Grim your analysis pretty much sums it up. You won't get a sensible response only the same old mantra about feminist articles as if feminists are all about putting down men - but good effort on your part.

Bettina Arndt has always described herself as a feminist even though she sometimes gets herself into hot water with some feminists in the same way that Helen Garner has which only goes to demonstrate feminism is a broad church.

I like Bettina Arndt because she puts gender and discrimination issues on an equal footing which is afterall what feminism was about - equality means equality for men as well.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s252949.htm

Vanna of course won't take Arndt's own declaration as evidence of anything, but I thought others might have an interest.

I think you and Grim are about right Pelican.

I don't admire Bettina Arndt because I've found inaccuracies borrowed right off the MRA sites in her articles. She's too conservative by far and IMO panders to male approval while failing to address institutional and systemic issues. However as you say, feminism is a broad church.

Vanna: <"As for men being over-sexed, almost everything many women wear is designed to attract male attention, from high heeled shoes (push out the buttocks and the breasts) to red lipstick...">

So the alternative to dressing attractively would be to be sneered at for being a hairy, legged man-hating frump ? There is nothing wrong with wanting to be attractive to the opposite sex - after all that's the birds and the bees isn't it. I would say that males often take some trouble with their appearance too, though not many yet preen as much as females. In any case it doesn't automatically signal that the groomed up person is up for any one who presents her/himself though. Such is life.

I rather like this transcript of a speech by Andrea Dworkin, which she delivered to an audience of 500 men:

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html

In one part she says, "... I don't believe that rape is inevitable or natural. If I did, I would have no reason to be here. If I did, my political practice would be different than it is. Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It's not because there's a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence."

Seeing as how you Vanna are determined to portray yourself and the male sex as victims, you might as well have a good look at what she has to say about your injured sensibilities and go to town.

If you still have the courage and patience to read on, this book review is very interesting to read:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n17/jenny-diski/oh-andrea-dworkin

Pynchme,
Bettina Arndt isn't an academic employed in a university at taxpayer's expense (EG "working for the newspapers and working from home and so on". http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s252949.htm)

This might be the reason why she has sometimes said some positive things about men.

Still nothing positive said about men by an academic employed in a university.

When academics, (and not just feminists) can’t think of anything positive to say about men it looks quite grim for them in terms of bigotry, prejudice and discrimination.

Andrea Dworkin was of course a real honey and everyman’s “dream girl”, but she continuously claimed that she had been drugged, beaten and raped by her heterosexual husband, and she based much of her feminist career on these claims.

It was put to her on many occasions that she should take her claims to the police so that they could investigate the matter, but she never did. Eventually most publishers in the US would not publish her work for fear of libel.

Pynchme
I have to show my ignorance and say I had to google MRA sites and only came up with the Motorcyle Riders Association or Monster Removals and I don't think either is what you meant - what is MRA. :) (*blush*)

I don't get the impression that Bettina Arndt seeks the approval of men, her recent comments about sex were largely misrepresented IMO. Arndt deals in human sexuality which also by nature has to include men, and feminism cannot progress to more equal relationships without including men in the future. I think Bettina gets the balance right if not always perfect.

pelican I assume that MRA refers to Mens Rights Agency a not for profit organisation predominately dealing with the issues men face in family law issues. Like most advocacy groups they tend to focus on the issues and perspectives of those they support.

Whilst they cop a lot of flac from some quarters in my dealings with them (some years ago) I found that the approach was very much about equality, not an attempt to gain an unfair advantage over women.

I suspect that they save quite a few lives and by giving men with no-where else to turn helpful advice and someone who will listen some sense of hope in what can seem to be a hopeless situation.

R0bert

Thanks RObert - that puts it in context.

My personal view is that the feminist ideal (choice and equality) cannot be achieved separate from men. Choice and equality for one cannot come without the same for the other.

Family Law is finally viewing the parenting role as a shared one with better results for men in most cases.

It's a bit like politics. A leader cannot rule at the behest of one sector or class at the expense of the others. Mutual win-win situations where there is no gross unfair advantage always work best. As far as gender goes much of how work/family/leisure/parenting is arranged is up to the people involved.

Men and women should be working together to ensure that choices are supported as best as is practicable.