men with concave bits, they might try working out why, after decades of intensive "feminist" maneuvring and forests worth of paper, they find themselves in the minority position any time a topic such as this is discussed by ordinary people?

They might ask themselves why gender relations have become so strained that a Govt has to pay a "bonus" to persuade men to father children and why there is now a very solid cohort of non-religiously-based "anti-feminists", including people of both genders.

If they're honest with themselves, they'll come up with some answers they won't like, so not much chance of that happening. Roll out the polemiciser and chop down a few more forests for the next book. After all, the previous ones have achieved so much...

Cornpower [sic]

You're not too strong at understanding nuance, are you? The men in the anecdote in question were deliberately planning their meetings in the urinal, with the full intention of excluding the women. I would have thought that this was obvious from my use of the words 'exclusionary tactic'.

And isn’t it interesting that your main observation of this anecdote was to declare the women disgusting and let the men’s disturbing behaviour off the hook?

Dane

'Why aren't women being blown to bits like men?'

They are … by landmines and other explosives and/or bombs falling on them from the sky. Or they’re dying of war-related diseases and famines, or they are forced from their devastated countries to become part of mass refugee dislocations, or they’re being targeted for war rape.

In modern warfare, the majority of deaths and casualties are civilian – and women often comprise the majority or at least a substantial minority of these. And the female civilian casualties of war don’t get any medals, or veterans’ pensions, or flag-draped coffins, or military parades, or dawn services, or monuments, or public holidays, or two-minute silences, or eulogies about not growing old.

Antiseptic

'... instead of trying to make men into hairy women, or women into men with concave bits, they might try working out why, after decades of intensive "feminist" maneuvring and forests worth of paper, they find themselves in the minority position any time a topic such as this is discussed by ordinary people?'

The hostile dysfunctionality of the first half of this quote overwhelmingly explains the situation described in the second half of the quote. You're confusing a 'minority position' with the wise decision to disengage with a discussion once it no longer offers anything of positive value.

... which is about the point of dysfunctionality reached by this discussion. So I'm outta here ... and will leave you and the cornpower, James, Hasbeen (et al) 'majority' to high-five one another into the sunset.

Why do women still line up in droves to enter beauty contests, women’s liberation targeted this for extinction back in the 1970’s. They said that these contests were about valuing women for their physical attractiveness and not their value as intelligent human beings. This indicates to me that girls will be girls and that biology will never be overcome because some group of humans or feminist says right, this is how it will be from now on. Nature rules on this planet and we dance to it’s dictates all the while thinking we are directing and controlling things.

Cosmopolitan etc. are just full to the brim with ways for women to beautify themselves and articles about what men think about sex and relationships. (Pleasing men .)
This stuff is multi-million dollar business, the women can’t get enough of it. What was that about not being valued for your looks and not trying to please men girls?

The pill and contraception is the main reason that women can go to wars these days because normally they were usually pregnant . Again it is nature’s law of survival (biology) that laid down the ground rules for who fought wars before contraception.

If all the pregnant and fertile women of the tribe were to be almost wiped out the tribe would become extinct. If however, the women were protected and say half to 3/4s of the men were killed the remaining men would be enough to repopulate the tribe back to its original numbers. It is the number of fertile women who keep tribal numbers at survival levels . . It is also why in overpopulated societies like China, women and girl babies became undesirable because they needed to depopulate. It was well known that a lot of girl babies were killed in China.

SJF "The men in the anecdote in question were deliberately planning their meetings in the urinal, with the full intention of excluding the women. I would have thought that this was obvious from my use of the words 'exclusionary tactic'."

Why would men meet at a urinal to exclude women? There are plenty of alternative venues expressly designed for people to meet, relax and enjoy themselves.

This is just another of those stories cooked up by radical feminists to make some point that has a significance only for them. Why was it important to the storytelling that the man had to be humiliated in a men's toilet?

Again I ask, what is it with feminists of your persuasion and men's urinals? Can't you see why women (and men!) would cringe and be grossed-out by this story - which you obviously get a buzz out of re-telling?

No wonder young women run screaming from feminists.

This is such an interesting discussion, and rather enlightening for me. I live in a world where it is taken for granted that I will exercise my right to work and contribute in ways best suited to my talents, and this doesn't need to be defended. The men in my life, whom I adore, don't feel the need to dictate what I can and can't do. For them, women's freedom has been a positive and natural development. The whole burden of Hasbeen's contribution, and indeed runner's and others on this thread, has been to make it clear that they disapprove of women having such choices. Runner set up a false dichotomy between the faithful woman in the kitchen and the only other possibility, the slut in the bar. Hasbeen derided the ghastly career types. These attitudes are on the wrong side of history and it is reasonable, indeed necessary, to point that out.
It is the oldest trick in the book to accuse people you disagree with of having no sense of humour. It works because it immediately puts people on the defensive and fills them with self doubt. But it is nothing more than a strategic tactic and should be recognised as such - it has nothing to do with the substance of the argument. Wrong-footing people is the last refuge of the person with a weak argument.
There is no real war between the sexes, except out on the periphery where the dinosaurs live. I do feel some sympathy for the the women who live out there with them. And I can muster some sympathy for the dinosaurean men too, who are missing out on some fun times with interesting and lively people.

Very well said indeed, Miranda Suzanne. I couldn't agree more.

Miranda Suzanne:"I live in a world where it is taken for granted that I will exercise my right to work and contribute in ways best suited to my talents, and this doesn't need to be defended."

That is precisely the point. Feminism has achieved the goal of parity of opportunity in Western civilisationand those who claim to be feminists are now seeking to extend their gains to the point of dominance. That is why I oppose them.

If it was wrong to limit the opportunity of women solely based on their gender, it is equally as wrong to do so for men. It constantly saddens me to see negative portrayals of men being men, often produced by the State in the form of "behavioural modification" commercials, designed to make men feel bad about some aspect of their behaviour, yet we very rarely see anything similar for women.

Men are expected to conform to what is expected by women, IOW, while men are constantly being told that they must never impose their own expectations on the women in their lives. This is offensive to any concept of egalitarianism and is at the heart of feminism as it is enacted in legislation.

This whole topic is about the differences between the genders, of which there are many, yet it has fallen into the predictable mould of women complaining that men don't do enough to make them happy and men saying the same about women. It seems that

FWIW, I feel sorry for the hairy-legged trolls who want to be men, just as you feel sorry for the "dinosaurs". They're missing out on an opportunity to have a satisfying relationship with someone who genuinely believes his life should be devoted to their happiness. I guess they're so devoted to their own happiness they don't notice.

Let's not forget, either, that the "feminist revolution" has largely been the product of married male politicians. That may explain why so much legislation seems to pander to the demands of women: the missus rules the roost.

Antiseptic, of course I respect your point of view and I too am uncomfortable with any kind of gender stereotyping, whether it be of men or women. Life is too complicated, nuanced and varied to be reduced to stereotypes. But when you say "...and those who claim to be feminists are now seeking to extend their gains to the point of dominance." you do lose me. If such women exist, I have never met them and am certainly not like that myself. In the real world, most people just want to live their lives peacefully, extracting as much joy and satisfaction as they can along the way. Most of this joy and satisfaction derives from happy, healthy relationships. Dominance games are not the norm. If they exist, they do so among a small number of bitter and twisted people and they are certainly not limited to one gender or the other.
I love the fact that I am free and do not take it for granted. I am hardly a feminist campaigner, being way too busy with other things to take on that mantle. I just do what I do. Coming to this blog and seeing what some people have to say on this subject has made me realise that there are some who don't see things the same way, and that has been educative.

Miranda Suzanne

So does the film He's Just Not That Into You raise your ire or threaten you in any way?

Is it a simply a romantic comedy as some suggest, albeit with some dated concepts that were never taken seriously by anyone least of all women, or should feminists again take to the barricades to repel the sinister backlash against feminism that it represents.

If the latter applies should we immediately stop re-runs of Bewitched for a start.

Of course the review of He's Just Not Into You is a silly, pretentious overreaction to what is nothing more than the usual fluff romantic comedy from Hollywood. There is more to complain about in women's magazines than in this film and respondents who claim otherwise are wearing their feminist belts much too high to be comfortable.

Cornflower

Are you in the slightest bit aware that your comments to Miranda held no relationship to any of her points whatsoever. She was commenting on the vitriol of the likes of Runner and his ilk who still persist in dividing women into virgin or whore categories, a view which belongs in the Dark Ages from whence it came.

I too, in my real life, do not encounter the type of males who prowl the blogs looking to insult and demean specifically women, but sometimes men who agree with the idea of equality (in fact CJ Morgan was referred to as a "snag" on another thread). I have to wonder how small their lives must be if whenever a women posts a POV she is immediately accused of being a "misandrist" or "feminazi"just for having an opinion.

I couldn't give a rat's about the movie - any intelligent person can see it for the Hollywood schlock it is. However, the price of freedom (to work, buy our own homes, education, reproductive health etc) is constant vigilance, hence the humanist response to blatant prejudice and bigotry.

Miranda, you sound like a reasonable person.

As you point out people do not see things the same way, and the reasons for this are many.

I remember an exercise in communication where everyone had the same passage, yet there as many interpretations of that passage as there were people in the room. The first two obvious divisions were gender based, then came life experinces etc.

Some people do not want to think very hard and prefer to take the written word as gospel.

"In the real world, most people just want to live their lives peacefully, extracting as much joy and satisfaction as they can along the way. Most of this joy and satisfaction derives from happy, healthy relationships"

I agree with you on this and I would suggest most people cant be bothered or don't care about this subject.

However a recent article by Cathy Young is interesting.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/03/a_lack_of_reality_about_women.html

Thank you for that link, James. The author is saying exactly the same things that you and I have been saying for a long time - the constant pandering to "women's issues" is out of all proportion to the actual issues they may face and is primarily politically motivated. The once-egalitarian drivers of feminism have turned to a drive for dominance and total control over socio-political matters. Fair enough, perhaps, but let's call a spade a spade.

I'm fascinated by how closely the author's language mirrors my own words on these issues.

Cornflower, you ask "So does the film He's Just Not That Into You raise your ire or threaten you in any way?". Well no - as I pointed out in an earlier post, I haven't seen the movie and don't intend to. It would take a pretty big, powerful film to pose any sort of threat, and this one doesn't sound like that. It is just another bit of ephemeral popular culture and will fade away soon enough. The more interesting thing has been the conversation that the themes of the movie has sparked. I have stumbled here into a display of attitudes that are not common, or at least I haven't encountered them very much. Maybe I have just been lucky. Certainly I have worked in areas where gender stereotyping, of either kind, has been absent or minimal. It has been a shock to find men pronouncing on what I should or shouldn't be doing or claiming to believe that they know who I am because I am a woman. That is self-evidently unsafe, unwise and wrong. When those pronouncements are based upon religious belief they are even more so, because the formulaic and archaic thinking of religion has inbuilt prejudice and always leads to oppression.
While I am no feminist crusader, I do know that there still exist gross gender-based inequalities, particularly in developing countries and/or theocracies and more education and enlightenment are needed there. Maybe a little compassion for some of these issues, rather than angry denouncement of women for impolitely raising them, might lead to wins all round for everyone, including all men.
I think I am a reasonable person, James. That's why I am easily shocked by what I read in the blogs.

Miranda Suzanne. "I live in a world where it is taken for granted that I will exercise my right to work and contribute in ways best suited to my talents, and this doesn't need to be defended. The men in my life, whom I adore, don't feel the need to dictate what I can and can't do. For them, women's freedom has been a positive and natural development."

What a simply wonderfully perfect feminist world you must live in and doesn't the existence of manginas who worship you, stroke you and support you prove that it is so! It is lucky you're not into stereotypes and myths.

Unlike you, I live in the real world where there is always some inequality and unfairness, perceived or otherwise and there is always spirited debate to be had about all sorts of things, including the various brands of feminism that abound. Feminism is a political movement and critical discussion should be encouraged wouldn't you agree? It would be unhealthy and undemocratic to do otherwise.

While on this point, you must lead a sheltered life if any of the comments in this article have startled you because similar issues and concerns are common in books, the media and in other forums. The subject film 'review' by Sheree Cartwright and Anastasia Powell was discussed on ABC Opinion and Analysis and the criticisms were much the same and from women too.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/03/26/2526555.htm

Rather than being a forum seagull (fly in, circle at a great height above and dump on respondents), why not read the book, look at the film and offer some informed criticism of the article? Or would you rather die than do that?

As far as some of the male respondents to the OLO article are concerned, I think most only want the word 'some' used more often where men are being unfairly faulted as a group.

A good start would be to say outright that the men in your life are caring, well-intentioned humans who are not abusers of women and there are many others just like them around.

When we descend into personal attacks (calling people manginas, asserting that 'unlike' others, some of us live in the real world), then as far as I can tell there is no spirited debate left. Just mean-spirited attacks.

Signing out, no longer interested in what comes next. This started off an interesting conversation and the last several pages have been marked by more and more vitriol.

Goodbye all!

I agree Claire. The bitter and twisted types here are beyond the pale. I won't engage with abuse. The loudest abusive types on this blog push away reasoned debate and conversation. Good luck and enjoy your misery.

?And I can muster some sympathy for the dinosaurean men too,
.Posted by Miranda Suzanne, Monday, 30 March 2009 9:05:09 AM

I won't engage with abuse. The loudest abusive types on this blog push away reasoned debate and conversation. Good luck and enjoy your misery.Posted by Miranda Suzanne, Tuesday, 31 March 2009 3:26:03 PM

That's the pot calling the kettle black!

Isn't it funny how these topics always end up with the feminists saying "you're all just abusive and I'm taking my bat and ball and going home" whenever a contrary view is put forward? It's all snipe and run; make a claim then disappear when the questions are asked.

However, Miranda was right about one thing: in today's Australia, women dominate the professions, with more than 52% of employed professionals being women. They also dominate academic institutions and the bureaucracies and have done for years. The brunt of this current economic collapse will be borne by men who have gone to the mines and the construction sites in order to make the "big money" that only lasts for a short time, while women have stayed home, enjoying spending that money and making careers.

I wonder how many of those professional women are going to be prepared to support their men through what may be a long period of unemployment, just as men have always done for their women?

The next statistic to show a big increase will be divorces, as women choose to "protect their assets" by getting rid of the man who worked for it before it gets consumed through his unemployment. With the skewed laws that we have they'd be fools not to, and nobody has suggested that.

That entire post was an April Fool's Day joke, wasn't it Antiseptic?

Asserting that all men are inherent abusers of women is a joke. However it is a vicious joke and it is not restricted to April 1 each year.

*(in fact CJ Morgan was referred to as a "snag" on another thread)*

Sheesh Fractelle, that is really terrible! You mean that CJ
is not a Sensitive New Age Guy? What an insult to call him that!

I am deeply shocked :)

Cornflower I don't recall ever being told that "all men are abusers". I've got some strong views on the way that genderisation of family violence is misrepresented but that's not one of the claims that I've seen the gender warriors make or even hint at.

R0bert

Robert, whether or not someone made the claim that all me are abusers or not is not really the problem. The way I see it, it is more the implied impression that is the problem.

I use to read a wide range of books, but found the negative portrayal of men in feminist texts, extremely depressing.

Just recently I was asked to partake in a phone survey on community attitudes to violence, which I was looking forward too. But it quickly became clear that all the survey was interested in was community attitudes about violence towards women.

I told them that I was willingly to partake in a real survey, not a gender biased one.

Cornflower: << Asserting that all men are inherent abusers of women is a joke >>

I don't suppose you'd care to point out where in the article or discussion anybody has asserted that?

Yabby: << You mean that CJ is not a Sensitive New Age Guy? >>

And there I was thinking you'd called me a sausage. Never mind, just so long as you don't call me late for breakfast :)

CJ

Apologies for mentioning an insult that was directed at you instead of me. I simply wanted to highlight the difficulties Yabby has in accepting that people do not necessarily accept his POV all of the time.

It is entirely possible to have civil discussions where both sides hold opposing views as I have done so with people like Forrest Gump, Ludwig, R0bert, Bronwyn, Pelican and many others. However, as pointed out by yourself and others, there are some people who let their personal problems colour the way they see everyone. Which is unfortunate because we can all learn from each other provided we are open to communication and the fact that everyone has a differing opinion on a wide variety of subjects. Personal insult simply shuts down debate (in fact one poster has admitted that he does this on purpose), for this reason I am losing interest in participating as much as I used to on OLO.

*Apologies for mentioning an insult*

An insult Fractelle? You have got to be kidding! SNAG is an
anacronym that has been around for a while, I made the silly
mistake to think that you knew what it meant.

Now it is seemingly an insult. ROFL. Go and read some of the
posts written by you, insults galore. Luckily I have a great
sense of humour and brush this stuff off.

Rational, you certainly are not

I note that Cornflower hasn't deigned to respond to my request that she point out where anybody in this discussion or article had asserted that "all men are inherent abusers of women".

Why am I not surprised?

RObert

JamesH was correct and no, it wasn't specific to this thread. I think it is a general impression that could be corrected if feminists would be more precise and use 'some' as a qualifier at least.

CJ Morgan

Thursday, 2 April 2009 8:26:45 AM you echoed Robert's question.
Thursday, 2 April 2009 4:29:39 PM you said I had not 'deigned' to respond and added ominously that you weren't surprised.

Normal business hours and business comes first. Nothing odd about that.

Cornflower, I don't recall ever reading any feminist comment that I interpreted as indicating that all men are abusers. Even the radicals might find that they had put to many supporters off side with that one.

I get James's point, I share it to some extent but I think we are far better served by highlighting the problems with what is actually said than by made up claims.

R0bert

R)bert:"I think we are far better served by highlighting the problems with what is actually said than by made up claims"

It is the made up claims that get my goat. It seems that some of the people here (and the Pomeranian, when he can manage to stop humping legs) are unable to parse simple English if it contains any kind of adjectival content or if it comes from one who they believe is "anti-feminist" and hence the enemy.

The fact is that women have had it their own way for so long and have become so used to playing the victim card that it has become reflexive. Any statement or action can be interpreted only two ways - either as an attempt to victimise and if it clearly isn't, then it doesn't go far enough in acknowledging the victimhood of those who seek to make the claim.

It is this constant, dishonest, self-serving barrage from those who make their living out of being women that has lead to the "all men are abusers" comment, I suspect.

It has also lead to the situation that feminist journalists dominate the nation's mainstream media, writing and publishing polemics, whilst the comments addressed to those polemics are usually in disagreement with their premise, often coming from disaffected men who feel abused by the feminist revolution or from women who don't feel like victims. IOW, just the groups that are never acknowledged in the polemics.

What I'd really like to see is a balanced analysis of the state of gender play from a genuine researcher if such a thing exists. The social "sciences" are dominated by women who owe their position to their gender and men who know which side their bread is buttered. A genuinely dispassionate report may be impossible to either fund or have properly reviewed within the current environment.

Meanwhile, women now dominate the professions (the "nice" ones, anyway) and men are still doing the dirty, nasty jobs a long way from home, as long as those jobs exist, anyway.

RObert

A feminist quote? Which one of the dozens of unproven universal generalisations of feminism would you like me to tie it to? You know, those generalisations that fit every situation (well almost).

Heck now I'm confused, what with the profound and irreconcilable disagreements between feminists, not to mention the embarrassing outbreaks of bun fights with the greater multitude of women who are spoken for but never consulted. But hey, anything goes, as long as I stick to that patriarchy script. Feminists are informed by themselves after all and there is always the old favourite, male dominance, to fall back on.

Should it be founded on fact, reason or logic? Never, those are weapons of male dominance too.

So let's go with emotion and intuition which have already received the thumbs-up (hope that doesn't represent male domination) from an assortment of feminist philosophers (whoops, need another word there too).

No, RObert, I didn't make it up myself and it isn't a certified feminist quote either, but I suggest it neatly encapsulates what men seem to think is the essence of the feminist messages they have been getting for years ie., feminists assume that men are abusive to women. No qualification necessary of course.

Rather than argue the toss, this can be resolved in a trice if some feminists could volunteer to take up the very reasonable suggestions contained in the last two paragraphs of my response to MirandaSuzanne. It sounds rather domestic but the proof of the pudding is in the eating.

Which reminds me, I have to go because at my house everyone helps in their own way to get the show on the road. It is called being helpful in the family and pre-dates feminism.

So you just made it up then, Cornflower? In logical terms, I believe that's known as a "straw man" argument and is a classic fallacy.

Poor old Antiseptic's antipathy towards women seems to be growing daily. How very gallant.

CJ Morgan

No I didn't and it was never put forward as a quote.

It is a common enough statement by men bemused and frustrated by unfair, generalised sledging of their gender. As a matter of fact one of the respondents to the ABC forum on 'We’re just not that into it' said something similar. I gave the link in my reply to MirandaSuzanne.

Have a good day.

CJ Morgan:"yapyapyapwhiiiine"

Keep humping those legs, little fella. If you're quick, you might manage to get in a bit of crotch-sniffing too, before they realise what you're doing.

I believe that's known as "projection" in psychology, Antiseptic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection

After all, unlike you I have a good sexual relationship with my loving female partner, and if anybody's continually yapping and whining about women here, it's you.

Hopefully you'll come to terms with your inadequacies one day.

CJMorgan:"yapyapyapyapyapyap"

Oh dear, I knew we should have had him spayed. No crotch is safe when he gets like this.