Myth No 1

Sexual assault occurred.

If anyone can point out at any point where "Claire" engaged in sex due to coercion, force or threat, or at any time did not give verbal consent, or was a minor, or mentally retarded, then the matter of assault could be contemplated.

Otherwise "Claire" must be considered to be at the time a willing participant (if not the instigator) of the sexual encounter.

The fact that later she sufferred from extreme remorse does not suddenly change the actions of the players from idiotic participants to rapists.

If she is the victim it is of her own bad judgement and probably her upbringing.

So you have a group of football players and a 19 year old girl. I don't think you can call the boys idiotic participants. Can you not see how intimidating it would be with all of those men. As stated in the article, the footy players don't go for strong, confident women, they go for the shy and easy to manipulate type. We have to stop accepting this behaviour.

I also agree that if men get on board and speak out against this behaviour it makes a big difference.

And on the comment on upbringing, I think that many of the footy boys had a great upbringing, but they still think it's ok to cheat on their wives and take part in group sex and intimidating women. Upbringing goes out the door when you are in a group. Group mentality rules, especially in a heirarchical situation such as a group of footy players and a young girl.

Till,

You refer to "Claire" as a young girl of 19. (some of the players were 20)

At 18 a person can vote, sign up for military service, and is considered fully capable of making decisions for themselves.

Or perhaps you consider women intellectually inferior, and they should be protected from making the wrong decision? Perhaps they should not be allowed to leave the house unescorted, or drive or vote just in case they make a decision they may regret.

Freedom includes the right to make the wrong decision.

"It is an absolute myth that women make up stories of abuse"

There is a story about a cabbie who was accused of sexual assault.
http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=3733

Unfortunately for the women involved he had a camera in his cab.

The Duke Lacrosse scandal where the males were persecuted before the truth came out.

Miranda Devine wrote an interesting article about Men being scolded into timidity.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/natural-men-scolded-into-timidity-20090520-bfn3.html

Leslie Cannold wrote Sexual Freedom wont spare you regret.
"It felt really good at the time but afterwards I felt cheated and used."
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/sexual-freedom-wont-spare-you-regret-20090524-bj6d.html

It is most certainly the victim's fault if the so-called victim starts the ball rolling willingly then panics afterwards and poses as a victim.

The author writes 'What we need are more blokes willing to have the guts to tell other blokes what's right and what's wrong."'

Suddenly everyone who championed moral relativism wants to impose moral absolutes. Well just happens that these days people are so divided on what is right and wrong that Danielle or myself don't really have the right to impose our opinions (unless of course their is an absolute authority).

I wonder how many champion the porn industry portraying woman loving having men penetrate them in every available place and then want to complain about the fruit of this perverted behaviour. Now we have a strip club being promoted by news networks because they are supposedly banning NRL players. What a righteous bunch they are.

Myth No. 1: The girl was "asking for it" by going back to a hotel

So it was reasonable for the girl to expect something other than sex to eventuate. A critique of the etchings in the hotel room perhaps?

Sarah Ferguson: "A woman involved in degrading group sex can still be traumatised whether she consents or not."

I don't doubt it. But somehow after she has asked to participate in group sex, it's becomes the man's fault for proceeding? Miller expects him know whether she will her acquiescence as a mistake. Not all women do.

Myth No. 4: Misogyny is simply a part of male sports, there's nothing we can do about it.

Here I was, an avid participator in male sports in my youth, and was never aware of it. Dr Easteal should learn to discern between correlation and causation. I don't doubt men involved in highly physical sports are more violent towards women. They are more violent towards everyone. Sadly that mentality seems to make for better players in some sports.

Dannielle Miller: "It is vital to emphasise that the onus of preventing assault should not lie with young women."

I would have thought it was so much "vital to emphasise" as obvious. The only responsibility a woman has is to say no. Yet apparently that is asking too much.

Mia Freedman: "her interview with Matty Johns, spoke out stridently condemning him"

I haven't paid much attention, but I understand Clare wanted to have sex with Johns, and perhaps some others. Later more uninvited players came along and things spiralled out of the control of both Clare and Johns. Johns knew things had gone wrong and evidently like Clare felt could not do much about it, but nonetheless apologised for the actions of the others AT THE TIME. And now he is being declared persona non grata. It seems there are two victims here. One is Clare. The other is Johns, at the hands of Dannielle Miller and her ilk.

... and Miller goes on and on. Is this drivel what passes for feminist thought nowadays?

A very informative piece and well-researched. It seems that people's reactions to these types of articles are always going to be strong and at times heated, if what is suggested is close to home and hard to accept.

There is no problem saying that porn is bad. There are no good effects of porn, and while people are free to use it, it does not offend anyone to say that it is bad. Just because something is possible, not illegal, in common use and feels good, does not make it good.

As another article argues today, law and morality aren't the same thing. There are plenty of poor examples of moral actions that aren't and shouldn't be governed by law, but this doesn't mean that they aren't bad for you. Society's degradation in morality has left many without a moral compass and the law fills this gap, but it's not an adequate answer for that most essential human question: "What ought I do?" Instead it leads to the dangerous question: "What can I get away with?"

A great example of this is the strip club that put up a large sign disallowing NRL players. They fail to understand that having "20 half-naked ladies walking around" (as the owner said) creates exactly the culture that leads to the sort of behaviour we see by NRL Players. It might be legal, but it's morals are in the gutter, engaging in mass degradation of women for a bunch of pervert blokes. Then it takes the moral high-ground to ban certain people from its premises. Maybe they don't like the language of NRL players and were banning them because of swearing. I can't figure that one out.

It is true that men need to stand up and make tough calls. It is hard to go against an entrenched culture, but if we can provide NRL players an education on what is more broadly accepted in society, it might wake them up to some of the contradictions of their own behaviour, such as visiting hospitals and bedsides on Tuesday, and strip-clubs on Saturday.

Reading between the lines here, I can see two reasons for this article.

The first, & most obvious one, is business promotion.

However I have detected a second. Dannielle is jealous of Clare. I think she is really upset that none of these sexy footballers want her.

Perhaps this is the case with all the outpouring of female rage, on this subject, rejection.

Now that you have the definitive post on the subject, could we get onto something a bit more interesting than the lack of morals these females display, in leading our nice footballers astray.

I was amazed to read the Dr's fix , learn martial Arts , does she realize that the strength of a rugby player of this order of fitness and violence could punch a young woman so hard in the face that his fist could penetrate her head ....very bad advice I think .

The debate makes too many assertions about what happened how would some hold up in court ?
If sex becomes too complicated , the girls might have to forgo by Law some of their more revealing apparel and take Mum or Gran along armed with an Utzie or maybe observe Tali Ban Laws or a simplified fix might be a Permission to Shag License or maybe ear rings Phallic Symbol on one ear and bronze , silver or Gold tick Symbol on the other indicating their enthusiasm .

Too much weight has been put on Rugby , 98% OF RUGBY PLAYERS are decent human beings 2% are violent F-Wits yet you condemn the lot , you carry your conscience in a wet paper bag .

The Code should sue you .

Is anybody else left wondering how much harm is done to society and genuine victims by continued attempts to blur the line about what is a victim and what constitutes assault?

If the accounts of the incident as made public bear a reasonable resenblance to the events which actually took place Clare is like at least one other party a victim of her own poor choices but not someone elses victim. She and Johns appear to have both made a choice which they have later regretted. They have both made a choice which has impacted on their lives beyond the evening the event took place.

Clare did by all the accounts I've seen consent to have sex with Johns and at least one other player. Nothing I've seen has suggested that when the circumstances changed she gave any indication that she was unhappy with the change. If anything it appears that she made active choices about who she would have sex with. A real victim does not get that choice.

Nothing that I've seen of this case suggests that her expressed wishes were ignored, nothing I've seen suggests that there was any real or implied threat to her safety. She was with well known footballers not an outlaw bikie gang.

Perhaps the title should read "It is never the victim's choice"

All of those who took part in this should think more carefully about who they choose to have sex with and the nature of the relationship with that person. Johns and any others involved who cheated on partners had cause to answer to those partners. Women who find a power imbalance threatening need not seek out powerful men (nothing I've seen here suggest that applied in this case but the power imbalance has been mentioned often).

This article might seem useful to the gender warriors but by it's dilution of what constitutes a victim and what constitutes assault it certainly does not help those who have no choice when they are assaulted.

R0bert

*As stated in the article, the footy players don't go for strong, confident women, they go for the shy and easy to manipulate type*

Err, more likely the footy players do what most young males do,
they go for the young and cute female who says yes. Thats what
young blokes do on the weekends, hope to shag some girls. Its
common in every pub in Australia. Its also fairly natural.

The media are constantly showing picture of these guys shirtless in the gym or at the beach or pool and female TV hosts seem to be trained to ooh and aah over their physiques, promoting them as objects of desire. Added to this the RL and AFL players are dumb enough to believe their own Press. Suddenly, seemingly out of nowhere things go horribly wrong...

R0bert

'This article might seem useful to the gender warriors but by it's dilution of what constitutes a victim and what constitutes assault it certainly does not help those who have no choice when they are assaulted.'

I don't know if you read the Leslie Cannold article link from James above, which makes some similar points. Here is one quote from that article that I particularly like:

'The sexual and feminist revolutions that are challenging rules that have governed female behaviour for thousands of years are only 50 years old. Missteps and uncertainty are inevitable. We need to hold our nerve./We must let girls know that we don't see them as vulnerable victims in need of protection but as women-in-the-making who are as capable as boys of owning their choices and, when they stumble, righting themselves.'

As a society, we still cling to the increasingly outdated paradigm that women and girls must be protected from their own sexuality - to the point that when women choose, or are coerced into, socially non-acceptable sex practices, it does NOT help for us to lazily slip into using terms like 'sexual assault', 'sexual degradation' and 'rape' as catch-all terms to describe their experience.

Unfortunately, the author of the (OLO) essay did this so many times, that she discredited her own otherwise worthwhile arguments.

JamesH

Are you aware that you actually recommended an article written by a feminist, i.e. Leslie Cannold? If not, try not to hate yourself too much in the morning. :)

*As stated in the article, the footy players don't go for strong, confident women, they go for the shy and easy to manipulate type*

I don't think so! They go for the "type" that shouts pick me - I'm half-pissed/high and so want to $%&* a celebrity sportsman or two ..
C'mon big boy - tell me I'm sexy & buy me another cocktail yeah! There's an empty toilet cubicle over there just made for you and me ....

"Clare" was a Barmaid - surely the obvious career choice of all shy naive young maidens. NOT! Others were ladettes out on the town.

Some stupid, slutty young women are so blinded by the status of ball chasing fools that they willingly engage in disgusting behaviour. Then when uninvited participants arrive on the scene - what can they do? What do they do? Seems not many made a big fuss. Intimidation? Possibly. Inebriation? Probably. In for a penny, in for a pound? Maybe .... after all they are all sports stars...

I've no doubt there have been many instances of non-consentual sexual activity, but prove it. It's never going to result in charges let alone Court.

These women are victims - of their own stupid decisions and immoral behaviour as well as the animal males who act like a pack of dogs. While these 'men' find girls willing to go off with them for easy instant sexual encounters, the attacks will continue. The law is impotent as the onus of proof is always going to be near impossible. Clubs with truly upstanding management who stipulate and enforce a high standard of player behaviour and limits on alcohol would help. Trouble is will we ever see one that does?

SJF:"Are you aware that you actually recommended an article written by a feminist, i.e. Leslie Cannold?"

Dr Cannold is a thinker, who in this piece rejected the claims of victimhood and the demands for Wowserism being offered by the "authoritarian (radical feminists and right-wing Christians)" and called for girls to be taught that they are responsible for their own choices and for the regret they may feel.

She specifically rejected the central tenet of the Four Corners piece, which was that because the woman regretted it some days later, she is a victim and the men are assailants. Retrospective withdrawal of consent is not possible, regardless of what the more authoritarian of hangers-on would have us believe.

IOW, she didn't write this piece as a "feminist", but as a "person". It's a shame that the media and seemingly OLO has so few women who are able to set aside their "feminism" in favour of "professionalism" as a quality benchmark.

I suspect that Four Corners is going to be defending defamation action and specific personal damages action from Matt Johns, his wife and family and that the Court will find Dr Cannold's line of reasoning a central part of their own findings if it ever goes to a trial. I also suspect that her bosses at Ch 9 have already had words with Tracey Grimshaw about her own hatchet job and that she has been strongly counselled not to jerk the knee so strongly in future. it's telling that the media pack that ran to this rather sad little hare set free by Four Corners are virtually all the less-talented career-Feminists, while the genuine journalists have stayed away in droves.

Antiseptic

‘... Cannold didn't write this piece as a "feminist", but as a "person".’

Absolutely unbelievable! Can I put that up on my fridge?

This bizarre statement sums up the very essence of all the ignorance that exists in the community regarding feminism as a philosophy and as a movement. However, that is the community’s problem, not feminism’s.

Also, I strongly suggest you read up a bit on cognitive dissonance. You’ve got it in spades.

SJF:"that is the community’s problem, not feminism’s"

Spoken as a true authoritarian. Looks like Cannold was spot on the money with her comment about "authoritarians (radical feminists and right-wing Christians)".

It's nice that you've made it perfectly clear that you see feminism as something to be imposed on a community, regardless of the wishes of the community. Honesty has never been your strong suit in the past, so I'm pleased to see you're making progress.

RObert,

That's a pretty good analysis of the situation.

"All of those who took part in this should think more carefully about who they choose to have sex with and the nature of the relationship with that person."

That is the unambiguous lesson from the incident.

"Johns and any others involved who cheated on partners had cause to answer to those partners."

Yes, which he has apparently done. It should also be said that when Johns had sex with Clare in a group context, or at least a potential group context at first, he was acting as a conduit for anyone else in the team to get involved. That's why he's copped the backlash he has in the media - for his agency to the "locker-room" culture.

"Women who find a power imbalance threatening need not seek out powerful men (nothing I've seen here suggest that applied in this case but the power imbalance has been mentioned often)."

Good advice.

-- -- -- -- --

A positive in the incident that hasn't been so widely discussed is that one player took Clare home afterwards and made sure she was OK. A sign that things can potentially improve in future?

YES - there is no more certain truth than this. It has been a foundation of our evolution beyond lower life forms that we experience and express love and devotion. Then we exhort our young women to abandon their beliefs in these higher pursuits. We have made so much progress in recent years toward holding men accountable for abuse, and now we face the potential undoing of it all. The man's new mantra is to follow the Great Instinct, so reasonably, convincingly and disingenuously preached by Mr. Crossfield as the flagship "policy" for his It Says Here sermons. Evidently we must all bow to the man’s divine mission of unabated promiscuity because evolution so dictates. Should we all simply regress to animalistic behavior because someone speaks so authoritatively? We might as well start killing our neighbors because they are encroaching on our food-gathering territory.

Myth 1: Victims aren't actively and fallaciously labelled as such, by third party beneficiaries. There's always someone or something to blame, and in knowing who/what to blame the event can be understood better.
Myth 2: Ones position in what we understand as our reality is not shaped by ones management of random events, but by the event itself or an agent deemed responsible for said random event management skills. Said differently, denying responsibility for our feelings over the chance to blame and exact revenge is human and mature; no alternative exists.
Myth 3: The psychological distress manifested by humans labelled by others as "victims" is only reflecting the true nature of the horrors that were "done to them", and does not reflect the scurrilous abuse of their psycho-social status by Victim of Crime Advocates.
Myth 4: To wantonly and without invite label another human being as a "victim" of anything is not an act of psychological abuse against the so-called "victim" or any others who may identify with that "victim making" - albeit random - event.
Myth 5: Those exploited by 'victim makers' such as Noel McNamara [Crime Victims Support], PALS are always better off when informed justice will never be done, democracy favours criminals, sentences are always lenient and jail is a holiday camp. Without "the victim" doing and saying what the Victim Makers want, others will suffer. This does not place further guilt, stress, burdens on the unfortunate. Clearly, this is a positive viewpoint in coping with tragedy or - as is often the case - assumed tragedy.
Myth 6: VOC Advocates have no hidden personal agenda that if mirrored in business, medicine, law or other arenas would amount to a conflict of interest and justify disqualification and/or criminal proceedings.
Myth 7: Emotionally, psychologically crushed family, friends... etc, who parrot the predictable "We get a life sentence, and they get off scott free" have not been targetted by and coached to serve, VOC Advocacy.
Myth 8: A lifetime victim is a happier, more productive and confident person than one who accepts the random nature of existence.

Myth 11: A supreme being, for reasons humans can never fully grasp, planned for the "victims" random suffering at the dawn of time and this is part of some plan that we also cannot grasp. Hence, it is logical we oversee more suffering of all involved, and deny that "retribution" is religious in origin. Said simply, forcing people to be "good" as per their cultures idiosyncrasies is not related to holy scripture or religious indoctrination.
Myth 12: Those labelled victims have the least control over the dynamics pertaining to their victimhood; eg- justice systems, law enforcers, compensation bodies and Victim makers. It is imperative the victim is treated... as a victim. Forgiveness is unthinkable, albeit being a fast track to the "victims" recovery.
Myth 9: Being attacked by another human is 'less random' than being hit by lightening. Again, the "victim" has no control over how they feel, cope, recover.
Myth 10: Life must be Fair as opposed to Real. All attempts to deny reality and suppress progressive legal policies are humane. This also has nothing to do with religious/Christian residue overlaying a veneer of anthropomorphic logic to suit demonstrably false scripture. Satan assisted to harm the "victim".
Myth 11: It is impossible for any victim to contribute to their own murder, assault, robbery, theft, scam/con, etc. This rule becomes iron clad once official Victimhood is awarded the Victim.
Myth 12: Magistrates who fail to find evidence respected by the victim or the Victim Makers have failed the community, who always want vigilantism and violent retribution. This rule also increases in absolutism when the magistrate reminds the court the "victim" was, for want of a better word, an arrogant, risk taking SOB who brought about the circumstances in which they were harmed. Said differently, mitigation should be removed from legal defence strategies.
Myth 13: Sport = purity. Christians raping and abusing vulnerable children is as nothing. As a nation Australia is quite right to become obsessed with what others are doing, whilst supporting unabated abuse by Christians.
Myth 14: "Victims" need to pray.

SJF, maybe Cannold is a humanist, rather than a feminist. Anyway a little bit of word play.

An ethical ethicist, or an ethicist who is finally ethical, for once I agree wholeheartedly with what she has written, regardless of her political alliances.

The thing that stands out for me is that she promotes the idea of individual responsibility and explores the difference between consent and regret.

Dannielle Miller-Thank-you for your article. I have posted this on the thread above. There is no need to write another response. One size fits all!:

Presently on OLO?......

If you have perused other threads on this subject, then you would be fully aware of the trend on OLO currently.

Most male posters on this site have gone to extraordinary lengths to justify the Christchurch incident, including rationalising the male need for group sex/the victim being to blame/the players being victims!

Any of the minority female members of OLO (yes, they are in the minority in current active m/ship of OLO), have been attacked as feminists-as if that were some kind of dirty word. It was irrelevant what approach they took.

IF they considered the women in the incident in any way, shape or form-a victim, then they too;..were fair game. Just as she was.

The few real men,- (putting in the 'real' IS deliberate and calculated),- who were not part of the condemnation of the woman,-but sought to make the point that the men should have behaved with some modicum of responsibility... were roundly condemned and ridiculed.

It has been nigh on impossible-even for the more 'reasoning' of female members, to make any kind of dent in the wall of the male mantra-line that occurred here.

Posting this is tantamount to OLO Boy's Club heresy.

This is the second time I have been stunned by reaction on this site-and I don't stun easily!

OLO is not-IS NOT:- currently a forum that is female friendly. I made a comment about female members 'circling the wagons', which has already been thrown back at me,-but I meant exactly what I said.

If we defended from the female prospective we were roundly condemned!
Does that sound familiar?

1 women-11 men; that's OK? 'She asked for it'.

Sad isn't it?

I truly wonder why you felt the need to put up a thread on OLO, which all current evidence suggests that you will get more of the same.

The widely entrenched here?:-'stop whining on about what you asked for, and then blaming men for it'.

Ginx "OLO is not-IS NOT:- currently a forum that is female friendly. I made a comment about female members 'circling the wagons', which has already been thrown back at me,-but I meant exactly what I said.

If we defended from the female prospective we were roundly condemned!
Does that sound familiar?"

That's hardly consistant with your rejection of Foxy's calls for posters to moderate their own behaviour or you response to me in defence of Foxy's position
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2718#61979

There are posters who are anti-feminist, some are quite prolific but they are few. There are others of us who disagree with extremist positions and or positions which would seem to blatently sexist.

- It's not anti-female to suggests that a woman's right to say "yes" is as vital as her right to say "no".

- It's not anti-female to support the idea that women are as capable of making good and bad choices as men.

- It's not anti-female to oppose the dilution of terms such as victim and assault.

Despite your allegations very few of those with a different view to you have condemmed the woman involved, we don't think a crime was committed just poor personal choices by all involved. The crime has occurred since, the attempts to destroy the lives of the individuals involved.

R0bert

*OLO is not-IS NOT:- currently a forum that is female friendly. I made a comment about female members 'circling the wagons', which has already been thrown back at me,-but I meant exactly what I said.*

Now now Ginxy, there you go, playing the "I am a grlll, so I am a
victim" thinggy. Sorry, no tears for Ginxy lol. Go on admit it,
you were right at the front of the queue when it came to hurling
abuse around, calling Belly and others names etc. You seemingly
enjoyed it, I personally have no problem with a bit of light hearted
banter, a bit of mud slinging, all meant in good humour.

Yup, it was me who gave you a hard time about your circling wagons,
I thought it was quite amusing.

Yup, admit it, you were outreasoned fairly and squarely.

Perhaps all this is a clever female tactic. When you are losing,
you do the tearjerker job about being a victim, women are known for
their acting talents and false tears are part of it.

Very clever Ginxy, but it won't work this time!

Robert-: Nothing that I’ve seen of this case suggests that her expressed wishes were ignored.

Something I saw and heard Matthew Johns say on the news made me suspicious though,

“I APOLOGISE TO CLAIRE FOR ALL THE OTHER PLAYERS IN THE ROOM”

How Noble of him.

Taken another way that could also mean I apologise to you Claire because you didn’t know all the other players were going to be in the room.

I think this girl was set up by these football players even to the point of taking her home so that it would look less like rape if a complaint was made. They all knew damm well that it would be her word against 11 of them.

I wonder if they’ve got away with this before?

The first reaction in a crisis is often a flat emotional state, this is shock. Could be why the girl didn’t protest. It is a hollywood fantasy that people always scream and cry when faced with immanent danger, makes for more action on the screen

Firesnake

Your post brings up a lot of issues surrounding victimhood, and highlights many aspects of our society’s love/hate affair with victims themselves.

Some states of victimhood challenge the social power hierarchy, e.g. injustices committed against Aboriginal people – while others entrench it, e.g. young men who’ve died in past wars. A lot of shame attaches itself to the former, while a lot of idealisation attaches to the latter.

Some victims are easy to define, e.g. children sexually abused by adults, because the power hierarchy is clearly delineated. Others are less easy to define, e.g. spousal abuse, because the power hierarchy between two adults living together is less clear.

Enter the litigation industry and the media, who make massive profits from the victim industry … and the whole issue of victimhood can descend into mawkishness, exploitation and even farce.

On a personal level, I don’t think that being a victim and taking responsibility for one’s own risks and choices are mutually exclusive. Just because someone took a certain risk and paid a terrible price does not make them any less a victim – especially if the price they paid was due to factors beyond their control.

To me, the right to access feelings like despair and outrage when you are damaged by life’s predators or random acts is essential to the healing process. Unfortunately, because of the stigma that surrounds some types of victimhood, many people are denied that access.

Anyway, thanks for an interesting post.

Well said SJF

I am disappointed that a number of OLO posters see women only as predators on men who can't help themselves when offered sex, to the point where any consideration for the "predatory" women, who apparently should know that if they choose to sleep with a sportsman that includes the entire team. The majority of men can and do have self control - why make exceptions for the men who quite deliberately ignore this?

It is the same old, same old:

1. She should not have been drinking
2. She should not have been flirting
3. She should not have have wanted to have sex
4. She should have known in advance what would happen
5. She is to blame for male behaviour.

Well, "she" certainly made a mistake but in the blame game there are other parties involved; the men who thought it acceptable to enter the room where "she" and Johns were.

We, men and women are responsible for our actions - not just women. As I have said before and was surprised to note that Yabby said this on another thread: we live in a sexually repressed society, there is insufficient education for both girls and boys. This is why there is such confusion between the work of Henson and straight out porn.

Until all women have complete self esteem in themselves they will continue to be preyed upon by some men who have believe that women are to be taken rather than respected.

We can lay the blame on many: women, men, media - but labels are irrelevant, we - all of us owe it to our children to teach them about one of the most fundamental drives of humans beings - our sexuality.

Antiseptic

'It's nice that you've made it perfectly clear that you see feminism as something to be imposed on a community, regardless of the wishes of the community.'

That is the complete REVERSE of the point I made. So, in that case, I will just reverse everything else you said to me.

Ginx

I strongly relate to what you say about the 'OLO Boys Club’.

While they love to get all hoity-toity about women ‘being victims’, this doesn’t stop a lot of these guys from churning out their own 10-hankie weepies about being victims of ex-wives from hell, female-biased divorce settlements, frivolous DVOs, heart attacks at 50, Gallipoli, the Femonazi menace, misandry, female dishonesty (an Antiseptic fave) and a lack of men’s shelters (and I don’t mean garden sheds).

Although the gender (and other) articles on OLO are fairly eclectic, the commentary section is all too frequently dominated by a small band of gender-conservative, rhetorically obnoxious men [sic], who seem to have an extraordinary amount of time and stamina to post and post and post and post and post … thus scoring a kind of last man [sic] standing victory.

Resistance is futile. For anyone who takes them on, expect a slow death by OLO-posting exhaustion or exasperation – whichever comes first. However, along the way, you can marvel at the sheer capacity of these posters to obfuscate, misrepresent, paranoid-project, distort, demonise, derail and generally dysfunctionalise everything in their path. (If ‘dysfunctionalise’ wasn’t a word before, it is now).

As they say in the classics … Don’t let the you-know-whats get you down.

sharkfin there are aspects of this which are very grey. I don't consider the circumstances where others entered the room at all appropriate. If there is an issue about consent it would seem to be in that space but I don't think the details which have been made public are sufficient to judge. That would seem to be the time when those already in the room if they were bothered should have asked them to leave but not having been there it's difficult to make a fair call about how that all played out.

There is a bunch of other stuff about this which is distastefull but there are plenty of other activities which I find distastful which I recognise is the business of the adults involved.

Fractelle I've just spotted your post which highlighted the point about others entering the room. Excellent points.

SJF the complexities around peoples choices and others actions get very messy. There is a mix between our own choices and the choices of others who make a poor decision much worse. In this instance if there was reason to believe that Clair's expressed wishes were being ignored then she would be a victim regardless of the wisdom of going back to a motel with a couple of footballers.

I'm bothered by the title and premise of the article, apart from my earlier comments it seems to imply that "victims" don't need to make different choices. Put into another context it's pretty obvious to most of us that the Nigerian "make lots of money" emails are scams. There has been plenty of publicity about them yet according to news reports plenty of people get taken in by them. Those who get fleeced are victims but they still made choices which made them vunerable. They are a different class of victim to someone who is assaulted in a public place which would normally be considered safe. Whilst the title of the article might make an effective bumper sticker or sound byte the truth is a lot messier.

R0bert

Fractelle:"I am disappointed that a number of OLO posters see women only as predators on men who can't help themselves when offered sex, to the point where any consideration for the "predatory" women, who apparently should know that if they choose to sleep with a sportsman that includes the entire team"

Are you disppointed the tooth fairy doesn't exist, as well?

Do yourself a favour and stop creating these dumb strawman statements. It's not clever, it's not illuminating, it's not constructive and it demeans your own contribution to the discussion.

Fractelle:"She is to blame for male behaviour."

No, she is responsible for her own behaviour, just as the men are responsible for their own behaviour. You seem to be advocating for men to be responcible for her as well as themselves, which may be all well and good but should she not have a similar responsibility to be responsible for them?

IOW, it cuts both ways, which is what most of the men here have been arguing.

SJF, I'm truly amazed; I agree wholeheartedly with most of your post. However, I don't agree with your claim that having no control over circumstances that eventuate once an endeavour commences provides any claim to victimhood. Using that logic every failed business, storm-wrecked sailor, fallen climber and so on would have a claim to victimhood, despite these being known risks for those ventures.

That doesn't mean the people involved shouldn't be able to access the emotions you describe, just that objectively they are not victims of anything but bad luck or bad judgement in taking on a risky venture.

Ginx and SJF, I am not sure if I can articulate or phrases this 'CORRECTLY'(italics)?

It would seem from what you have said, is that the only form of acceptable discussion to you, is the type of discussion that agrees with your point of view, supports your point of view,

Any discussion that seeks to challange or try to put forward an alternative point of view is unacceptable.

So basically what you are asking for, is for posters to support your points of view.

Now here on OLO we have to rely on the written word and phrasing, there are a couple of problems with this, firstly the vast majority of human communication is non-verbal, secondly how one person reads a phrase or word can be totally different from another. so meanings and intrepretation can change.

A phrase that has appeared a little bit recently is "She was asking for it!"

Asking for what?

A cup of coffee?

A new dress?

A new car?

Virtually every individual will have a different interpretation of what "Asking for it!" means.

Now I am going to jump from the frying pan and into the fire.

Virtually all heterosexual men, want to have sex with women.

Now to best of my knowledge, most if not all heterosexual women are not overt about their willingness to be sexually available, so therefore tend to send out covert signals, either consciously or subconsciously to signal their willingness or availability or lack there of.

In a blog a another bloke posted that if he didn't try, sex did not happen. I would say that this is the experience of the vast majority of males. If they sat back and wait for the female to take the initiative, nothing will happen. Therefore if it is the natural state of things, the vast majority of us would have never been born, had our fathers waited for our mothers to be sexually assertive.

So we already have a recipe for disaster in the making.

Add to this mixture the potent mixture of alcohol and drugs.

Wasting a post. Feeling lousy. Going in for obs. Hopefully o/night.

Will answer when.

LET’S DO A HYPOTHETICAL HERE. change the victim from a woman to a man and surprise ourselves with our involuntary different reaction to the situation.

You have two attractive women who are good friends with a group of homosexual men who live in the same block of units as they do.

Out for what they see as just a bit of fun, the two girls agree to lure a poor unsuspecting hetrosexual male back to their unit have a few drinks with him and lure him into getting undressed to have sex. Whilst one girl keeps him busy the other lets the group of homosexual men into the room and they rape him.

His fault of course, he should have known better than to put himself in that situation shouldn’t he. Drinking in a room with two women he knows little about. How stupid! he obviously asked for it. At no stage did he say no as he was afraid of getting belted or hurt. Another sign of guilt on his part.

Women of Australia. Wake up! Men of Australia realise that men looking at this and realizing how much the woman was blamed and the men allowed off the hook, that it puts your daughters that much more in danger of being set up like this.

Why would this woman choose to be publicly humiliated like this if she consented to it? she obviously has strong feelings of a wrong being done to her.

Since the Johns incident, there has been more scrutiny of Claire's behaviour than that of the footballers. Matthew Johns has cleverly kept his head down. Other players have not been foolish enough to come foward. By contrast, Claire has been given the status of 'victim'. Many of us find this tactic by feminists so immoral and ill-considered that we feel compelled to speak-up.
It is a massive over simplification to only be able to see participants as either villans or victims. Just because we might make criticisms of Claire doesn't mean that we are unable to see the wrongdoing of others. This victim mentality also positions women as pathetic creatures, unable to solve their own problems. Thirdly, people don't like helping those who will-not help themselves. Women need to take the first step.
This self-esteem crap didn't help either. No wonder self-esteen failed, it was going to magically fix all sorts of complex problems. People with high self-esteem take dangerous risks. Arrogant women are also more vulnerable to sleazy men, as they assume that he is more serious about them than he really is. These women are also more at home on the high pedestal on which pick-up artists place their quarry. This obsession with self-esteem also means that we tend to over-protect women by telling them what they want to hear. Hence rape victims keep quiet because they can't stand the thought that someone might question their behaviour.
All people like Danielle had to do was to be more ethical than the footballers and acknowledge that Claire has her faults too and discussion of this issue would focus on the footballers. They failed.

*I think this girl was set up by these football players even to the point of taking her home so that it would look less like rape if a complaint was made. They all knew damm well that it would be her word against 11 of them. *

I think that you are wrong Sharkfin, based on the evidence that we
have. She never slept with 11 players, seemingly half a dozen.
We know that she rejected one bloke, for apparently being too
ugly. This has all been done to death on a previous thread.
Do rape victims get to choose who is ugly and who is not ugly?

Yeah, perhaps Johns did apologise for other players barging into
the room, but from my memory, when travelling with a bunch of
blokes as a teenager, we commonly barged into each others rooms,
as we were all friends. That would be common behaviour of a young
group of blokes.

We don't know what was said, for Clare to go into the room with the
two guys, but the night before, she seemingly went into a toilet with
two guys, for a bit of sex.

As it happens, Clare has seemingly been receiving weekly financial
compensation for her "stress", for the last many years. Sounds as
long as she keeps "suffering" they will keep paying.

Is she just screwing the system for money? Maybe, maybe not.

sharkfin:"Whilst one girl keeps him busy the other lets the group of homosexual men into the room and they rape him."

LOL Homosexual anal rape is not the same as heterosexual group sex. I'm glad we got that cleared up for you, it'll save you no end of trouble later in life.

Why are you Wowsers so obsessed with anal rape?

Let's look at your hypothetical another way: a homosexual man goes home with another gay man and they have sex, during or after which a group of homosexual men known to both of them turns up and they all do some eccies and decide to have anal sex. No "rape", just a bloke with a sore bum in the morning, who probably won't go to the police 5 days later claiming to have been raped.

sharkfin:"she obviously has strong feelings of a wrong being done to her."

Read Leslie Cannold's piece on "regret". It's referenced close to the start of this thread and I recommend it to you.

benk:"All people like Danielle had to do was to be more ethical than the footballers and acknowledge that Claire has her faults too and discussion of this issue would focus on the footballers. They failed."

Absolutely correct. The grrrls of the media weren't interested in the facts, just the chance for a witchhunt and a free swing at footballers, who represent the absolute antithesis of the feminist androgynous ideal. As I said earlier, some people see "feminism" as more important than "professionalism" and it shows...

I'm sincerely curious.
How many of the men on this thread who condone, or at least do not condemn this behaviour, would actually indulge in this sort of behaviour?
Is it a case of 'gang bangs are all right for footy players, but I personally wouldn't indulge'; or is it "yeah, gang bangs are great, do it every chance I get"? Assuming the sex is consensual in both cases, of course.

Grim

So you put out the decoys in the hope of some incoming geese to shoot? You might as well ask how many women know or have heard of women who seduce celebrities and wouldn't mind a bit of group sex if it was a Rock band. The Rolling Stones always had long queues. Then there is the delightful gel who has recently admitted she has most likely bonked 200 buff young footy studs and not just one at a time.

All of the nanny moralising on OLO cannot alter the fact that there are people out there who indulge in all sorts of legal sex practices and with various combinations of sex partner. For goodness sakes, group swinging parties are advertised quite openly and I am sure that choice can be catered for regardless of what side you bat for, including both sides. There is sex in a group and group sex and every other variation.

So why is everyone acting po-faced like Tracey Grimshaw that group sex happens and pretending that 'girls' would never participate unless tricked into it? Likewise the feigned shock that some men (and some women) might get a buzz out of watching others is a bit much. Similarly any insinuatiomn that only men enjoy porn is proved wrong by the growing volume of porn aimed at women. Again, what lesbian site has no porn and smutty jokes?

Whether or not I would encourage or discourage anyone from participating in such acts is irrelevant and in some cases I might even be accused of discrimination for judging those who do partake.

One thing I have learned over the years is that my original estimate that only the stupid and uneducated would indulge in risky and gross sexual acts was way, way out. Some may occasionally regret their excesses and risks, but usually that doesn't deter them in the future. It seems that jaded appetites need different stimulation. Urk!

"Urk!"
I guess that's a 'yes' for scenario 1. Thanks, Cornflower.
I'm still quite sincerely curious.

Yabby< The night before she seemingly went into a toilet with two guys for a bit of sex>

I thought I read that this was another woman who was also set up by footballers; also when she looked up one of them was taking photos over the top of the toilet cubicle as well.

I don’t have that paper here now but I remember checking that the woman’s name was different because they had that photo of Clare fronting the story. I checked it carefully and I’m pretty sure that it was a different woman. Seems to be a bit of confusion and heresay regarding this story.

<as teenagers we commonly barged into each others rooms> And if your mate was having private sex in there with a girl would you also not have apologised and backed out of the room unless you knew your mate had previously agreed to your participation.

So they have been paying her money to keep quiet. Hush money?
If they are guilty of gang rape and the police didn't have enough evidence to charge them then she is entitled to some kind of compensation from them, but obviously she hasn't been able to deal with the aftermath as the traumatic emotions have caught up with her and has told all.

I think that it's a good question, Grim.

Given that you're all anonymous here, how about some of you guys who so vigorously defend the male participants in the Christchurch gang bang/circle jerk "bun" answer it? Unlike the cowardly Sharks who haven't owned up, you can do so without threat to your reputations, marriages, jobs etc.

Is it the kind of thing you'd actually do (or have done), or is it something you think is OK for other guys to do - i.e. a fantasy?

I'm genuinely interested.

*So they have been paying her money to keep quiet. Hush money?*

Sharkfin, you should have read Belly's thread, we covered all this
at the time. No, it is the NZ Compensation Commission or whatever
they call it. If you can show that you are suffering, they will
pay you up to 80% of your wages. Sounds like she is still cashing
in.

*I checked it carefully and I’m pretty sure that it was a different woman. *

Not so, according to the links. I'd have to go back through Belly's
thread to find them. If the story really interests you, read that
thread, but its pretty long and went on for days and days.

*And if your mate was having private sex in there with a girl would you also not have apologised and backed out of the room unless you knew your mate had previously agreed to your participation.*

What, with two of them going with one girl? You don't seem to
know much about young blokes, for that kind of situation brings
out the larrikan in along of guys and anything can happen. These
were young guys, full of energy, away from home, away together as
a touring group. Blokes cut loose in that kind of situation.
They are there to have fun after all.

Grim I'll take your question seriously.

I don't like the descriptions of the incident that I've heard. It all seems very grubby and as CJ pointed out on another thread the circle jerk has tones of homoerotic behaviour to it.

I'd not want to take part in one. I've also got no interest in anal sex but I accept that if consenting adults choose to do it it's not my business. I don't much like abortion but I accept that adults should have control over what they do with their own bodies.

I don't see what consistant framework can let me condem what appears to be a consentual gang bang and at the same time stand up for the rights of gays and the right of women to abortion. It took a long time and a lot of risk and effort by many people to get the wowsers out of other peoples bedrooms and womb's and it's very concerning to see to surrender that freedom again.

Humans with freedom will make choices which may not be in their best interests. They will make choices which I find distastefull and or damaging. They will make choices which they regret later. That's all part of being human. The alternative where those "who know what's best for us" having control is a far more frightening prospect.

R0bert

Sharkfin, it was assuredly the same girl with the two footballers in the toilet cubicle earlier. The manager of the pub made the point that she had been told that as a staff member she was forbidden from fraternising with customers, which she apparently chose to ignore.

Have you read Dr Cannold's piece on "regret" yet, or are you too busy trying to confuse the issue to think about it?

Grim, I've nevertaken part in group sex, but not necessarily because I didn't want to, more for lack of willing partners...

I've also had one g/f who wanted anal sex which I couldn't quite bring myself to indulge in and another who told me in no uncertain terms before we ever went to bed that anal sex was not on the menu. Who was "right"? ditto with sex during menstruation: I've known women who loved a "raspberry dip" and others who couldn't stand being touched. Most women I've bedded never mentioned the subject of "deviant" sex and nor did I.

I have a 12 year old daughter who will have different attitudes to sexuality than I do and she will have to learn to negotiate her own sexual boundaries with her partners. All I can do is advise her as to what I believe is appropriately self-protective behaviour and leave the rest to her. Ditto for my son.

The thing is that the sexual urges or appetites of one person are no guide to what may work for another. Most specifically, the repressed sexuality of the New Wowsers like Fractelle, CJMorgan, pynchme and others should not determine the right of others to behave differently.

The rise of Feminism has seen a concomitant increase in authoritarian, prescriptive legislation. The more I see of it, the more I think Orwell should have referred to "Big Nanna".

Grim here is a link to a survey

http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/women-embrace-group-sex-survey-20090526-blpi.html

Anti, I love that Big Nana bit. It is humorous.

"It took a long time and a lot of risk and effort by many people to get the wowsers out of other peoples bedrooms and womb's and it's very concerning to see to surrender that freedom again.

Humans with freedom will make choices which may not be in their best interests...."

I wonder whether, down the track, those that participated in activities like abortion and gang bangs will think that the wowsers were right after all? I think it will be interesting to see how this turns out.

These questions of individual freedom are, of course, important to humans in terms of their ability to learn and grow as individuals. But I believe freedoms ahould be limited to doing things that don't hurt others. Abortions do truncate another's life and gang-bangs sometimes do humiliate people. For instance, did the Third Reich have the right to try and mould Europe into its own image? Up to a point, until they crossed the Polish border with military force. If we believe you Yabby (from the NRL thread), their righteous enthusiasm all came from their Aryan genes. But did that make the activity acceptable? Certainly not. If it's not acceptable, then something surely has to be done about it, because it could be anyone else that is the next victim. By doing nothing after becoming aware of such problems, society is effectively condoning them.

JamesH

Nothing in the 'Women embrace group sex: survey' should surprise anyone.

Your link refers:
http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/women-embrace-group-sex-survey-20090526-blpi.html

It makes it much, much harder to pretend that women are always victims of males. For many that knowledge is a blessed relief and a confirmation of their already positive, constructive and assertive approach to life.

I would wager that Four Corners reporter Sarah Ferguson will not be mentioning the survey and nor would Tracey Grimshaw (well not unless there are higher rating to be had). The survey results should come of no surprise to them in their industry. Then again maybe not, perhaps like some on OLO they really need to get out more. There are some very

So none of you champions of the "bun" will admit - even anonymously - to having engaged in such activities yourselves? Why not, if it's such a common and normal experience?

Well OK, I guess Antiwomen is honest enough to admit that he'd like to have a go, but that - strangely enough - he hasn't been able to find any consenting partners. Yabby's response is rather coy for such a self-professed libertine, employing the 'neither confirm nor deny' principle. R0bert finds the idea "grubby", but this may be because of the circle-jerk component - would it be less grubby if the lads just lined up and refrained from masturbating publicly while waiting?

Why hasn't Cornflower placed herself at the receiving end of a "bun", I wonder? Maybe she doesn't get out enough.

As for that "survey" - you are joking, aren't you? While a self-conducted poll of its members by an online "dating" site might provide light entertainment for the vacuous, it's hardly a reliable or objectively valid indication of attitudes out here in the real world, is it?

I'd still like to know why, if the "bun" is such a popular and unexploitative form of sexual expression, nobody here seems to have tried it.

CJ Morgan: "So none of you champions will admit to having engaged in such activities yourselves? Why not, if it's such a common and normal experience?"

I thought JamesH's link answered that in several ways. Firstly, it says in the body of the article: "most participants felt it was no one else's business but their own."

Next you specifically asked the question of guys. If the article is to believed the girls are just as enthusiastic as the guys, so why didn't you include them? The omission makes it look like a loaded question.

Thirdly, what has "common and normal" got to do with it? I regard my sex life as common and normal, but I am not about to discuss it here just because someone asks. Perhaps your point isn't that it is common or normal. But people do lots of things which aren't common or normal, such as run marathons. But we don't insist they justify it.

About the one relevance I can see to "common and normal", or at least we were open about it we would not be having this discussion here. It all started innocently enough, as sex between consenting adults. But if the reports are to believed along the way some forgot the rules of the game. Clare somehow forgot it is her job to say "NO" if she didn't like what was happening, and some of the boys participated uninvited. Two mistakes. If either hadn't been made the situation would not have gone wrong. If we were more open about this sort of stuff it is probable one side or the other would have followed the rules of engagement.

And since I am on a roll ...

It appears to me Antiseptic has won a round. His central theme has always been that the pots of money made available women victims are abused by some girls. He says he was personally at the wrong end of the stick in one such case, and so now he ceaselessly campaigns to have the womens support groups shut down.

I'll grant you it isn't a pretty sight. To me his solution seems like a case of throwing out the baby with the bath water.

Yet it may be that what has happened in this case, and if so the consequences were pretty dire. Clare is getting compensation - 80% of her wage I gather. That is a pretty big incentive to behave the way she has. Certainly it would be enough for many people to leak the details of such as experience to the media to keep it going. She did this mind you even though she claims she now finds the entire event personally humiliating and embarrassing. And she didn't do it to get "justice", because she has never claimed she was raped. All very odd.

Nonetheless the resulting publicity she has generated may drive NFL team to bankruptcy, and and if so many people will loose their livelihoods.

"R0bert finds the idea "grubby", but this may be because of the circle-jerk component - would it be less grubby if the lads just lined up and refrained from masturbating publicly while waiting?"

Yep that still seems grubby to me but then in my own choices I've been somewhat conservative. Being tolerant of others personal choices does not mean I need to admire those choices or have a desire to make the same choices.

Some seem to fail to understand the difference between championing an activity and believing that others should be entitled to take part in that if activity if they choose. Some who on other topics would proclaim the rights of specific groups to engage in activities which others consider abhorent, morally wrong, damaging to society or even murder completely drop the bundle on this one.

Rob there is a murky line in there when it comes to the harm done to consenting participants vs freedom. I'm not to adverse to sanctions against smokers but then I often find myself breathing cigarette smoke without consenting to do so (and the economic flow on to the heath system is another issue).

If we want to sanction distastfull activities which humiliate participants and or non-participants then I'm guessing we could easily find much clearer targets.

In the case in point the spouses of married participants would seem to be the closest to being the victims yet the outrage about cheating on a partner seems much more muted than the outrage over the group sex. As far as I'm aware a past failure on that front is not generally a sackable offense in Australia.

R0bert

*Yabby's response is rather coy for such a self-professed libertine, employing the 'neither confirm nor deny' principle.*

So you want a response eh CJ, fair enough. I'll tell you what,
you find me around half a dozen cute 18 year old females with
perky breasts and I'm willing to do an experiment in the name
of Science and I'll tell you how it went :)

Turn Yabby into Hugh Jackman and he will have thousands of groupies of all ages at his door, with many caring little how many join them for sweaty action with the big fellow as long as they get their card punched too.

It might not suit the drivers of the women's victim industry that it is so, but denial of the simple truth that some women are not averse to a bit of group sex is foolish when there is abundant evidence around in the media and especially in women's magazines. For crying out loud, many celebrities have CIA-like security and beefy minders to protect them from the fans who would molest them, given half a chance. Then even the minders get lucky. NRL footballers like Matt Johns would rate low on the desirability stakes for most women, but there is no accounting for taste and they make themselves available for seduction.

Another thing that hasn't really surprised is the underlying prejudice of some recognised feminists against male homosexuals, which made obvious by their sledging of the men for indulging in 'homoerotic' practices. Even if it was homoerotic, so what? Or is heteroerotic OK, but homoerotic is not? Maybe homoerotic is fine for lesbians but not gay men? The readiness of senior feminists to use homoerotic as a slur says a lot about the superficial equality they ordinarily espouse.

Antiseptic and sycophants: As usual show no knowledge of what constitutes rape or even coercion. Btw: It is not the issue of consent or her character under or in need of scrutiny (nobody disputes the facts of the incident; including the NZ Police and the men involved) but a culture that promotes anyone's presumed 'right' to use another person's body any way they like.

Money: Under NZ Comp law at the time, I believe that the amount could be as little as $40.00 and the higher amount had to have incurred physical injury as well (Disease would qualify as that - did anyone wear a condom?).

How much does a motel worker earn? Let's guess that 7 years ago it was $400.00 per week. If she was awarded the maximum; she'd be receiving a taxable amount of about $20, 800 per year. In 7 years that would amount to $145,600. Many of us can earn that in a year; two at most.

Do you honestly think that the NFL or a media outlet wouldn't have paid at least as much. She then wouldn't have had to go through the process of assessment; applying and waiting, as well as spending time in psych services. She could have easily obtained as much (and could now) yet has declined all offers of money to either hush or blab.

Btw: She has made serious attempts at suicide and self-harm. I believe it would be impossible to fake PTSD, especially over an extended perid of time.

Sometimes you make quite thoughtful and interesting comments. The last two posts were not amongst them.

What you need to reflect on is why you feel so compelled to concoct and attribute base motives to this young woman.

JamesH: The 'study' is insubstantial. I investigated the source. Anyone can answer their polls, however, it has two sections: Uncut and Dating. The Uncut ad says: "Uncut adult dating is for singles and swingers looking for a little more fun; casual dating, swingers clubs, adult chat rooms, forums, adult swingers parties, adult personals & sex stories." <- therefore their survey was drawn from a very specific group; which might be referred to in research terms as a convenience sample.

Sharkfin: I agree with your lucid summations and with your suspicions. The ABC has verified that it drew information from police and medical records, and police have not contradicted any information presented in that show. I wouldn't be surprised if the NFL was objecting on one hand and paying non-ABC media on the other to 'creatively' vilify Claire. I wonder if any of the laer commentators have been paid. Does anyone care?

RobP: I agree with you that one's rights ends where they infringe on someone else's well-being.

Yabby: In your rush to impress the lads with your fantasized prowess; you seem to have forgotten the dynamics of the scenario under scrutiny. For your experiment; you and 10 other men would be in the presence of one female.

Btw: In your reductionist theories of biological determinism; how do you account for the men here, such as CJ; other posters and men in the wider community like my spouse and son who manage to control their zippers? To the extent that your outdated but favoured theory has any relevance, I would say they are more highly evolved. Surely it's what everyone should aspire to - since it is in the best interest of perpetuation of the species.

rstuart:"he ceaselessly campaigns to have the womens support groups shut down."

No, I don't, those groups have an important role, which sadly few of them do well.

There are a few things I do object to in relation to this subject, however. The first is that many of those groups are deliberately dishonest in promoting their service and especially when it comes to seeking funding. The sort of guff put about by the NSWRCC is a classic of the type. While "spin" is acceptable, deliberate misinformation produces unacceptably skewed decision-making from politicians and other responsible parties which leads to bad outcomes.

The second is the coupling of the service with feminist ideology. Read about Erin Pizzey's experience after setting up the first women's shelters in Britain and then being forced out by radical feminists because she chose to acknowledge that many of her clients were active participants in the violence they were sheltering from. The ideology was that women are always victims, which she could see was clearly not the case.

The third is that decades of "women's studies" have lead to a group of navel-gazing, self-obsessed, misandric ninnies being in charge of these groups. One such group in Central Coast NSW that drew funding to support people claiming to be victims of violence was so incensed at being told by the State Govt that men are people too and hence would need to be served as well that they withdrew completely from the role. They'd rather not help anyone that have to help men.

Fourthly, I'm appalled by the Wowserism entrenched in these groups and the way Feminism has been perverted into a new puritanism. What was once a genuine efort to redress some of the imbalance in society has become a prurient rush to prevent people being people. there is a story in today's C-M about the girls at a school dance being required to wear bike pants under their skirts just so there can't be any "inappropriate touching", which may "lead to police involvement".

What on Earth?
[cont]

What is the point of going to a school dance if there's no chance of a bit of a grope? I can't see any reason for the police to be called if a few fingers finish the night a bit smellier than they started. I can remember not washing my left hand for a week after 1 school formal...

All of this crap has been abetted by the feminist axis that has formed in the media, the Unions and politics. The Johns affair was a very timely reminder that some of the more virulent of these people are simply looking for an excuse to vilify men and that the impacts on anyone of either gender standing in the way are irrelevant. 10 years ago a story like the Four Corners one would never have run, because the producers would have checked with the police and found there was no assault. Grimshaw would not have had an excuse to trot out her third-rate third-degree and the New Wowsers could have stayed safe indoors where the big bad world couldn't hurt them, instead of sticking their rather drippy noses into other people's bedrooms.

<However, I have a bone to pick with my female counterparts. Feminism is all about each woman having the right to choose her own path. We should be allowed to do whatever we want in this life and not be judged by society’s arbitrary sex roles, right? Absolutely.

What about men? Do they enjoy this right?>

http://open.salon.com/blog/jodi_kasten/2009/05/27/equal_rights_for_men

One thing I found very interesting is that when one of Princess Dianna's lovers opened his mouth, he was widely condemmed, when a woman opens her mouth about her famous lover/s, he is widely condemmed.

Now Grim, could have asked how many of the women in this forum, would/have engaged in group sex. Or how many have cheated on their partner.

Or maybe a bit of voyeurism.

Pynchme, I hardly think that evolution theory is dated. With blokes
like this guy around, perpetuation of the species will no doubt
continue:

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25559154-13762,00.html

The question then arises, why did those 11 women not choose to
keep their legs together?

Why do women rush to Tom Jones and Michael Buble concerts and throw
their knickers at them, then rush backstage to try and hop into
their beds?

Clearly some guys trigger primordial instincts in women, some
seemingly react to footballers.

I don't know a thing about your husband or CJ, so would not comment.
What I do know is that if you ask any hooker, so called well behaved
married men make up the bulk of their clients. Things are not always,
what they appear to be superficially.

There are no shortage of men who have learnt to tell their wives
what they want to hear, then behind their backs, do whatever they
can get away with. The same applies to women.

"If we want to sanction distastfull activities which humiliate participants and or non-participants then I'm guessing we could easily find much clearer targets."

RObert,

I agree that the ARL gang-bang thing is not the clearest of targets as it would seem there's a fairly small virulent group deeply embedded at the font of the problem. I think the best thing to do would be to excise the worst excesses that manifest themselves from the culture - eg Paul Gallen and his racist slur toward a Polynesian opponent is an obvious start as he has form for eye gouging and other dirty play in the past.

To paraprase Sun Tzu, when fighting a bigger opponent, which the ARL culture is, pick it off at the edges to start with. Then reassess to see what's left and go after it again if there's still a problem. It just takes perserverance. It happened with the samurai in Japan and it'll eventually happen with the ARL too.

Group sex has always been represented in erotic art and literature so perhaps the politically correct purging should start there.

When were you last on the receiving end of a gang bang, Cornflower?

Just to clear up some confusion from James and many others, feminism was not started just to allow women to do whatever they wanted. Freedom of choice was one goal amongst many. Some women tend to highlight this goal, because it is convenient, they can do whatever they want and tell other women to do the same. Piss easy.
However, feminists have always had other goals. They want to stop rape, but this can't happen while some women choose to say 'no' a few times before saying 'yes'. They want to stop sexually predatory behaviour from men, but some women choose to be just as sleazy.
These examples explain why some women are accused of 'playing the victim'; because they complain about problems but make choices that exacerbate these problems. Helping other women to have fulfilling lives can't be done without dicussing the negative implications of some choices.
Perhaps feminism need to rediscover the goal of stopping society from treating women like weaklings who constantly need their feelings protected.

You forget that men get raped too and from all accounts in not inconsequential numbers. Similarly men are bullied in the workplace, have their rights removed and are victims physical violence.

Feminism is as feminism does.

The play used in the case was the usual float a high ball for the runners to take and toss the pill back and forth amid much shouting to keep the other side cowed and confused. Near the line use the big forwards to push the ball across by sheer weight of numbers. After the goal is scored it is on the record books and no-one questions if it was fair or not.

It is a play that has worked a thousand times before.

In this case the play didn't go so well even though it was well disguised from the start by a well-practised kicker, the backs ran the blind side for a overlap (onya Tracey Grimshaw, you go grrrl) and the reliable old heavyweights applied the usual biff and stiff arms to the opposition. The play failed not because the 'other side' didn't see the move coming, but because there were too many obvious infringements (including of the feminists' own rules) and the line umpires said so.

Now what has to be done is quash the video replay and analysis. The Footy Show is out for that, even if some of them did pass fourth grade (school, you dimwits), their eyes are still watering from a knee or few to the groin.

Not to worry, after some annoyed clucking and feather ruffling the grrls brigade will be back for another shot at the goal of proving that girls are made of sugar and spice and all things nice, while the boys...well you know what boys are made of and the disgusting things they do! Now that IS what feminism is in Oz. Well, that and getting highly paid jobs for the middle-class, tertiary educated women who are well placed in the network. Hey, that IS where there really is a glass ceiling (and walls and floor).

1)

This is a bit out of sync because I've lost a few days, but time flies when you're having fun....
_________________________

"It might not suit the drivers of the women's victim industry" (Quote:Cornflower).

This bloody irritates me, and more so from a female! Because it typifies the male attitude to a female complaint;-AND the cry of feminist/feminazi/blame game/playing the victim--if she then objects to that categorisation.

It is an absolute heads I win, tails you lose scenario. It is designed to shut women up;-and here it is put up by a female!

Don't get me wrong.Fallacious accusations DO occur, and I abhor them, just as I abhor this,-because it makes it harder for women who HAVE been genuinely abused.
__________________________

" That's hardly consistant with your rejection of Foxy's calls for posters to moderate their own behaviour or you response to me in defence of Foxy's position"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2718#61979
(Quote: R0bert: Refer post 26/5/09)

For a moment you had me worried. I went back to check. I do not see you point. NO individual on OLO has the right to moderate the opinions of fellow members;-male or female. That is what I said, and Foxy agreed. Spinning it won't make it any different.
______________________________

"Now now Ginxy, there you go, playing the "I am a grlll, so I am a
victim" thinggy. Sorry, no tears for Ginxy lol. Go on admit it,
you were right at the front of the queue when it came to hurling
abuse around, calling Belly and others names etc. You seemingly
enjoyed it, I personally have no problem with a bit of light hearted
banter, a bit of mud slinging, all meant in good humour." (Quote: Yabbs.

'I am a grlll(??), so I am a victim'. Hurling abuse or victim? A bit inconsistent don't you think?

A bit like:'I am a man so I am innocent'....After some of the replies on this subject!!

As the Americans say: 'right back at yer'.
__________________________

Continued-hopefully today.

2)

1) "...It would seem from what you have said, is that the only form of acceptable discussion to you, is the type of discussion that agrees with your point of view, supports your point of view,

Any discussion that seeks to challange or try to put forward an alternative point of view is unacceptable.

So basically what you are asking for, is for posters to support your points of view......

2) .......A phrase that has appeared a little bit recently is "She was asking for it!"

Asking for what?

A cup of coffee?

A new dress?

A new car?

Virtually every individual will have a different interpretation of what "Asking for it!" means." ( Quote:JamesH)

1) Wanting you to agree with my point of view? Well I'm not having much luck am I?
No JH. This is a discussion forum. Yet again, I'm surprised YOU put that, because it could apply to any one of us-and you know it.

And THIS:-

2) Asking for it could = cuppa/dress/new car.

I'm too tired to even bother with this.

__________________________________

I am perfectly happy with the previous post I made a couple of days ago. I haven't changed my view.

Cornflower: Of course women like sex. If men as described by Yabby and Antiseptic and co. stopped making themselves so readily available then women would have to initiate more often or more obviously than they do. They don’t have to though; it doesn’t take any effort to find a random penis. Law of the market: abundance of anything reduces the value.

However, for the girls and women who chase prominent men; I would guess that the majority would not be aligned with any version of feminism. There have always been women whose sense of self and worth is vested in whatever man they’re attached to. I doubt that if Hugh Jackman or other famous men were local yokels slugging it out on minimum wage or unemployment that they’d need to worry about being mobbed at the pub door. (I might make an exception for Johnny Depp &#61514;) The point is that men and women should be able to have the sex they choose and be treated and regarded in the same way – if she’s a slut for sleeping around; then men who sleep around are sluts too, and so on. If men are not regarded as sluts; then there is no reason why she should be condemned as such.

cont'd

You also say that feminists have expressed prejudice against homosexuals (do you have a link?).

Like others, I believe that gang banging is homoerotic and that the woman only serves as a conduit for male-male sex – seeing and experiencing each other’s erections, ejaculate and so on. The woman isn’t present as a participant in sex; she is there as a prop – a non-entity. The point is the objectification of the person; it’s also that along with such displays of hyper-masculinity goes contempt for homosexuality. They are in denial. It’s the same sort of mindset I suppose that underlies gay bashing. The problem isn’t that they may be homosexual or bi; it’s the denial of it which the bravado of hyper masculine behaviour disguises. Even that would be neither here nor there if people weren’t being hurt as a consequence.

I see a later post too referring to male rape. I don’t know why there’s the comment “feminism is as feminism does”.
If it wasn’t for the work of feminists/the influence of feminism, male rape victims still wouldn’t be able to make a case. Even now, few can make a case (just like female rape victims) and many suicide or cope with their PTSD with drugs and alcohol and various self-harming behaviours (just like females who experience gross trauma). It’s feminist analysis that uncovered these issues – and only during the quite recent ‘70s - such as child sexual abuse, DV and males being rape victims. Males are raped by both men and women, but perpetrators are overwhelmingly male. So while you rabidly oppose feminism (as if you understood it or even knew what it was); at least give it it’s dues.

Ginx perhaps then we have both misunderstood the others position re online behaviour. I'm not sure how but it seemed that your complaints about male behavior on OLO were an attempt to moderate the behaviour of other posters just as those who are tired of the prominance of nasty posts can rightly suggest OLO would work better without that stuff.

Pynchme, I appreciate those last two posts of yours. I think that feminism is often blamed for the actions of those who don't care at all about feminism. On the other hand many feminists often give the impression of sticking up for females in almost any given situation involving men regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation.
It's rarely one size fits all.

R0bert

R0bert

‘… many feminists often give the impression of sticking up for females in almost any given situation involving men regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation.’

Fancy that! Feminists sticking up for females.

I always find this all to common criticism of feminism incredibly strange. Why should a movement that is by women, about women, for women – one that exists to raise awareness of women’s viewpoints, women’s existence, women’s realities, women’s needs, women’s problems – be criticized for ‘automatically’ sticking up for women?

After all, that’s what advocacy groups do – they automatically stick up for their members, regardless of the rights and wrongs of a situation.

The Football Federation of Australia automatically sticks up for footballers who come under negative scrutiny – the AMA does the same for doctors, the BLF for builders, the Chamber of Commerce for business people, the Teachers Federation for teachers. Children’s advocacy groups look after a child’s rights regardless of whether or not the child is a proper little brat. All these groups look after those whom they represent, regardless of the rights or wrongs of a situation.

The issue of advocacy is not about who or what is right or wrong. It’s about allowing those for whom you advocate the opportunity – among other things – to be heard, to give their side of a story and to know that they have support. It’s also about analysing and understanding the role played by the wider society in the lives of those for whom you advocate.

Standing up for a certain side does not render you automatically incapable of seeing the full picture. On the contrary, the reaction to the Johns scandal from feminists and conservative women's advocates has allowed the rest of society access to a viewpoint that might have otherwise gone unaddressed.

If non-feminists choose to judge feminists harshly for automatically sticking up for women, then that is not a problem of feminism. The problem lies within those who are doing the judging.

*After all, that’s what advocacy groups do – they automatically stick up for their members, regardless of the rights and wrongs of a situation.*

then

*Standing up for a certain side does not render you automatically incapable of seeing the full picture.*

Ok, so there we have it. Even if you know that you are wrong, you
will plug away and put your spin on things, to market your "product"

Which is exactly what some of us blokes have been pointing out,
time after time after time. Thanks for having the honesty
to at least admit it.

Our judgement has seemingly been spot on.

"The Football Federation of Australia automatically sticks up for footballers who come under negative scrutiny – the AMA does the same for doctors, the BLF for builders, the Chamber of Commerce for business people, the Teachers Federation for teachers. Children’s advocacy groups look after a child’s rights regardless of whether or not the child is a proper little brat. All these groups look after those whom they represent, regardless of the rights or wrongs of a situation." (Quote: SJF)

I like it!
__________________

"Ok, so there we have it. Even if you know that you are wrong, you
will plug away and put your spin on things, to market your "product"

Which is exactly what some of us blokes have been pointing out,
time after time after time. Thanks for having the honesty
to at least admit it." (Quote: Yabs)

I like this too!

Plug away/spin**!!-(THAT'S a laugh)/some of us blokes.... awww!...sweet.

That is not** what SJF was saying and 'you blokes' know it.

You know why I like it? Because it shows more about your motivation
than SJF's.

(And judgment doesn't have a 'e' in it, oh perfect one).
______________________

"Ginx perhaps then we have both misunderstood the others position re online behaviour. I'm not sure how but it seemed that your complaints about male behavior on OLO were an attempt to moderate the behaviour of other posters just as those who are tired of the prominance of nasty posts can rightly suggest OLO would work better without that stuff." (Quote: R0bert)

!! Sarcasm;-and from a fella!

'You blokes' are seeing what you want to see, aren't you?

Ginx not sarcasism, rather a genuine attempt to understand how your rejection of calls for better behaviour goes with your complaints about the behaviour of posters who disagree with you. I still don't get it.

SJF, "Why should a movement that is by women, about women, for women – one that exists to raise awareness of women’s viewpoints, women’s existence, women’s realities, women’s needs, women’s problems – be criticized for ‘automatically’ sticking up for women?"

Perhaps because for a lot of people feminism is just not about womens advocacy. For many it's about seeking a fairer society which provides equality of opportunity regardless of gender. That type of feminism can't stick up for inequality or injustice just because it's a women who benefits. The type of feminism which see's itself as a womens advocacy group regardless of issues of right and wrong is rightly rejected by most. It's no more worthy of support than the worst kinds of chauvinism. A part of feminism is to raise the profile of the spectrum of realities, needs and problems which face women more often than men but if it does so at the expense of truth and a basis of fairness then you have tossed away much that is valuable.

R0bert

R0bert - true. Well at least you were going really well until the fuzzy interpretation of advocacy. What SLJ said is also true and she put it so well. A criminal may well have an advocate sit with them through the police statements; trials and so on. The advocate doesn't deny that the crime occurred, but ensures that whatever the criminal may have done, the justice process occurs with respect to the criminal's human rights.

Feminism is not some external collective of women wanting to destroy men. Many of us are wives; girfriends; mothers of sons and so on. We're each as intrinsically part of the social fabric as any other citizen - working in ordinary jobs or stayin at home to mind the kiddies; managers; volunteers - whatever.

So we come from many different life stories. One of the most interestig aspects for me is the analysis of patterns of power and control in society.

It soon becomes clear that not only have men occupied major decision making positions (the economy; politics; war) but the social institutions spawned by those have misused other men. Like, the labourer on the factory floor works for a pittance in unsafe conditions not because of women, but because that is how he - his life and humanness - is valued by men with greater power.

Similarly, men go to war because other men with varying vested interests send them. It's not 'men' that feminist analysis challenges but the social institutions that victimize all people (including children) with less power. I hope that we can change or at least understand and acknowledge existing patterns of power and privelege. As a humanist and a Christian (yes, they can co-exist within my worldview) I am interested in humanity, of course. As a feminist, I am particularly interested in where women place themselves within those changing patterns.

SLJ pointed out that there is no suprise that a women's movement should advocate for women and issues that impact primarily on them; but the social effect is a benefit to all, as this (male) writer points out:

http://www.alternet.org/story/47080/

cont'd

cont'd:

As a further example of social injustice, an it may still be under discussion - but do you realize that Scots Law desn't/or only recently - acknowledge/d that men can be victims of rape. Half the United States still has no or inadequate provision for male victims to seek legal acknwledgement or redress. These are issues that feminism recognizes and challenges; while poviding support (by women and men, based on feminist principles) where they can to such victims.

An example: http://www.secasa.com.au/infosheet/infosheet_2003.pdf

So where is the Glenn Sacks and Angry Harry retinue leading men, in their concerted efforts to dismantle feminism and feminist orgnizations; support centres and so on - towards a fairer and more just society ? - I don't think so. If they cared about men and boys (and by extension,all of society) they would be pointing their energy at existing structures that enshrine the victimization of men by other men.

SJF - excellent posts

Pynchme

I have been saying for a long time now that men are more likely to be victims of men, than they are of women. From the factory floor to assault, men are more likely to be exploited by other men. But this fact is rarely discussed by those who are intent on blaming feminism for all their woes.

Women are no angels either and the few who have made it into positions of power have either colluded with their male peers (Maggie Thatcher), or just haven't made any difference at all - for a variety of reasons such as, being out numbered or marginalised.

BTW

I loved Grim's question regarding who had actually engaged in gang-bangs - none whatsoever.

Besides they wanted their group sex to be with multiple females - in their wildest.... Hilarious after all their claims that multitudes of women are into all male gang-bangs. I suspect that some men have been spending too much time in the shed thumbing old copies of Penthouse, circa 1970 - what tipped me off were the references to the Rolling Stones. Back in the era of post-pill and pre-aids. Such innocent times.

However, to be fair:

I ask the female posters if any of them have indulged in RFL style sex - by choice of course.

Starting with myself; zero - I don't think 2 male/female couples in the same bed really counts as a gang bang, especially as there was no "swapping" involved.

Cheers

Here's a snippet from an interesting article regarding the perception of power:

>>"There are many different ways that men can choose to feel good about themselves. Some powerful men who exploit others might feel great about themselves. A man owning a large company with the power to hire and fire, may feel good about himself through enjoying his power and control over other people. Furthermore, if men's self-esteem is formed on the basis of their access to social power and privilege, then these men are likely to experience a loss of self esteem if their social power and privilege is lost.

Trying to understand the complexities of men's relationship to power, I have turned to Michael Foucault (1977) who maintains that the traditional dichotomous understanding of power is insufficient. He challenges the polarisation of such categories as 'powerful' and 'powerless' because they fail to untangle the way in which power is manifested and constituted subjectively. In his view, power is not a thing or a commodity; it is not something that some groups have and use to control others who are powerless. Women's capacity for inner power and the capacity to develop 'power-against' through resistance means that women are not completely powerless. Thus power is not something that is solely exercised by those who hold institutional power.

This challenge to the notion that men are all-powerful in all aspects of their lives does not lead us to the conclusion reached by Farrell (1993) and others that male power is a myth. In recognising the importance of other forms of power, we should not deny the phenomenon of institutionalised gender power, nor of class and state power. Rather, we should explore how gender power relations can be transformed in local struggles by paying attention to the subjectivities that may influence these power relations at the everyday level of social relations.<<"

http://www.achillesheel.freeuk.com/article22_5.html

This is worthy of a new discussion thread, but am not well enough ATM to facilitate.

Any takers?

What in the hell happened there?? I have been trying to get a post up for 35 minutes!!
Eventually tried clicking out of the site, and could not get back in for 30 minutes!
_________________________________________



"Ginx not sarcasism, rather a genuine attempt to understand how your rejection of calls for better behaviour goes with your complaints about the behaviour of posters who disagree with you. I still don't get it." (Quote:R0bert)

Let's stop playing games shall we? Cut the crap with your claim of sincerity. You are suggesting I have double standards. Double standards are hypocrisy. I loathe and detest hypocrisy, and I don't do it.

'Calls for better behaviour'?? To me? Where?

NOW: In-the-original-post-you-referred-to-I-stated-that-no-one-individual member-has-the-right-to-moderate-others.

I-have-referred-to-a-Boys Club-in-relation-to-'you blokes'. Just-as;-I-might-add,-reference-has-been-made-to-women-protecting-women.

Actually;....what the hell ARE you talking about?

All this from a member who in the original thread on this incident,-referred to it as trivial.

Time for you to put up my conflicting posts, R0bert.
_______________________________

NOW lets see............

"There are many different ways that women can choose to feel good about themselves. Some powerful women who exploit others might feel great about themselves."

Some aspects of Power are illusionary, for example if Joe the Plumber became President of the US instead of Obama, Joe the Plumber would have become the most powerful man in the US.

In business and Politics power only exists as long as a person maintains their position in the hierarchy. As such Joe the Plumber will always be the same person whether he is a plumber or the president.

Power from what I have read can be a aphrodisiac for some/alot of women.

Typically men higher up the social ladder have a much better choice of higher quality females, as females tend to marry upwards and men to marry downwards. This tends to indicate that women do not regard men on the same social level as quality mates.

Perhaps this tendency is a left over of our evolutionary past.

Ginx, I I've put up enough references to the originals toi makie it clear if you were willing to take an honest look at your own responses. Any further posts would just seem to be digging into one of those silly personal conflicts that I try and avoid (not always sucessfully).

Pynchme, my fuzzy intepretation of advocacy (fair call) is based on my intepretation of SJF's comments to me regarding an earlier post of mine. SJF can't understand why some of us might be concerned that a movement which claims to be about equality often takes sides regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation.

Feminism does need to address issues which impact mostly on women, it does have spinoff's which benefit men but sometimes the way the gender focus plays out seems incompatible with claims of seeking equality. If it really is about equality then issues of right and wrong will always be part of the picture. If it's about putting women ahead at any cost then it has nothing to do with equality.

R0bert

Fractelle I loved the link; thanks for that, and also the ideas as you set them out. As I read and considered them I was reminded of an interesting aside somewhere a little while ago where Romany confirmed my perceptions of the overt and subtle ways in which males attempt to maintain dominance in the workplace.

It would be great to see what you've put here in a new thread and up for a good rousing debate. I can't facilitate though - I am only here now procrastinating as it is :)

I hope someone takes up the challenge. If not, maybe we can in a few weeks when I have a little more time and you've recovered (hope that's soon and that you're ok mate).

James: <"In business and Politics power only exists as long as a person maintains their position in the hierarchy. As such Joe the Plumber will always be the same person whether he is a plumber or the president.">

Sorry; I don't understand the point you're making there. Could you expand on it to clarify. Thanks.

R0bert: <"If it's about putting women ahead at any cost then it has nothing to do with equality.">

Are there any social institutions - the economy, politics, religion, family, education, law - where women have gained a lead "at any cost"; especially to men? I sometimes get weary of this whine about women being unfair about "equality"; where it seems to me that the male perception of inequality is just the experience of not having complete jurisdiction over everything that impacts on the whole population - 1/2 of which is female.

Fractelle

‘In recognising the importance of other forms of power, we should not deny the phenomenon of institutionalised gender power, nor of class and state power.’

Very true. By way of example, the fact that some Aboriginal people earn more than I do does not change the imbalanced and unjust power relationship that exists between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australia.

Also, a lot of homosexual men may face more overt discrimination throughout their lives than I do as a heterosexual woman, but that does not change the overall fact that a man – homosexual or heterosexual – will still have access to all kinds of cultural reinforcements that are far less accessible to me as a woman.

JamesH

‘… females tend to marry upwards and men to marry downwards. This tends to indicate that women do not regard men on the same social level as quality mates./ Perhaps this tendency is a left over of our evolutionary past.’

This has got nothing to do with evolution – just common sense.

For centuries, women were denied the means of making a living other than through menial labour. Naturally, they married ‘up’ to ensure their financial survival and social status. Indeed, MARRIAGE itself – up, down or sideways – was imperative to a woman’s very existence!

Although centuries of male-dependent conditioning still lingers in the female psyche, women now have more control over their own financial security. The days when, say, secretaries married their bosses and nurses married doctors are fast disappearing. While this still happens, the pattern nowadays is towards ‘associative coupling’ – doctors marry doctors, executives marry executives, graduates marry graduates, non-graduates marry non-graduates, tradies marry tradies.

Pynchme, in the case of Joe the Plumber he will always be the same person, however if he attained the position of the President, it the position of being President that has the power.

As such this type of power is transitory, ie at present Obama is the most powerful person in the US, that is until he is voted out of that position.

A CEO is the most powerful person in an organisation, only whilst that CEO maintains his or her position. I have meet people who used to be at the top of their field, until some event or combination of events sent them into a downward spiral and are now living on the street.

Socalled Male power tends to be derived from achievements, successes, and recognition.

I know SJF doesn't particularly like Farrell and I read his book ages ago, and if I recall correctly it was about putting forward alternative ideas and trying to explore ideas. I did find the book difficult to read.

<First, because they have often argued or implied that all men are equally powerful when this is not so and second, because men's subjective experiences of power may not match their social position.>

I think Farrell also argued this position.

Bob Pease raises some interesting points, sadly he still falls back on the men oppress women tied old arguement and fails to examine the complicity of women.

Ive just come back from a session on how misdiagnosises happen, such things like an idea takes on a life of it's own, and nobody bothers to question the validity of that idea. Selective attention to indicators that support the idea, whilst other indicators are ignored or dismissed. Then there is gender/race biases and prejudices.

Pynchme:"Are there any social institutions - the economy, politics, religion, family, education, law - where women have gained a lead "at any cost, especially to men?""

Education springs out. Tertiary institutions have a large excess of women as a result of very deliberate policies that have demonstrably disadvanteged boys in secondary school for several decades.

Law is another - currently women outnumber men to a huge extent in the lower levels of legal practise and that will flow though.

Unions are another area, with the traditional male-dominated blue-collar union almost extinct as a result of deliberate social policies and Union power entrenched now in a few white-collar unions dominated by women.

Family life has always been largely the preserve of women, while Family Law has only recently acknowledged any role at all for fathers other than as financial providers.

In front of the criminal Bench, women are vastly more likely to receive a non-custodial sentence after committing a crime that would see a man awarded a jail term.

SJF:"For centuries, women were denied the means of making a living other than through menial labour."

So were the vast majority of men. As you said, "the fact that some Aboriginal people earn more than I do does not change" that.

In today's world, women dominate, either directly holding authority or manipulating men to produce outcomes disproportionately beneficial to women and often disadvantaging men as a result.

SJF:"the pattern nowadays is towards ‘associative coupling’ – doctors marry doctors, executives marry executives, graduates marry graduates, non-graduates marry non-graduates, tradies marry tradies."

Rubbish. There are simply not enough young male professionals to couple with the young female ones. In trades, there are nearly 5 times as many men as women, according to the ABS.

Whatever you regard as the intent of feminism, it has quite clearly acted to create a society in which women matter more than men.

No surprise I guess that the poorly researched Sarah Ferguson 4Corners report would spawn the usual feminist rants against men because that was probably the whole idea in the first place. Good one, Sarah, you go grrrl.

To get the discussion back to footy, wasn't the State of Origin game a great spectacle?

Anyway, for those who saw the lead-up to the game or the history of the sport that was shown afterwards, wasn't it a delightful reminder that footy is a boys' game, made especially for working men? I guess that is why some feminists have long had footy as a target for their spiteful comments and social reengineering - it is a boys' game. This helps to explain why Sarah Ferguson was so desperate to sensationalise a weak old case that had been done to death by police and why the grrls brigade didn't stop to put their brains into gear before swinging the Doc Martens and making fools of themselves.

I was directed to an article that puts the other 'side' of footy - why men enjoy it and what they think of the attention the feminists are giving THEIR game. Admittedly the article is about AFL but for those of us who want to understand the football and sports loving men in our lives it is as good a primer as any. It is 'Australian Rules Football as Secret Men's Business' by Patrick McCauley. Have fun:

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2008/9/australian-rules-football-as-secret-men-s-business

Antiseptic you say; that it was the same girl with the two footballers in the toilet cubicle the night before.

OK; She agreed to have sex with two footballers in the toilet cubicle, does that automatically mean she agreed to have sex with all the rest of them. I’d say it was them that thought of that in relation to knowing about the toilet incident.
Can you rape a prostitute? Can you rape your wife? The muslims say no. But prostitutes have been raped and murdered. It doesn’t matter if they had sex with two men in the toilet the night before if they do not agree to have sex with a particular man and he sexually assaults them anyway it is still assault. Apparently there are some who still don’t understand that, like those in muslim countries.
Yes I did read Dr. Cannons piece on regret, but it still does not make sense to air that regret all over the media when there are plenty of doctors and physcologists to discuss it with in private.

It used to be (I don’t know if it still applies ) that defence lawyers in rape cases got more guilty verdicts if there were more men on the jury because women would blame the victim in self-defence. Because by subconsciously blaming the victim it gave them assurance that it couldn’t happen to them.
In fact that is why most of us have a subconscious desire to blame victims we don’t like to think that bad things can just randomly happen to us. (just threw that in as a matter of interest) We actually distance ourselves from victims for the same reason. A sense of self protection. Joanne Lees was treated the same way with doubt and scepticism over her story.

I think this might already have been mentioned:

Women can be called:-tramps-bitches-whores-trollops-scanky ho is a recent one,-cows-dogs..

Men can be called:-bastards-swines-cads.

I was thinking about this 'feminist rant' that Cornflower has regurgitated (how could I think you were female eh?).

A tad unfair, given the plethora of equally strongly expressed male opinions don't you think?

So;..I decided that this too must have its own title. I thought of Man-ipulative..nah! Man-ifest/Man-ipest...nah! Man-ge..tut!

Then I had it. And now I'll use it specifically to 'categorise' these 'male rants'.

MAN-TRA! Mantra. An accurate description I think!

And from now on I will use this phrase to refer to the virulent anti-female stance so prevalent on OLO.

OK; As a female I am sickened by the mantra rants that has flooded this topic. And while you mantra's continue your ranting. I will respond.

Fair enough?
_______________________

" Law is another - currently women outnumber men to a HUGE EXTENT in the lower levels of legal practise and that will flow though".

Unions are another area, with the traditional male-dominated blue-collar union ALMOST EXTINCT as a result of deliberate social policies and Union power entrenched now in a few white-collar unions dominated by women". (Quote: septic)

NOT TRUE.

Yet another mantra rant.

"Ginx, I I've put up enough references to the originals toi makie it clear if you were willing to take an honest look at your own responses. Any further posts would just seem to be digging into one of those silly personal conflicts that I try and avoid (not always sucessfully)." (Quote:R0bert).

References not proof. It is up to you to provide proof IF you accuse me of something, and you HAVE chosen to accuse me-so provide the proof-where is your evidence?

So nice to know that you try to avoid 'silly personal conflicts' (!!). (Not always successfully).<<How true THAT is.

Frankly R0bert; put up or shut up

Cornflower

I absolutely adore you! You are the far and away the most prolific and unrepentant of woman haters I have ever encountered – and I have encountered quite a few in my time.

When I read your posts, I am amazed to realise just how successful feminism has actually been. Obviously, feminism both frightens and fascinates you, to an extent that is so intensely passionate as to be flattering. However, I doubt that it is feminism you fear – more its role in demolishing the right-wing sacred belief in heroic male exceptionalism, along with the futile martyrdom such exceptionalism always demands.

In terms of the article you linked to, it would be nice to think that football’s currently shoddy fall from grace were a product of someone’s idea of feminist power – but I think not. Football continues to fall on its own gladiatorial sword due to a combination of too much money and too many people watching its every move.

Antiseptic

I was wondering when you’d be back. Pity. While you were away we were actually in danger of achieving an interesting discussion … A rarity on an OLO gender thread.

‘In today's world, women dominate …’

If you really must subscribe to that hopelessly dysfunctional delusion, I wish you well. However, it signals time for me to leave, as I know from past experience the battle from here on in will not be worth fighting

Cornflour:- I agree with you that football is a male sport and that it is best that way. There's nothing I like better than an all in punch up between the players on the field.

I am not a real rugby fan though, but I love the AFL. My husband is a rugby fan and has flags and colours around the house and painted on his truck. I have always thought that women reporters look totally out of place in football dressing rooms and on football panels. They just look like they are trying too hard to fit in or something.

The article by Pual Mccauley,
states:-Men in general have had to accept discrimination in major areas of their lives such as education, marriage and employment.

I wholeheartedly agree with the education system being too feminine for boys who often learn differently to girls because they are less verbal and more action orientated.
I don't agree that men are discriminated against in marriage. I often see fathers left in a big house while the children have to seek inadequate accomodations with their mothers. <there are suburbs of single mothers looking for male role models for their sons>
Matthew Johns and his players lining up to have sex like dogs with a female on heat is hardly what I would call a good male role model for boys. Maybe they are demonstrating this so the lads know what to do in times of war conquests. Or maybe they see this as normal male behaviour except when they are denying it to their wives.

Basically I agree that men need to be proud of their maleness and the great athletic power and skills they have and football is a great showcase for this. But they need to demonstrate the strength and power as something that has great value to our families and society when it is channelled lovingly and used wisely and have the sense not to get involved in stupid acts that showcase selfish sexual weaknesses.

<"Education springs out. Tertiary institutions have a large excess of women as a result of very deliberate policies that have demonstrably disadvanteged boys in secondary school for several decades.">

Well we know that is rubbish because it wasn't until the 1980s that women gained reasonable access and enouragement towards higher education.

Moreover, who occupies the majority of senio academic, executive and other positions in the pubic service and in professions such as teaching? :

http://www.universitiesaustralia.edu.au/documents/policies_programs/women/Gender_Disparities_20Report_Jun03.pdf

Finally, the post referred to women getting ahead of men (as if that were the goal, and it isn't) "at any cost". Can you show any policy, legislation, data or any type of evidence that males have been or are systematically excluded from undertaking any course, at any level whatsoever? (No).

As to "family" - that's a great sense of humour you have there. Hypothetical: Tell me, would you be in favour of men getting full custody 90 % of the time? Why or why not - how would it work; what social effects do you foresee?

sharkfin, "But they need to demonstrate the strength and power as something that has great value to our families and society when it is channelled lovingly and used wisely and have the sense not to get involved in stupid acts that showcase selfish sexual weaknesses."

Well said! I am sure that the great majority of men and women live their lives with that aim in mind. There will always be the stupid and selfish few, but we shouldn't judge the box by the few bad apples.

Sharkfin, the toilet cubicle incident took place the night prior to the Johns incident. IOW "she had form" - ask any prosecutor about "form". Yes, they were separate incidents, but they were remarkably similar in nature, hence her credibility in the matter is grossly damaged. That's what reputations are about.

I put it to you that the media beatup was nothing to do with her regret except that it allowed the Four Corners people to gain her cooperation. Her regret is what she was expressing in going to the police some 5 days after the event. the Four Corners piece was about ratings and making a feminist point about the "evilness" of footballers and by extension young men in general.

Gunk (incoherent as ever):"look at me, look at me, i'm a grrl too you know, look at me"

Nope, still nothing worth looking at. Pity...

SJF, I regard it as a badge of personal honour that you run off when I show up. After all, I know it's because I ask questions which you simply don't want to hear because you cannot fit the answers into your dogma.If your ideology wasn't such a defective mish-mash of misandry and dishonesty that wouldn't be a problem, since you could defend it, but as it stands, you know you can't, so you run and look for a "friendly" forum, where all those nasty men aren't allowed to be bullies by asking questions and the grrls can all tell each other how lovely their content-free posts are. Tough titties...

Ahhhh! The ubiquitous post count..
___________

"Well said! I am sure that the great majority of men and women live their lives with that aim in mind. There will always be the stupid and selfish few, but we shouldn't judge the box by the few bad apples."
Posted by Cornflower, Friday, 5 June 2009 3:42:09 AM

Well now cornflower, I think we'd agree on that one...
____________________

"Gunk (incoherent as ever):"look at me, look at me, i'm a grrl too you know, look at me"

Silly squity,-you've already done that one. Haven't you got anything fresh to say?
Silly of ME! Of course you haven't!!

Odious thurd.

Are you lot through with trading insults with each other? Or do you have a few more rounds to go?

Fractell post an interesting bit on Power.

So any one for a debate, or do you just want to trade insults?

To be honest I first thought it might have been written by Michael Flood.

<. In recognising the importance of other forms of power, we should not deny the phenomenon of institutionalised gender power, nor of class and state power. Rather, we should explore how gender power relations can be transformed in local struggles by paying attention to the subjectivities that may influence these power relations at the everyday level of social relations.>

Now the author ignores the fact, that violence in particular male violence is often associated with substance abuse, we have mental illness and acquired brain injury as other contributing factors. Things like concussion can change a persons behaviour.

Students of animal behaviour "It me or the dog" will know that a frightened dog is more likely to bite. Failing to learn what is known as impulse control, I think also maybe a contributing factor in violence.

Generally it is accepted that human violence is about power and control, but just maybe it is about a sense of powerlessness and loss of control and being violent is about trying to regain some sense of control.

This article kind of reflects earlier feminist thinking where marriage was seen a patriarchial construct designed to keep women oppressed.

<Similarly, the standard feminist account of women’s position under the law is that they were systematically disadvantaged, and only disadvantaged. Yet Hughes reveals that English women were completely exempt from criminal responsibility. As a feminist, how can she explain this?>
http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2008/10/accidental-heroine.html

"Are you lot through with trading insults with each other? Or do you have a few more rounds to go?" (JH)

This always amuses me. The tactic of 'you lot' which so smoothly removes its author from being a participant to being a wise observer!

The answer (of course) is up to you, and those who have posted in a like manner.....

JamesH - The history of criminal law; the way it was/is interwoven with socio-cultural values and perceptions of femininity and female culpabiity, are a little more complex than your Angry Harry site portrays it.

One of the main points is that women have generally been punished harshly for non-conformity to dominant views of acceptable femininity; but let off lightly if they conformed ie: portrayed themselvs as frail, weak and morally dependant.

In some situations the spouse or father was in charge of punishment; and asylums (no better than prisons) were often used as a means of social control over women.

<"Of course there are cases where apparent leniency is shewn to the woman, such as the rule which holds a wife free from criminal responsibility if the crime be committed in the husband’s presence. But this privilege of exemption is based on the assumption that in such a case "she acted thus being in constant and well grounded fear, stronger than the fear naturally inspired by the law." A very interesting admission on the part of the law of the power of chastisement and authority vested in husbands, but not exactly a conception of matrimony tending to increase the selfrespect and dignity of wives.">
https://bora.uib.no/bitstream/1956/3118/8/The_ABC_of_votes_for_women.pdf

- and this is most interesting to read; with some controversial points:

http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/5613/1/WPS05-2007Lacey.pdf

Btw: also check out fairness in law re: prostitution; inheritance and child custody.

gunk(even more incoherently than usual):""

Still nothing to see here. Sad, really.

JamesH:"Generally it is accepted that human violence is about power and control,"

The issue is who is in control. Our western society has always given women enormous freedom from responsibility, other than the historically terrible responsibility of childbirth, which killed so many women. That is now a solved problem medically-speaking and as a consequence many women are now becoming "dowagers", with a long life to look forward to. It is that fact, more than any other that is at the root of feminism, I suspect. The dowager is a respected figure in our culture, having demonstrated her toughness by surviving through terrible risks. The modern dowager hasn't done anything of the sort, of course, having taken full advantage for her whole life of the cultural predisposition to treat young women as less disposable than men and the Feminist ideology that has hijacked it and so a new set of trials she can claim to have survived is invented, centring on the myth that all men are bastards (except the "nice" ones, of course").

What I find interesting in much of the discussion around this topic is that women are still acculturated to the concept of the "princess and the frog", by which I mean that they expect to be able to change their chosen mate into their own vision of perfection, regardless of the "parlous" state the "wicked witch" (their prospective mother-in-law) has left him in. In much of the feminist rhetoric this is extended to include all males, who would all become "handsome princes" if only they'd allow themseves to be saved by the "beautiful princesses" with whom they'd live "happily ever after".

If the "frogs" fail to respond in the approved manner to the "kisses" they're obviously merely base animals and not worthy of the attention of the "princesses" other than as things to be kept out of the "house" of state affairs.

Feminism - making ideology out of fairy tales for 100 years...

This discussion is not so much about footballers and their groupies as it is about look at me feminism (thanks Ginx and Antiseptic). It’s not about the joys or otherwise of group sex, nor the morality of multiple partners in quick succession (with however much homoeroticism on display).

It is that last superfluous man, who reframes the argument, and reshapes our social conscience. Feminism … you gotta love it.

Yeah right,..thanks Seeker,...I think.

Feminism, feminism, feminism!!

Mantra, mantra, mantra!! (I put that in because you inadvertently left it out.......didn't you?)
______________________

I'm curious,-does ANYBODY bother with septicemia's post's?

The discussion is about using any excuse to flog a tired old feminist world view to shore up a victim industry that puts bread on the table of hundreds of people.

You would have to be in fairyland to believe that women, young or not, are vulnerable, hot-house plants forever at risk of being 'violated' by men. Go out on Friday night and look, for every lad there is a ladette. Women are not behind in sexual experimentation and many find 'bad' boys an irresistible attraction for seduction.

The media's kid gloves coverage of Jodi Gordon stands in stark contrast to the treatment any man would have received in a similar circumstances.

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,25595454-10229,00.html

The spin for Jodi is calm, understanding and almost excusing, whereas a man would have been pilloried, with raucous demands for his immediate sacking for the disgusting offence to women, families and children. Feminists would be forced to rush into print and the feminist big guns would be thundering away demanding counselling and re-education of all screen personalities and removal of the 'monster's private bits as a warning to others. The speculative gossip mill would be running hotter than a steel foundry.

The careers of some of the greatest AFL players ever have been derailed for less, amid the raucous baying of feminists for more blood. However in Jodi's case the silence of the women's movement is completely expected and there would be no surprise if she was later cast as the victim of a spiked drink. Meanwhile, a cricketer has been sacked for not staying in his hotel at night while on tour and enjoying a legal drink. That is soooo different because he is a man. Whereas in Jodi's case, hey it is possible to spin a romantic story about being carried off by a modern day pirate, with Jodi as Elizabeth Swann and the bikie thug as Captain Jack Sparrow. What about the drugs or the odd behaviour resulting in the police raid? Shucks, minor details as is the bikie war that is raging over drugs and territory.

"The discussion is about using any excuse to flog a tired old feminist world view to shore up a victim industry that puts bread on the table of hundreds of people.

You would have to be in fairyland to believe that women, young or not, are vulnerable, hot-house plants forever at risk of being 'violated' by men. Go out on Friday night and look, for every lad there is a ladette. Women are not behind in sexual experimentation and many find 'bad' boys an irresistible attraction for seduction." (Cornflour)
__________________

What utter tosh!

Do I appear to be a hothouse plant forever at risk from...etc., Do ANY of the females who have had to cope with this incessant mantra rant appear to be pathetic weak little creatures living in fear?

Well...........? That alone makes a complete mockery of your ongoing piffle.

'Tired old feminist world'!! HA!! Seems to me there ain't nothing tired in the manner we 'hothouse plants' have in dealing with this dreary sameness.

And puuuulllease, there is ever DEcreasing fodder for 'seduction'. 'Irresistible' my foot! Look at the pickings on OLO.

Which is it Corns?, a 'Ladette' or a 'hothouse plant at risk'?

Taking a bob each way eh?

Too silly.

gunk:" "

Still nothing to report. Hothouse plants grow so well in old-cow manure too...

Antiseptic: I rather liked your fairy tale scenario. Very creative :)

Cornflower: Are you right in the head?

What the hell are you talking about re: an actress and the bikie?
You said if a man had been in that same situation feminists would be calling for his castration - what for? Plus there WAS a man in that same situation: two peeps used cocaine or summin and may have been hallucinating. What's unusual about that? Nobody is accused of anything so what does your completely unfounded, panicked ranting about feminism have to do with anything?

Seeker: "Feminism … you gotta love it." <- You bet. Learn more about it and these poor old OLO blokes will discover there is nothing to fear afterall. Sooks.

Ginx: <"Which is it Corns?, a 'Ladette' or a 'hothouse plant at risk'?"> Very astute as usual in picking the basic incoherence of conflicting ideas. Good one :)

pynchme, thanks for the compliment. I hope to do a series of post-feminist fairy tale analyses. My feeling is that there is much of feminist thinking predicated on fairy tales.

pynchme:"Plus there WAS a man in that same situation: "

Except it wasn't the man who made the false report to the police, nor was the man even there when that false report took place as far as I can work out. As long as women are excused from responsibility for their actions in making false claims, this sort of thing will only become more common. Let's face it, if there had not been a CCTV camera available to show that nothing had occerred, this incident would have been reported as a violent attempted home invasion and the woman would have been all over TV for weeks. It is not trivial and she should be charged, just as a man would be.

I'll be interested to read your fairy tale analysis - sounds like a very good project.

You must have missed these bits in the story:

"Putting on a brave face, Gordon turned up for work at the Home And Away set at Epping while Judge's lawyer Stephen Alexander fronted the cameras to state the pair had done nothing wrong when found cowering in Judge's unit by police."

(That seems to say that they were both found cowering in the unit.)
Gordon told officers she feared for her life after spotting the men on the CCTV cameras which surround the unit. But when told there was no such footage, she allegedly admitted to police cocaine had been consumed on that day.

Judge, who refused to be interviewed by police, allegedly conceded he may have been hallucinating after taking a sleeping tablet"
(he said he might have been hallucinating)

http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,28383,25595454-10229,00.html

- and this report:

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,25589025-5006922,00.html

"Police were called to an apartment in Bellevue Hill about 5.30pm on Wednesday, after the unit's resident reported that five men - at least two of them with guns - were in his backyard and trying to scale his balcony. "

(He phoned in the report)

"Gordon and the male resident, 29, were found hiding in a bedroom."

(Both in the bedroom when police arrived)

The big police response was because of his bikie affiliations. They were both just drugged up by the sounds of it. Nothing new. Storm in a teacup.

Jodi’s just a victim in the making. How does a wholesome starlet living with Ryan Stokes go missing only to be found days later in such circumstances? And found with mental capacity of a hot-house plant and in company of a man who is about to be sentenced for detaining for advantage with actual bodily harm and detaining occasioning actual bodily harm.

If Judge was a gentleman, then what did Stokes do to this poor girl?

I thought cocaine was illegal before reading this. Not so sure now.

1)

gunk:" "

Still nothing to report. Hothouse plants grow so well in old-cow manure too...
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 7 June 2009 8:08:00 PM

Here I bow to your wisdom.

'Old cow manure' IS your territory. After all, blowfly's wallow in it,-and boy! doesn't it show?
That's why I referred to methane elsewhere).
______________

Thank Heavens for the Jodi Gordon thing! It turned up in the nick of time!

More fodder for the mantra rant!

The weak and feeble 'hot house' contingent will just have to cope I guess, sniffle, sniffle.

Sorry;-or is it ladettes? Sheesh.

(At least it gave Seeker two choices!)

Cont'd-hopefully today..
_________________________________________

2)

Pynchme: I only knew that the Gordon thing had surfaced here, because of your response to it.

I've long since stopped reading the mantra rants. You read one..., you've read them all.. I only respond to the digs now.

(Except in one case where I look forward to some interesting interchanges...).

More power to HHF's (hot-house flowers..), for attempting to get through to the OLO Boys Club.

I don't ever recall OLO being this way when I was here before. Maybe it was, but I never saw it. A Boys Club will see ANY defence of women as feminism-not justice/fairness;-feminism.

The OBC (OLO Boys Club) don't see their continual attacks on ALL women as anything but normal. Particularly when they were endorsed by Graham Young, when HE responded to female responses to him;-as a 'feminist rant'.

In my view female members-who have chosen (quite correctly) to defend Clare and NinaF-are fair game as a DIRECT result of this.

Isn't it interesting that when MEN behave like they have here,-there was no category for it?? THAT is why I decided on Mantra Rant.
__________________________

Without question this HAS come down to who wins.

Even if I am still on these three threads up to Christmas and into next year, I will continue. I will continue because to do otherwise will send a clear message to the majority of current male members that they can put female members 'in their place' anytime they want.

I cannot and will not allow that, so I am in for the long haul, and frankly I hope a couple of you female members will join me.

If we allow this male domination of OLO..........,which IS what this is all about.........; then OLO will lose much of its female membership.

I have yet to be convinced that this is not the ultimate goal...

pynchme, I must confess to not reading tht article, but relying on the news reports, which never mentioned the presence of a man, other than to mention that she had been using drugs with a "bikie" earlier.

The point still stands, however: if I, as a man, got drunk and called 000 with no reason, I'd be likely in the frame for public nuisance or false complaint. If I was found to have a dangerous drug of addiction in my possession, I'd be charged and the police would be making statements about the importance of not abusing the service.

Andrew Johns didn't even commit a crime and he lost his job.

It's yet another example of the double standard that applies thanks to the fairy-tale ideology of feminism.

Gunk(twitching uncontrollably):" "

Time for a bex and a good lie down, dear. The strain of producing all that manure is obviously not good for old cows.

Antiseptic, it's a bit hysterical to be claiming victim status on the basis of a scenario that didn't happen and no evidence.

Btw: I'd never heard of these people until whatshisname posted the link; I don't know why you blokes find them interesting.

I don't know what year this ws drawn up; but consider this:

<"... abusive calls and repetitive nuisance calls to these numbers. Such behaviour will be punished by three years jail.

Thirteen million calls are made each year to the emergency triple zero call service, however it is estimated that less than 10 per cent of these actually relate to an emergency.>

http://www.darylwilliams.dcita.gov.au/Article/0,,0_7-2_4011-4_119352,00.html

Do you really imagine that thousands of gaolings are going to happen because someone makes a mistake? I think the police who respond will decide when mischief is afoot.

Also, if men are as victimized as you're trying to portray, what's Mark Judge doing still walking around with this history:

<" Judge will be sentenced ... later this month after pleading guilty to one count of detaining for advantage with actual bodily harm and one of detaining occasioning actual bodily harm. They relate to the alleged kidnapping of a man from Llandilo, near Penrith, in April 2005.

.. detained the man with the intention of gaining $25,000. He is also to appear before a judge in Newcastle ... for breach of a suspended sentence.

He is currently serving a two-year suspended jail sentence after pleading guilty to assaulting a different man in Newcastle in 2005.

Judge also pleaded guilty to threatening a female prosecution witness.

For those two charges he was given a two-year suspended sentence, which requires good behaviour. But last December he was convicted of hindering a male police officer in Potts Point, resulting in a $750 fine. As a result, he faces the possibility of his suspended sentence being revoked or varied. ">

There is no point to be made; don't be silly.

Ginx: I am with you; I will be around as much as I can. Forgive any unforeseeable absences, but I will do my best to make a presence.

Ginx, Pynchme

Ginx: ‘… I am in for the long haul, and frankly I hope a couple of you female members will join me.’

Pynchme: ‘Ginx: I am with you; I will be around as much as I can…’

I respect your tenacity, but I maintain a diametrically opposite stance when dealing with the OLO boys club – i.e. I believe in leaving the discussion once it's turned toxic. Sometimes I check back to see if I made the right decision and, so far, I believe I always have.

I choose to refrain from the ‘long haul’ approach for a number of reasons.

Firstly, you can’t change the nature of the beast. There is an equivalent bullying faction on all the threads, not just the gender ones. The subject may differ but the methodology is the same.

Secondly, the long-haul approach does not distinguish between those boys-club posters who are reasonable and those who are toxically dysfunctional. If anything, it gives the latter far more time and energy than they deserve. The long-haul approach just feeds the toxic posters’ oxygen, because all they really want is attention. Leave them alone and they’ve got nothing to feed off – except each other.

Thirdly, my own time is precious. There are so many OLO posters of both genders who continue to make worthwhile contributions. By spending excess time on the toxic posters, I underrate the contributions of the genuine posters – as well as my own.

Fourthly, and most importantly, feminism stands on its own merit. One either gets it or one doesn’t – it is not something that can be patiently drip-fed into unreceptive minds. If society needs what feminism has to offer at a certain point in time and via a certain set of social circumstances, then feminism triumphs – regardless of how feminists 'behave' or what feminists 'say'.

On each gender thread, a certain quota of sound, reasonable posts get aired before the toxic posters complete their sabotage – and I believe that is what really matters, not who wins or hangs on the longest.

Antiseptic: Matthew Johns lost his job because the organizations who employ him are trying to appeal to a family audience or something and they no longer see him as a fit public representative. Take it up with his employers.

SLJ - You make all good points, as usual. I see where you're coming from and I think I do persevere, sometimes more than I should.

However, the reason I do so is that some of the appalling and hateful nonsense that is posted is in print. The nasty clods to whom I reply might be determined in their hatred of women, but maybe others who glance at the posts won't be. (besides I like to maintain hope that a light will go on somwhere). If the statements aren't challenged; the assumption is that there is no counter argument.

Like everyone else I am busy and all but I will put up the counter arguments when I can rather than allow anti-female and anti-feminist lies to be perpetuated.

- well that's my position at the moment anyway. I can't rule out the possibility that at some point I will just call it a day. One never knows.

Btw: have you ever heard of anti-feminist bingo? (or some similar name). It's pretty funny. The posts on these boards often bring it to mind for me.

Ginx & Pynchme

I echo SJF's sentiments. Look who you are trying to argue with - not someone who is reasonable, who is sincere or sympathetic, but people who do little more than denigrate women on every thread that offers them to opportunity to do so. They contribute nothing; they feed on negativity.

As a sufferer of chronic illness I have to choose where to expend my energy and I do not waste too much with bullies of any sex. I will make my point and that is it. I would rather communicate with receptive people, than be emotionally drained by these human parasites.

Save your energy for the next article or start a new thread on a topic of your choosing.

Love to you all, will meet with you on other topics.

It says a lot about the egos of a few self-proclaimed 'feminists' that they think their views represent feminism or that feminists represent all, or even many, women.

Being questioned and being held to account for your 'take' of feminism is unreasonable? That is a good one!

If the plain vanilla version of feminism is concerned with equality of opportunity and equal treatment, none of the individual brands of 'feminism' being displayed here would qualify. In any event, why shouldn't the theory and practice of feminism be questioned, when it seeks to influence the political, social and economic lives of all citizens?

Rather than hide behind the convenient and much-abused cloak of 'feminism' why not stand up for your own views, however whacky they are? Or will that put you at risk of having to defend some rather unusual personal world views and prejudices? It is about being able to make choices and being responsible for those choices, right?

That is the problem with 'movements' isn't it, they can be comfy hiding places and refuges for all sorts of 'off' and way-out views. Speaking of which, there are very few people out there, men or women, who will cop the ratbaggery and zealotry of radical feminism, particularly gender feminism.

"But I believe the contrary is true. Genuine discussion of feminist issues ended in the 1970s when one school came to dominate and moved to silence competing views both within the movement and outside."

Wendy McElroy

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,197550,00.html

"Tammy Bruce's book "The New Thought Police" (2001) received media buzz as a former insider's expose of how PC feminists smear their intellectual opponents in an attempt to silence and discredit them. For example, Bruce described how PC feminists led a campaign of defamation against the conservative Dr. Laura Schlessinger by misrepresenting her as homophobic"

I suppose Wendy McElroy is also misogyinistic? Labelling someone as misogynistic is a good way of trying to discount what that person is saying.

pynchme:"Matthew Johns lost his job because the organizations who employ him are trying to appeal to a family audience or something and they no longer see him as a fit public representative."

Matthew Johns lost his job because the New Wowsers who now dominate the Feminist Axis and the media have got the NRL scared. The NRL rushed to tell Channel 9 to sack him because they're terrified of what that Feminist Axis can do to them with a media hatchet job. In other words, they succumbed to extortion. Hardly something to be proud of, I'd have thought, but whatever floats your boat.

Matt Johns's brother Andrew lost his job when it was found he'd used drugs. Do you think Jodi Gordon is going to lose hers? Take your time...

I'm chuffed to see that once again my arguments are sufficiently convincing that SJF felt the need to jump in and try to shut down the conversation. Poor thing, if only those nasty men didn't ask questions and everyone just did as they're told she'd be as happy as a pig in poo. Oink, oink.

Fractelle, all you have to do to stop me posting on this topic is to provide a genuinely convincing counter-argument to my own. I won't hold my breath, because all you've thrown up to date is fluff.

James, that comment is spot-on. The radfems are desperate to avoid genuine discussion of the topic because it might affec their capacity to milk the system. As any milk-maid knows, you have to keep the herd calm if you want the most cream...

Sorry not true,Spent 3 decades on the recieving end of abuse, to which started at the age of 12 years being sexually abused by my stepfather.Because I decide later after finding out that he was also hurting my siblings, I told the insidious secret to my mother. Instead of showing any concern for myself went out of her way to alienate me from siblings,family members,partners and eventually my own children.The manipulation,coercion,emotional blackmail endured over the years set the path for social communities,authorities and legal system to sweep it under the carpet.Denied my parental rights to protect my children,hard to believe the welfare system helped her abuse my children.

Yes I am more than angry,because it still continues today.All the ignorance over the years allowed my mother,vendictive sister to be the best persons to raise another daughter,what is sicker than sick,my daughter also fell victim to being sexually abused by my stepfather.I had the putrid thing charged so i could get some sort of closer to the whole insidious thing.For my efforts my family,recent ex partner,adult children, ex husband,spent 2 years causing enormous amounts of stress,deliberately set out to sabotaging the possibility of having the peadophile locked away.

The DPP sat back and watched all the abuse and ignored my cries for help,did nothing to help stop it or even look into it.I missed out on a multitude of oppitunities over the years due to the ongoing abuse.

Missed out on an education because stepfather decided to upgrade to a couple of school friends,i guess one could imagine the garbage i went through. I am tied of being ignored, mentally-physically-medically-financially-legally abused and Parentrally Alienated from my children,grandchildren and losing partners, I am tired of the media ignoring me every time i try to tell my story,the government departments.

I am not perfect know one is, but i sure as hell did not deserve any of the abuse dished out and still is dished out. The system has failed me and I would and more than deserve some answers, to why this was and has been ignored.

shattered.dreams

Thank you for bringing home what this discussion really should be about. I don't know whether you are male or female, but it really doesn't matter.

Victims in our society are not only victimised by those who are supposed to love them, but often betrayed by those to whom they turn for help, and then let down by a system that treats them as just another case number.

I know one person close to me who has had a similar life experience to yours. What she has tried to do is to always remember that she IS NOT the things that have been done to her. She has to renew that affirmation every day of her life.

I do hope that you can find some kind of peace.

shattered.dreams:

Thank you for posting your story. I recognize what you’re saying I think. Cover-ups throughout all of society including institutions are not unusual – Chelmsford and Rozelle are just two examples of formal care places with a long history of burying abuse victims’ stories under various labels while the woman is further victimized by having her children taken away.

I know many youth who have told; trying to get abuse to stop, and the cost to them has been great – being moved away from school and friends; being put into care somewhere; being punished by their families for upsetting the applecart. Meanwhile the abuser’s denials are readily believed because nobody wants to think that something so awful could happen and some people feel guilty because they didn’t notice or act to protect the child. Easier to just say the kid is lying and blame them. (not sure how you would describe your mother’s involvement; but this is what I suspect of her.).

The silence and denial all around us helps the abuse to continue. I suspect that most people don’t mean to actively collude; they would say they disapprove of abuse - but any denial or silence that results in the truth not being heard or justice and safety not being obtained, is a form of collusion. There’s a quote that goes something like, “Silence helps the oppressor; never the oppressed.”

Thank you for your courage in telling your story. It's very compelling. I hope that you keep telling it because the problem is still all around us and it helps for others to know that they are not alone.

Bless you.
pynch

I'm sorry if it sounds like some of us men are anti-feminism or even anti-women. We just cannot stand seeing women portrayed as pathetic little victims who constantly need men to save them. The details of the Auckland case mean that Clare should not be seen in this way. Where the footballers supposed to have a better idea of what was good for Clare than she did? Feminists should be the very people who see women as adults who can solve their own problems and accept responsibility for the consequences of their actions. I do.

Antiseptic: Was Andrew Johns a TV celebrity? Sorry; don’t know anything about him.

Many people hold jobs that they are at risk of losing for doing things that may or may not be against the law. Public servants are required to maintain a respectable public image and to refrain from participating in certain activities; political protests and the like without prior approval. Many professionals are forbidden from socializing with clients and can lose their jobs as well as their credentials.

TV depends on audience. Do you really think the public is turned off because they’re all feminists? Maybe it’s time you got things into proportion. As to Jodi whatshername; I am sure her employers will follow whatever ratings and the general public dictate.

James: Why do you think that Wendy Mac would be regarded as misogynistic - are there quotes that someone said so, or is this your own summation ?

You seem to agree with W.Mc that discussion on feminism was shut down in the 70s – strange that. How then did the huge proliferation of different types of feminism; their published books; articles and public talks arise after the 70s - including some by Wendy McElroy herself, Erin Pizzy and others. Go to Amazon and call up the range of books – many present very different and even opposing opinions.

As to Erin Pizzy. Whatever the details of her troubles with feminists of her day, bear in mind that it was 40 years ago. She was born into and lived a very upper class life during her developmental years; no doubt she holds some nostalgia for an economic base and family privileges related to that, that few people then shared. Anyway, she’s to be commended for doing the best she knew how to help others despite, as far as I know, not being a therapist or anything like that. Maybe it’s past time, however, that she got over her disenchantment and moved forward.

*The silence and denial all around us helps the abuse to continue.*

There is actually some truth in that and is one of the reasons why
I believe that love and relationships are still largely based on
self interest, as we discussed on an OLO thread about that topic.

Yup, some moms will go into denial about what is happening to their
kids, for fear of losing their breadwinner.

Some years ago now, I came across a five year old who was getting
a really rough deal from her stepfather, for no other reason then
she wasn't his kid. I have a strong sense of justice and I started
sticking up for this kid, even though one has to be careful about
interfering in others relationships. In the end, the mother conceded
that she had been prepared to sacrifice her first child for her
relationship. It was a really tragic story all the way.

So yup, there are some sad cases out there indeed.

pynchme, Andrew Johns was also a rugby league player. You say that Jodi Gordon's employers will "follow whatever ratings and the general public dictate" in relation to her employment, which is no doubt correct, however, it raises a couple of questions:

first, where is the outrage from the media grrrls about what is a very sordid event involving drugs, associations with known criminals and culminating in a false call to 000 leading to a large waste of valuable police resources?

second, if the "public" are not interested in the absence of that media beat-up, why would we assume they'd be interested in the case of others?

Do we simply expect more from footballers than we expect from other young people? Jodi Gordon is apparently a well-known actress in a popular soap opera watched by thousands of families daily. Can you explain why she is less of a role model to be held to account than a footballer is?

There is only one feminist paradigm that is acceptable among the Wowserish dowagers who dominate modern feminism and that is the one that says "women first at all costs, regardless of merit or truth in the claim". SJF expressed it well a couple of days ago. That means any book failing to hew to the line will be either ignored or will be nit-picked into oblivion. The substantive points will be ignored in favour of a discussion about whether the author correctly recalls the colour of someone's shoes at a meeting 10 years earlier.

pynchme:"As to Erin Pizzy."

LOL, your attempt at damning with faint praise is noted, especially your effort at classism - Marxist theory butchered. Ms Pizzey has had the courage to not only stand up for women genuinely in need, but to stand up to those women who wanted to abuse the service she offered. No wonder you don't like her.

It's interesting that you refer to the fact that her experience with the hairy-legged brigade was nearly 40 years ago. Does that mean we'll stop seeing statistics that are 10 or 20 years out of date from you?

Yabby

That's a very sad story and you have struck on a significant point:

When and how to interfere? This is always a conflicting issue. The best one can do in the case you cited is to be there as a friend for the young girl.

I can only hope that your support of this young child will be some sort of foundation for her in dark times. Dreadful that a woman should feel so needy that she would sacrifice her child. Another reason to raise our children with a strong sense of self. No one should be so dependent on another.

shattered.dreams

I too thank you for sharing your story here. I know what it is like to endure in silence. At least on a forum like this one can express their story in anonymity. The entire point of the article is that the victim is not to blame for the behaviour of the abuser.

Antiseptic

Antiseptic

At the risk of being censored by OLO, I really have to say that you are the most hateful, vindictive personality I’ve ever had to deal with online.

Instead of discrediting feminism, as you seem to think you’re doing, your undisciplined verbiage just reveals anti-feminism’s underlying immaturity as a movement that has nothing to offer other than petty reaction.

You think that your hatred and venom are necessary rhetorical tools for putting fools in their place. But the truth is those ‘fools’ just feel sorry for you. There are few creatures more pathetic than those who drive people away, yet tell themselves their solitary existence is the result of their specialness.

You are a very pathetic man. In fact, you are a disgrace to all that is fine and decent in manhood. If I am banned from OLO for saying that, it will be more than worth it.

Ah SJF, your last little outburst about Antiseptic, simply shows
your own lack of ability to separate emotion from reason, so tells
us alot about you.

I seem to recall that it was you who wrote that as advocates of
feminism, you should defend your claims, rightly or wrongly.

Robert wrote a great response about a "fair and just society",
but that was ignored.

So Antispectic has every right to express his opinions about the
extremes of the feminist brigade like yourself. Most females do
in fact show some judgement, but not in your case.

Lets face it, the answers lie somewhere in the middle for all of us,
but for every extremist response at one end, such as yourself,
somebody is going to respond at the other extreme.

As you have admitted, a fair and just society is not what you are
about, but one where you are pushing your personal barrow to the
extreme, rightly or wrongly.

Yabby

'So Antispectic has every right to express his opinions about the extremes of the feminist brigade like yourself.'

Really? Then in that case, so have I the right to express MY opinion about the EXTREMES of the anti-feminist brigade like YOURself and your sceptecemic friend. Heaven knows, we've had to put up with your (and his) nauseatingly condesending, repetitive, childish, infantile venom long enough on this forum.

How's this for an 'opinion'...

Anti-feminism is a movement of child-men who are stuck in a 4-year-old’s psyche and try to pass their infantile rage off as as 'criticism' … and then wonders why no one is fooled.

To this movement of child-men, women are not women, certainly not human beings like themselves. They are manifestations of their own big, bad Mummies. Big bad mummies are not women with lives and needs and opinions; they are monsters who smack and humiliate and belittle and withdraw their love from frightened, needy little boys like yourself.

This is the gender baggage that the child-mens movement carries with it as it repeatedly and tirelessly lashes out with its metaphorically tiny little fists and feet at everything the big bad Mummy feminist movement ever does, says or writes.

These permanently frightened child-men have no sense of proportion or self-regulation when confronted by ANY form of organised women’s activity, however innocuous. Nor can they ever appreciate the depth and breadth of their own obsessive fear of any women who dare to support and empower one another - after all, if big, bad Mummy can smack and humiliate and belittle and withdraw her love, what can a whole worldwide movement of big, bad mummies do?

Thankfully, most men don’t have this infantile rage against women. In fact, many of these grown-up (as opposed to child-) men are able to decently converse with feminists about the male dominant system they grew up with, that gave them both too much privilege and too much responsibility.

To the narrow-minded, totally self-centred world of the child-mens movment, whose only approach is to react and destroy, this is incomprehensible. Just stay that way.

I cant quite put my finger on it but when I gave an example of how women were once not held capable for their own criminal behaviour, Pynchme then wrote,

"The history of criminal law; the way it was/is interwoven with socio-cultural values and perceptions of femininity and female culpabiity, are a little more complex than your Angry Harry site portrays it."

Now feminists often cherry pick historical facts to support their position of how women were opposed or denied legal justice.

I posted a quote from Wendy McElroy and have quoted other female authors in the past, yet I get accused of being Misogynistic. I beleive McElroy has a point when she wrote, "Genuine discussion of feminist issues ended."

Whilst there are many different types of feminism, and heaps of books. Daphne Patai in Professing Feminism also points out that those who dare to challange feminist dogma do so at their peril.

As too Erin Pizzey "Maybe it’s past time, however, that she got over her disenchantment and moved forward."

Now imagine what would happen if one us blokes said the same thing to you women.

Yet we get a rehashment of how disadvantage women were in the past, such as being denied the vote etc. So isn't it about time that your gender got over it and moved on?

"Many careers have been ruined by shelter advocates resisting change or accountability for their programs. Some questioning these programs have even suffered threats of physical harm or specious lawsuits."
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20060423-0000/www.kittennews.com/cgi-bin/kn_opinion/opinion6c38.html?topic=999927

Yabby

Well said.

Smart, independent women would also ask, "Who are these present day feminists, and what makes them think they speak for me?"

Most women happen to like and trust the men in their lives. Shock, horror, many women are happy and love their lives, their husbands, their homes and their children.

As regards 'Claire', most women are too aware and emotionally mature to fall for the cries of "Poor me" after the event and they would be inclined to put the 'Claires' of the world into the same basket as the celebrity jocks they bed. Not that they only bed jocks of course - there are plenty of other celebs around who are also valued for their (sexual) scalps.

I would hazard a guess that most 'Claire' supporters were male and probably old at that. Men can be so easily led into mounting their white steeds to protect young damsels in distress. I can't see many mothers falling for it though.

Still, it is all grist for the mill for those who have a vested interest in the victim industry, especially if more people fall for the the 'all women are victims' rhetoric.

If anyone has a right to feel 'violated and degraded' it is the dumbed-out viewer of Oz current affairs shows (and their publicity stunts, thanks Tracey!).

SJF: << Anti-feminism is a movement of child-men who are stuck in a 4-year-old’s psyche and try to pass their infantile rage off as as 'criticism' … and then wonders why no one is fooled. >>

Well said indeed. As an adult-man, one reason I don't engage much with them much lately here is that I know that it's pointless to engage in abstract argument with 4 year olds. I have a beautiful 4 year old grandson who named his Labrador puppy after a volcano, since he is obsessed by them. I know that it's best for me to allow him to babble on about Popocatapetl, Mt Fuji and Pinatubo, because at his stage of development it's just wonderful that he's fascinated by the power of nature and knows lots of big words because he reads books about volcanoes and dinosaurs.

It's rather like the obviously miserable men who dominate any OLO discussion that touches on gender, and their obsession with women and feminism, actually.

I know that my grandson's world will eventually expand beyond volcanoes and dinosaurs, but I'm not so optimistic about our resident exemplars of arrested emotional development.

SJF you beat me to it with Yabby. Yabby I was most interested in the compassion you expressed for the child (I was wondering if you fronted the abuser) Anyway then you wrecked it with your scowl at SJF for her well written and moderate expression.

Antiseptic, James and Co, - Yes, exactly the response I expected re: Erin Pizzy. I believe that she has wanted to do good and has achieved some; but that you both heap approval on their work, while at the same time expressing extreme contempt and disregard for women (and men and children, regardless of how much or how horribly they’re exploited), casts doubt on the value of their work in obtaining justice for anyone. They reflect an extremely conservative view; Erin Pizzy’s is somewhat understandable given her privileged origins and age; Wendy Mcs may reflect one of her main employing organizations; if you bothered to look into it. Extreme conservatism and feminism are rarely comfortable bedmates; the former (though I am sure you can’t see it) happy to exploit women, men and children in the interests of the stock market.

Surely you’ve both heard the expression, “participants in their own oppression.” For example, just in case you don’t know or understand that term – take a mother who assists with an honour killing. Those women no doubt object to anyone (like other women) fighting to change the socio-cultural climate that perpetuates such a practice. Pats on the head from brothers; father; spouse – constantly reassure such a woman that she is the ‘good’ woman. In similar fashion go Wendy and Erin; and youselves: Unaware of your own oppression and of your role in reproducing an exploitative system.

I think Wendy and Erin’s main claim to feminism is that at least they continue to discuss and raise discussion of a certain world view. However, Erin Pizzy and Angry Harry coinciding in the same house is to me just a reproduction of past dynamics that offered no reprieve from injustice

Btw: Antiseptic; as far as I recall, the only information I have ever provided is the most up to date available to me.

Also: As long as I see an endless stream of victims of sexual abuse and violence and people like yourselves trying to bury their anguish; there will be nothing for me to get over. The problem remains in our present (for example; the situation to which Yabby referred). Btw: feminism has brought such problems to light and offered ways of escape; while all that the opposition has done since is try to silence that awareness. Tell me what solutions you have to offer. James - what does WendyMc offer by way of solutions? What do you propose to help children in these situations ?

Pynchme, why is Erin Pizzey's background such an issue? From my understanding a few of the earlier feminists came from some very privileged backgrounds. Erin referred to them as trust fund bunnies.

Do I hold victims in contempt?

Oh you know sooo much don't you!

The other day I saw a cyclist who was asian being abused by a motorist and I went to him to see if he was OK.(the cyclist).

You talk about justice, where I would like to know is how do we prevent these things from happening in the first place, so that there is no need for blood thirsty lynch mob mentality individuals.

SJF, Pynchme

Yabby often surprises, he will vehemently denigrate any woman who dares to question gender relationships yet make a clearly heartfelt, caring post regarding a little girl. I wish he could've informed us of the outcome, whether he involved himself in the life of the little girl he described. I know he is also in favour of reproductive rights for women. Yet, instead he chose to support A-septic who never contributes anything positive about women and describes any woman who has the temerity to criticise him as being part of the "hairy legged brigade"; whatever that means.

I think it is time to remind A-septic et al, that the title of this article is "It is never the VICTIM'S fault". They appear to have confused it as being "It is never the woman's fault" which, of course is untrue; women can behave as badly as men.

We can also behave as well as men; but if you only read the posts of the afore mentioned, you'd think that women were solely responsible for every catastrophe that ever afflicted the human race. Absurd, as others have noted, very childish.

A-septic, C-flower, JamesH; we get it you don't like any women who assert themselves or present POV's in contrary to your own. Do you believe that continued denigration will silence any who dare to differ? I will comment when there is something worthwhile commenting on, such as Yabby's or shattered.dreams' stories, or when inspired by other's comments. But continued negativity, personal insult and denigration is not worth my time.

BTW, JamesH; what was the point you were trying to make with your last post? That violence occurs to anyone? We know that, that is why we have been discussing the victims here on this thread, because so often fear prevents victims from speaking out. Did you speak to the abusive motorist who was harassing the cyclist, or did you feel afraid to get involved? As many people would - no disgrace at all and I am pleased to know that you checked to see if the cyclist was OK.

SJF:"Big bad mummies are not women with lives and needs and opinions; they are monsters who smack and humiliate and belittle and withdraw their love from frightened, needy little boys like yourself."

Oh dear, you're really hurting, aren't you honey? I suggest a nice chat to your Counsellor, making sure she understands that she musn't ask questions. Off you go, there's a good little thing.

JamesH:"isn't it about time that your gender got over it and moved on?"

You know that's never going to happen as long as the Wowserish dowagers continue to get rewarded for valuing feminism over professionalism. Of course, in the current economic climate, the funding for their continued employment is likely to be in short supply for a while, so some of them might have to "take a package", poor things. I wonder if SJF's rage might stem from finding out she's in the firing line?

Pomeranian:"pant, pant, pant, can someone pat me now"

Down you get little fella. There are real dogs who need attention.

pynchme:"the only information I have ever provided is the most up to date available to me"

Yet I never have any trouble finding much more recent data with brief google searches. I guess men are just naturally better at that sort of thing, eh? Or could it be that your list only includes work that supports your own preferred conclusion?

pynchme:"Surely you’ve both heard the expression, “participants in their own oppression.” "

LOL, it's very like the phrase "self-hating Jew" that the rabid Zionists apply to any Jew who disagrees in any way with the "Israel good, rest of the world bad" view of the rabid Zionists. Nice one.

You lot are perfect followers, aren't you? Not a genuine original thought of your own to be seen anywhere.

pynchme:"What do you propose to help children in these situations ?"

It seems that Yabby has already done that, unlike the mother, who was prepared to condone whatever happened. How do you propose to help the children of dysfunctional mothers? The current rhetoric, especially from the victim industry, is all about the fathers and never a word about the greater number of kids harmed by their mothers and their mothers boyfriends/girlfriends. That attitude failed the little girl yabby mentioned.

The real problem with DOCs and the rest of the social industries is that they have a vested interest in creating the perception that a problem is larger than it is. the bigger the problem, the more funding to do studies to determine the problem is even bigger. Lots of room for advancement when agencies are growing, eh? The ends justify the means after all...

It's nice to see the continued effort to discredit Erin Pizzey, based on a hodge-podge of Marxism and envy, all because she had the guts to stand on her own instead of falling into line behind what she saw as egregiously flawed dogma. Such a dangerous person...

Shorter Antiwomen: "I don't like mothers and feminists, or any other women except Erin Pizzey"

"You're a Pomeranian. Nernernernerner."

How's your love life?

*"It is never the woman's fault" which, of course is untrue; women can behave as badly as men.*

Ah Fractelle, but you are prepared to admit that. Unlike SJF,
who seemingly thinks that she should be pushing her propaganda,
rightly or wrongly. There is a huge difference and that is
my point.

If its not about a fair and just society, but simply people pushing
to the limits whatever they can get away with, for whatever reason,
then its an issue for me, for philosophically they are quite
different.

Thats my bone to pick with feminism, that some quite openly misuse
it to achieve their agenda, rightly or wrongly. Its no more then
a friggin excuse. Years ago I had a few flings with a chick
who would have been the laziest person I have ever met lol. She
was quite smart and knew how to manipulate everyone around her to
do everything for her. When I refused to take things to a more
serious level for that very reason and told her, her excuse was
that if she could get away with it, why should she not do it? Secondly
women had such a hard time in the past, she was making up for
their misfortune :) Now that might be an extreme example, but that
how is how the feminism story can be misused by some.

I stick up for what I think is right and just and I was disappointed
that nobody had much positive to say about Robert's post, for to
me thats a vital issue.

tbc

The 5 year old girl was a very sad story indeed, its a long story.
To cut it short, when the father once commented that he would
break in his daughters, I read him the riot act and promised the
mother that I'd help her, if she ever decided to leave. She turned
up some time later, with 20 bucks, 3 kids and a dog. He owned 6
guns and threatened to shoot me and her so I paid for the families airfares
to Melbourne, where she had family. Then I rang the cops and got
them to take his guns off him. That meant that they could all
cool down and think about things.

As far as the debate goes, yes AS uses colourful language to make
his points, but then so does Ginx, so why is it only ok for some?

I don't agree with every point, but then I only agree with every
point that I make :) AS certainly makes some very valid points.

There is an article written by Sue Dunlevy that demonstrates the use of exaggeration, and fear mongering.

Dunlevy wrote her article prior to the release of unemployment figures.

<The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women last week heard history showed recessions had placed a disproportionate burden on women.>

Not true as unemployment figures for Australia, the UK and America show that the majority who loose their jobs are male.

<But lower pay rates for women are also a sign that 40 years after the equal pay case we still don't value women's work.>

Now if women are paid less than men, would it not be better business sense to employ more women than men.

<The big danger is recession will gobble up the small steps toward equal pay and equal rights women have already made.>

Figures for the US demonstrate that unemployed men are having enormous difficulty in getting their child support payments reassesed at a more realistic level.

I understand in Australia, the recession has had a negative impact on the amount of child support being paid.

1)

I have a few hours left before leaving, I've done my sleeping during the day, so I've catching up on OLO, after the flurry of activity in the last couple of days.
____________________________

A last thing first: I am so damn saddened that you could possibly think that I use the same type of language that that vile creature does, Yabby. I mean it. It depresses me, because I would never use the sexual innuendo that he does. It shakes me that it comes from you, a guy that can write what he just has. I knew somehow that you had a compassion heart, that's why it matters.

Pynchme: Thank-you. The way this subject has panned out on OLO is not typical; I 'did the rounds', it has been nasty HERE.

I really will remember that OLO has a much bigger male membership, than has appeared on the three/four? threads I'm referring to. Many of those fellas I strongly disagree with, but most of those men (friend or foe) have not joined in the 'Boys Club' denigration of OLO females on these threads. I WILL make a point of remembering that.

Fractelle: I fully understand your reasons for being wearied by this nonsense, and unwillingness to continue on for ever more!

SJF: I meant win/lose in the most cynical way! I also understand fully what you said in your post, and can even agree on the merits of not engaging with the repugnant septic in particular. Conversely, I will continue to stand up to what is bullying;-pure and simple bullying, because if I did not, I would not be able to live with myself.(Which btw., is how I got to know Erin P in the UK).

Septic: you ARE exactly as SJF described you, and more. A slimy, little maggot, who is riddled with hatred for women (some won't,- but I DO include Belly here. Someone who posts quite reasonably for some of you-, until he talks about women). But NOBODY is such a vile, smutty little no-count as septic. NOBODY.

Continued.....
__________________________________________

2)

(How am I doing, Yabby? What the hell, it's my last post/s!)

I've got a temporary green light on health matters a couple of days ago. The eye of the storm as it were. It has given me an opportunity to revert to 'real' life, and do the things that I am qualified to do, and do well!! I've needed a couple of days to shake off the fleas gained in lying down with the dogs on these relevant threads.

OLO DOES bring out the worst in me. With good reason. But I am up up, and away, to foreign climes, and will not return to this place when I return in a few months time.

I KNOW that ANY issue that touches on the treatment of women will result in the same thing: a full on assault. So OLO, though varied in its topics, will have this particular topic come complete with a detonator.

This is NOT discussion; this is attack; it is the antithesis of discussion.

And it has disgusted me. I have no further interest in this site, and I will never return to it.

JamesH and Antiseptic; I'm sorry that I didn't make myself understood - let me join the dots for you both. Erin Pizzy is someone who puportedly holds the family dear (I do too; but not when one person's safety or wellbeing is at risk).

She is much older than my mother so comes from a quite different era to me - (not to mention another country) and she was/is well connected and well-to-do (ie: conservative political and social values) very unlike the families to which she generously offered practical help. Why, in the firt place, did she offer to house those women do you think?

Subsequent research shows that it is very dangerous to engage violent families in family therapy - the safety of whoever is at physical risk must be assured before any other intervention takes place. The chosen intervention may well be family counselling or mediation; legal or something; but safety must come first. I believe that there is an average of 7 separations before a woman decides to leave for good.

I don't know her or much of her, but I have reservations about anyone who tells a woman who has been bashed to such an extent that she needs hospitalization for her injuries, that she is responsible for the abuse. A position, obviously, that suits the agendas of people whose only interest is in maintaining male control over the rest of th family.

As to the terror to which she refers; I don't know much about the situation in England at that time, except that it was a time of great political upheaval and that it wasn't all about feminism.

As to some of the feminist types to which she supposedly refers; I don't know any people like that.

Yabby

The difference between you and A-septic is that you actually make good points followed by a clearly good heart - even though I may disagree with you on many an occasion - particularly when you lump all westernised women together. However, I will give credit where it is due and I thank you for completing the story about those poor little kids.

However, A-septic never has anything constructive or positive to say about gender issues - he blames women for everything. Ironically he is the one to use the term "victim industry" yet would have us believe that he is always the victim to the 'evil, evil feminist'. If he actually does ever make a valid point, I guess I must miss it among all his insults.

Also, if you think I am the only one to criticise both women and men, then you have not been reading all posts by other women here.

As for colourful language, we all have a right to use it. The difference between Ginx and A-septic is that she uses specific targets as do I, whereas A-septic blames everyone who dares to differ with him. Guess that CJ makes him feel like a "victim".

Ginx - I wish you wouldn't go - your rainbow language is colour we need here. Women are outnumbered on OLO - like every institution excepting nunneries.

Btw: Antiseptic - no, I don't regard Erin P as dangerous; much less *very dangerous. I think it's a sad waste or misuse (by others) of good intentions that started out very well. She has her own experiences, stories and grief - I am not privvy to those; but I wish her well.

JamesH: Again pure Sacks, but I'll have to get back to this one later (bit too caught up with ok matters to dredge up research just now) so will just throw in a couple of my own ideas:
1. "<The United Nations Commission on the Status of Women last week heard history showed recessions had placed a disproportionate burden on women.>

Not true as unemployment figures for Australia, the UK and America show that the majority who loose their jobs are male.">

1. Maybe "disproportionate burden" doesn't refer to unemployment or loss of jobs alone.
2. Don't know much about the equal pay issue until I research current trends and issues. Do you have any ABS figures to hurry that pocess s that I an respond esp. re: Australian conditions.
3. I'm not surprised that we have a recession - I see it as tied to the greed of and dog-eat-dog competitiveness of a prevailing type of capitalism - maybe not as bad here in Australia, but bad enough.
4. I don't know why you're concerned with American child support matters.

Ginx: Are you leaving? Ahh phooey. I will miss your clever and funny posts. If I have read you right; please take my very best regards with you. Don't worry about this rubbish here; it just gives me a chance to clarify or set out some of my own thoughts so, I'll soldier on against the clod-tide for as long as it suits me.

Fractelle, "Women are outnumbered on OLO - like every institution excepting nunneries."

Keep dropping back into that familiar rut of victimhood if it suits you. Or you could choose from the many and varied options available to you and live a good life.

Now for a question, who knows that Men's Health Week begins Monday, June 15, 2009? If we want to help men take care of themselves, be the better fathers, husbands and friends that they want to be and enjoy the health to continue to share life with us, why not print the poster for display in prominent positions and encourage our businesses and workplaces to take part?

Here is part of the blurb:

"Happy Men's Health Week!!

Monday marks the beginning of International Men’s Health Week 15-21 June 2009.

The best place to find out information about the week is the official Australian Men’s Health Week Website http://www.menshealthweek.com.au

Men’s Health Week is Co-ordinated in Australia by the Australasian Men’s Health Forum (AMHF) and the Men’s Health Information and Resource Centre (MHIRC) at the University of Western Sydney. We also welcome a host of new partners for the week, more information about our partners can be found on the website.

Help Promote Men’s Health Week
If you’d like to help promote the week please download and print off a Men’s Health Week poster from the MEDIA page of the website."

Choosing to promote Men's Health Week is the one practical thing most of us we can do right here and now to reduce some of the problems that concern us.

Wouldn't it be good if a leader who is well known and trusted by men could pen an article for OLO to support and promote Men's Health Week?

Pycnhme, Erin Pizzey's father was a diplomat, Erin in an interview on Dads on the Air said that both her parents were abusive, and that she could not extrapolate her own unique experience, to other relationships.

There was the notable 1970's feminist, who was married to a very wealthy man, she had a cook, a house keeper yet she would critize her husbands housekeeping ability.

Two things I think are very significant is firstly Erin's mail had to checked by the bomb squad, secondly her book Prone to Violence was blacklisted. Others also had similar experiences including Susan Steinmetz, Murray Straus, and McNeely.

Now I am not saying that all feminists are potentially violent, but extremism can attract individuals who use a particular cause as cover or justification for behaving in violent, threatening or abusive ways.

Erin did write an interesting essay on working with violent women and in that essay, she refers to the family terrorist, who remains hidden.

<The family well may be characterised as violent, incestuous, dysfunctional, and unhappy, but it is the terrorist or tyrant who is primarily responsible for initiating conflict, imposing histrionic outbursts upon otherwise calm situations, or (more subtly and invisibly) quietly manipulating other family members into uproar through guilt, cunning taunts, and barely perceptive provocations. (The quiet manipulative terrorist usually is the most undetected terrorist.>

I found an interesting link.

http://soundcloud.com/amfortas1/amfortas-christian-j-lying-about-domestic-violence-part-1

JamesH

Thank you for that link to Lying About Domestic Violence. It was most informative.

I started to listen to Sacred Cows in the China Shop which is also very interesting but was distracted by work. I will have to come back to it later.

Cornflower: Sounds like a good idea. Hope one of you takes it up.

JamesH: Lots of union and party worker strife at that time in England, including amongst the spouses of some of her associates. Her own spouse was some sort of journalist? I would want to know a lot more about that from authoritative sources before just believing it.

As to the "family terrorist" who uses deceit, manipulation, cunning etc - and can be overt or quiet. Sheesh. You know that abusers, just like bullies everywhere, usually blame the victim - whether it's a rapist, child molester or basher.

No matter what anyone does, they do NOT deserve to be lying in a ospital bed (or on a morgue slab) as a result of it. Also, how is it that many of the 50 -60 spousal murders a year, occur after separation. (see link below) If she was such a terrorist - why wouldn't he just let her leave? Why would he be pursuing her insisting that she stay with him and threatening harm ?

Also, you think that men are not capable of lies, deceit, manipulation etc ? No generalizations can or should be made - each case should be fully assessed AFTER ensuring safety. That's what happens when women enter refuges.

Btw she also conceded in an interview that women's violence was more internal, that they "implode", etc. The journalist said, "So it's not the same [as male violence]?" and her response was "Well it's still violence." - Sorry, but I don't think the "family terrorist" having a nervous breakdown or trying to kill herself is all that threatening to the spouse, who could always go and stay at his mother's or something. He has the physical advantage in matters of escape.

As to the tape. I only listened to the first part and there were so many inaccuracies; I really don't know why you persist.

For example the 1st figure to which he referred was about the study done by Koss. We have been over this before. Here's a link to remind you: http://www.amptoons.com/blog/archives/2004/04/30/wendy-mcelroy-on-koss-seven-mistakes-in-two-sentences/

cont'd:

Here are some links about the study in question: Note the diagram.

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/cat/4128.0

This is apparently by one of the (male) people who helped with it

<"The second pattern that can be found in the survey is that there is evidence of both desistance and escalation in partner violence. For example Table 6.7 shows that 76% of women who experienced violence by a current partner experienced it either on one occasion or ‘rarely’. A further 16.5% of this group of women experienced violence
‘sometimes’ and 7.6% experienced it ‘often’. The picture for women whose relationship was terminated is more severe with only 42.1% of the violence occurring once or ‘rarely’ during the relationship, 30% experiencing violence ‘sometimes’ and 27.8% ‘often’6. These terminated relationships also resulted in more severe violence in
terms of its nature and injury, as already discussed.">

What is important to you about this? No b/s now. What are these sites offering that you need ? If people are married, and the woman leaves -why would she need to pretend to be in danger or hurt? She can have social security; housing; welfare assistance and counselling, without having a history of DV. Did the missus leave you? Take out an AVO or something ? What's the source of your bitterness that you need to keep feeding your emotions from these rubbish sites (which, btw recycle the same rubbish and lies on lies between themselves) ?

Lastly, Sacks and his assorted minions have been around for a long time now - where are all these battered men? How is it that they have never turned up anywhere in the huge numbers that are claimed (like, we'd be talking of about 200,000 a year ? I know that I have assisted two battered men in ten years. I can't count how many women - and I don't work in DV services.

Pynchme, "Cornflower: Sounds like a good idea. Hope one of you takes it up"

Thank you for the pick-up, I take it you are referring to Men's Health Week 15-21 June 2009.

http://www.menshealthweek.com.au

A lot of women participate and encourage their menfolk of whatever age to do the same. Print and put up posters where you work and see how much interest you can generate.

I was rather surprised to find that government departments and agencies do not seem to be very active in supporting Health Week. There was no mention on the Commonwealth Department of Health and Ageing site nor on the State health departments that I looked at. The Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs didn't mention it either which is most unfortunate given the needs of indigenous men.

Nothing from Nicola Roxon, the federal Minister for Health and Ageing in the papers today, Monday June 15th, which is regrettable given that it is the first day of Men's Health Week and there has been no prior announcement by her.

Zero on the news from what I have seen.

So it looks like more has to be done from the grassroots level. So if you or other interested women and men on OLO can pitch it by spreading the word it would be all for the good.

pynchme:"If people are married, and the woman leaves -why would she need to pretend to be in danger or hurt?"

Because if she does so, she can get an enormous amount of additional State-provided assistance to victimise the former spouse. try having police called because you try to visit your child's school - that happened to me. Try being at work and having the police turn up "to investigate a complaint". that happened to me too. Try arriving to give your child a birthday present and having that 5 year-old child refuse to open the door "because Mummy says you might hurt me", with Mum hiding just out of sight. Also happened to me.

As I have said repeatedly and as the Court finally accepted, there was no violence ever perpetrated by me, just mutually raised voices in argument. No threats were made, no hand was ever raised.

On top of that there is the perception of an advantage in Family Law. Imagine how much harder it is for a father to press his case if all his resources, financial and emotional, are consumed in fighting a spurious and irrelevant DVO matter that stops him even seeing his children on no evidence except her word and be aware that the Family Court won't procedd to a hearing if there is an outstanding violence matter. In my case, it cost me 7 momths and about $6000 in out of pocket costs, not to mention lost income and stress to fight the DVO.

Then there is the fact that Legal Aid won't fund a Court matter if mediation has not already failed. Many lawyers are well aware that the best way to ensure mediation fails is to claim he was violent, which means she doesn't even have to show up, out of "fear" (also happened to me), or that he is genuinely angry at the injustice of the situation. which means the lawyer can call it off and proceed with the legal aid claim for the hearing.

How many more reasons would you like?

A few years ago I contacted Pizzey, Straus, Steinmetz to check out the published infomation.
I am sure you could find her email address if you looked for it.

http://www.dadsontheair.net/shows/pizzey.htm

<The aphorism, ‘There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics’, recommends a suspicion of numbers claiming to represent the ‘real truth’>

<Yet most domestic violence statistics are treated not as damned lies, or even part-lies, but as the Absolute Truth. As long, that is, as these figures suggest that a lot of women are being abused a lot of the time.>
http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/6770/

I'd really like to see the original questions(Paper) that Koss asked her participants.

The original WSS was challanged by the ABS because of it's questionable methodology.

I have been interested in feminism since I was a teenager. I wanted answers and truthful facts. Such as how, as a male I was responsible for the oppression of women.

As too Sacks, well part of that answer is as a male I have been bought up to expect to experience a certain level of violence against myself and to accept that will happen.

Like Amphortas said, firstly the definition gets expanded, but when feminist argue about violence they refer to physical violence.

Sure without doubt there are men who are capable of manipulation and lies. One only needs to look at our politicans for evidence of that.

Pynchme, I don't have current knowledge of this.
When I was going through the mill DV allegations were a useful tool to establish child residence. By seperating the father from children (to protect them and or the mother) during that crucial period after seperation patterns of residence could be established which were hard to change. Officially those patterns should not have mattered in determining residency but in practice they seemed to.

Motives for that cover a range of options
- a dislike of the other parents parenting style
- seperation bitterness and a desire to get at the other
- higher levels of various payments (FTB, CSA etc) which went with a greater share of child residency
- a greater share of the family assets associated with child residency

My overwhelming impression of the family law support services was that they were dominated by women determined to stick up for other women.

As for the seriousness of the violence at that stage. Some will be down to basic bad values but I think it's made worse by the sense of being trapped in an unjust system. People losing everything and with what seems at the time little prospect of recovery might think that they have nothing to loose. If you have lost a real role in your kids lives, lost your home and pretty much everything else, if you are facing CSA bills which get bigger the more you work and where the focus of all that seems to be an ex who is reaping the benefits of all that (and may be milking it) some will lash out in ways that don't make sense.

The system needs to be seen to be fair to all involved, the system as it was rewarded bad behaviour. Where that occurs some will milk it.

I don't think that this is about one gender being better or worse than the other, rather the reaction to the injustices of the past created a system which put the injustices elsewhere rather than eliminating them.

R0bert

I seem to recall we used to attempt controlling prostitution by arresting, prosecuting, and re-educating johns. No different with football groupies and this particular batch of johns.

It shows how deeply ingrained our victim mentality, that we automatically accept women as victims and insist on their faultlessness. Guess it must be politically more difficult to control offensive behaviour of the fairer sex. Some of these attitudes are most likely feminist inspired, while no doubt opportunistic chivalry and misguided patriarchy, still contribute to the resultant nonsense.