The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Feminism must ultimately fail if it ignores hormones > Comments

Feminism must ultimately fail if it ignores hormones : Comments

By Brian Holden, published 4/8/2010

Feminists see the increasing numbers of single mothers and female executives as a reflection of women’s liberation.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Mr Holden,
As a woman, I have to say that I find your deterministic generalisations about the innate nature of women and men extremely unsatisfying.

In my lifetime I have known some very un-nurturing women, and some very nurturing men.

There are many factors other than hormones at work in fashioning the nature of an individual.

Freud's notion that the the most perfect love is that which occurs between mother and son is, sadly, romantic twaddle.

What do you think about same sex marriage, I wonder?
Posted by briar rose, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 8:28:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian – Briar Rose regards your article as “deterministic twaddle”.

From what you have written it seems that you hold to a materialistic view of the universe. If that is so then I would say that your deterministic approach does not go anywhere near far enough and that Briar Rose’s criticism is nowhere near strong enough.

If materialism is true then determinism is absolute. We are all just chemical robots with no control whatsoever over what we do, say, or think. Everything that happens is just unintended consequences arising from the nature of matter.

Nothing can be otherwise than it is.

People usually don’t like to think that is true, but in a materialistic world that is logically and unavoidably the case. Maybe then materialism is not true after all?
Posted by JP, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 11:02:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Your Honour, but my hormones made me do it.
Posted by pelican, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 12:08:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Within a Christian perspective headship is service to others not self. The emergence of the USA as an economic power was driven by the Judaic/Christian ethos of servant leader. What we now have in the ‘isms’ is self service, looking to one’s interests before others.

It is a delusion to think men have provided the majority of leadership solely through strength. But what was that leadership? “The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world” did not appear in a vacuum; it is based on experience – but what form does the ruling take?

I think the real question is not about an ism and its claims but rather a matter of whether life is about self or something else.
Posted by Paul @ Bathurst, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 12:11:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree with Briar Rose, Brian Holden manages to denigrate the abilities of both men and women.

All women are naturally nurturers, all men are naturally warriors.

B.S.
Posted by Severin, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 12:18:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
'There is one male-female relationship that works well. It is the mother-son relationship.' Rubbish - some mothers and sons have absolutely toxic relationships. Freud has a lot to answer for with his fixation on the mother-son relationship. We have been paying the price for his unnatural pre-occupation with his mother far too long. As for the rest of the article, it is shallow drivel. Could we have some quality control please, OLO?

The best male-female relationships are usually between gay men and straight women.
Posted by Candide, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 2:05:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Brian Holden’s depiction of male as warrior, rapist and destroyer would have to include himself. Or maybe he does not consider himself “male”.

A fuller picture of males would also include artist, musician, builder, architect, worker, doctor, farmer, nurse, explorer, discoverer, parent and lover.

It is incredible how someone who has been through the education system (and was once a teacher) can hold such a bigoted and prejudiced view of the male gender as Brian Holden.

But with feminist policies and courses being run in the education system, such bigoted and gender prejudiced views now appear quite common, or are the norm.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 2:40:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“The best male-female relationships are usually between gay men and straight women” – to be candide, that may be so; but pairs of straight men and straight women might think that bending to accommodate their mutual needs is an activity that takes some beating; - and that the life of Bryan might have been a little sad.
Posted by colinsett, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 2:54:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Men are angular. Women are spherical.
If you paint women, you paint the entire universe.

Every woman is a particularization of the one thing--the "She", or the universal Spirit-Energy, which manifests as the entire World Process.

A woman's body rotating expresses the unity of existence. "It" is all just "She".

Everything about Woman or Shakti -- in other words, everything about the domain of feeling and the senses, and pleasurable association with the feeling and sense domain -- is corrupt at the present moment, and opposed. It is not just the Divine Spirituality that is opposed -- Woman is opposed. That which Woman IS, that which she incarnates, that which her pattern is about, requires humankind to be integrated with it, as the core of life.

All is Energy or Shakti--and Energy Is all there is.

But you are using Energy or Shakti, and hence the entire world, as if it were mud.

Consequently Humanity, and the Earth-world altogethger, is like rubble in its present state. You are destroying the Divine Gift.

You are at war with the body.

Devious, double-minded, rejecting the body and yet craven for it.
Posted by Ho Hum, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 4:11:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let us analyse the evidence before us.

The law of evolution cannot be compromised just like the law of gravity.

The male and female both evolved with predefined roles.

Feminism is a failure because of the very low birth-rate. One of the results of going against what evolution stipulates is the dying out of the human species with modern Western life-style. The role of the woman is primarily to bring up children.

Same-sex relations is a choice, a deviant behavior different from what is natural as determined by evolution.

"Without the cornerstone of a biologically inevitable reproductive sexuality, there would be no mechanism to guarantee the transmission of genes, and that is precisely the point of biological determinism. The biological inevitability of reproductive sexuality is the principle without which biological determinism would fall apart. Reproductive heterosexuality is not simply another trait that is genetically transmitted; it is the foundational principle of the entire theory. It must be presumed as the imperative of life itself for the transmission of biological traits to even be possible. Given this fundamental and exalted position, it is difficult to see how reproductive sexuality and homosexuality can ever be presumed "equal" but "different" within a biologically deterministic framework. The logic of biological determinism can only debase homosexuality as deviant—precisely the position Isay is striving to counter."

—Ona Nierenberg, "A Hunger for Science: Psychoanalysis and the 'Gay Gene,'" differences, Vol. 10, No
Posted by Philip Tang, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 4:20:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh my, the twaddlers are all coming out to play!

The birthrate doesn't fall because feminists revile the female principle - whatever that is. Birthrates fall because governments do not give enough support to women who choose motherhood, and societies do not do enough to make governments give that support. Therefore it becomes increasingly difficult to actually be a mother in this culture.

But how much easier it is to allege that we're in this position because of some esoteric clap trap, rather than to deal with the reality that western society is increasingly anti-child and anti-motherhood.
Posted by briar rose, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 4:35:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Briar rose,

I would disagree that governments do not give enough support to motherhood. Australia has one of the highest rates of family allowance in the world.

There are also generous (perhaps too generous) amounts given to single mothers, despite the now considerable evidence that single parenting is a very serious risk to children.

There is also generous (perhaps too generous) amounts paid out to IVF, despite the fact that IVF treatment is now being given to single women leading to single parenting.

In all, I would think governments and society are in support of motherhood.

I would think many women are now not in support of motherhood, and the anti-marriage and anti-motherhood indoctrination of feminism is a primary reason for that.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 4:50:06 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If I remember rightly Philip Tang is a right-wing propaganda hack for the Sydney Anglicans, who of course are opposed to the ordination of women as priests.

And of course we now all know that the ordination of women is against the "Christ" given order of things (and the church that he supposedly founded). Such is now constituted as a crime by the church fathers -- on a par with child molesters.

Never mind that Saint Jesus of Galilee was not the founder of christian-ism. The entire power seeking women-hating edifice was created by others. NONE of who ever met Jesus up close and personal.

Jesus was a Jew as were all of his disciples (they were certainly not christians--but devotees of their Jewish Spiritual Master).

Therefore to be entirely consistent with the demonstrated life of Jesus, the pope would have to be a Jew. So too would christian ministers. Plus they should not wear dog collars and should all have long hair and long scruffy beards too.
Posted by Ho Hum, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 6:30:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some 'facts' giving rise to some 'interesting' interpretations here.

I'm a baby boomer. I feel the behaviours of young men and women in todays Australia is less driven by hormones and more by changing societal values and mores.

There have been huge economic and social shifts in my lifetime to date and perhaps I will see many more.

Certainly the boundaries between what is "male" or "female" have become very blurred with so-called "traditional" gender roles now increasingly shared. Outcomes vary - some beneficial, some not.

If I were to severely criticise any aspects of latter day culture it would be rampant materialism and waste and the "Not my fault" attitude towards personal responsibility.

It's not only young men avoiding committment either. Plenty of young women are shunning traditional coupledom (for extended periods at least) in pursuit of educational, financial, career and personal goals. When they do settle it is often in their 30s.

Children - optional! The "material" culture often does not bend readily to the sacrifices required to rear offspring, though sooner or later most settled couples wish to and do procreate. The exceptions - the have-nots of society are much more likely to breed like rabbits despite absence of secure long term relationship prospects. Hence 'families' consisting of Mum and her litter, all who have different fathers and perhaps 'Dad' the loser hanging round for the moment. Too many - to the overall detriment of society and and very much the individual children. Little to do with feminism though I thought.

Now we also see some migrating groups from absolutely contrasting cultures who practice early marriage and unfettered reproduction - a lifestyle that evokes a good deal of suspicion and even some paranoia amongst the natives. What will become of it?

One thing I do know - there's no way back.
Posted by divine_msn, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 7:43:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes indeed, we know that hormones affect human behaviour. Not
just humans, but other species too.

That does not mean that they determine behaviour, the brain is
not that simple, but they do affect it.

Enough experiments have been done on this to show that it is
correct.

Every thought or action is influenced by a number of neurological
processes, concious thought is only a small part of it all.

The veneer of human society is pretty thin. The moment that it
collapses, we are back to laws of the jungle and in the jungle,
hormones matter.
Posted by Yabby, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 8:46:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Mr. Holden, I haven't read such a load of rubbish in a long time.
Hormone levels in human beings are no more or less evident now than they were hundreds of years ago , when we had no real feminists as such.

I had to laugh out loud when I read that boys and their mummies had the best relationships. Obviously Mr. Holden had a good relationship with his mother. Good luck to him too. However, I don't believe that is the experience of the majority of men.

The conclusion of this out-of-the-ark subject seems to be that if this world as we know it is destroyed somehow, then these wonderful 'alpha males' will rise to the occasion and save all us 'nurturing' females.

Of course, this will only happen if their nurturing mummies agree with them and condone this action, right Brian?
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 10:28:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<"Women now dress-up as soldiers and police officers in boots and with guns. It is claimed that sexual harassment is rife throughout the armed forces. That is due to the males not seeing the females in uniform as the keystone of civilisation - but as desirable sexual objects. So, even the penalty of a ruined career is still not sufficient to keep males in check when females are in the wrong environment.">

I would say that any man who cannot control his penis shouldn't be given a gun.

Since the vast majority of the soldiery can conduct themselves in a professional manner, it's the penis dominated thugs who are "in the wrong environment".

Btw: Males are raped in the military as well as females.

Overall it's sad to see this insult to all the good male soldiers and police officers who are really noble and skilled professionals. It's also an insult to the females who have fought long and hard to share in shouldering the burden of community protection.

I think the author needs to learn more about feminism and especially about why it came into being - a lot of grandpas weren't living up to the ideal and a lot of the rest of the male-centric establishment didn't care. Women had to work out their own solutions. Considering that feminism has never fired a bullet; never beaten or frightened a man or anyone else - I think it's a bloody amazing social revolution that had to occur in an increasingly civilized society.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 5 August 2010 1:09:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I disagree. it's all a matter of what kind of personality you have. hormones or other biological variations have nothing to do with managing to function successfully in today's society. well, at least they shouldn't matter.
All these societal labels and dividers just break all of us apart instead of giving us the opportunity to channel our skills and talents to a type of life we want to have, regardless our social/biological background.
Posted by AusPokies, Thursday, 5 August 2010 3:06:55 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
wow....this is precious.

AUTHOR:

Feminists see the increasing numbers of single mothers and female executives as a reflection of women’s liberation.

FEMALE CONTRIBUTOR (Briar Rose)

As a woman, I have to say that I find your deterministic generalisations about the innate nature of women and men extremely unsatisfying.

ME...err.."Unsatisfying" ? no kidding Rose ? at least you didn't deny the fundamental reality and truth of what Brian said.

You did however try to use exceptions to dismantle obvious rules.

You feminists have been duped by Marxist propoganda in the form of radical Marcusian feminist b/s about 'equality'.. something you had all along..without even realizing it. On some issues there was a tweak needed, but culturally, we were 'ok' by and large and the roles of male and female complimented each other, whereas now it's more 'competition'.... stupid really.

JP adds a bit of the wisdom of Solomon...

If materialism is true then determinism is absolute. We are all just chemical robots with no control whatsoever over what we do, say,....

and of course.. JP deserves a huge TICK for that grasp of the obvious (to all except the philosphically bigoted of course)

PAUL of BATHURST (or is it Asia Minor ? :)

"Within a Christian perspective headship is service to others not self."

*hoooray* for some decent input.

FRACCY joins the fray in defense of the women....

All women are naturally nurturers, all men are naturally warriors.

Oh noooooo.. there it is again... "if you criticize someone, you are 'hating all' of that persons group... *sigh*

As a general rule males are like this...and females are like that....
Put them together in mutual respect, complementary roles and selfless caring and life can be wonderful

It's nature Fraccy..please join the program.
Posted by ALGOREisRICH, Thursday, 5 August 2010 7:06:35 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
<"You feminists have been duped by Marxist propoganda in the form of radical Marcusian feminist b/s about 'equality'.. something you had all along..without even realizing it. On some issues there was a tweak needed, but culturally, we were 'ok' by and large and the roles of male and female complimented each other, whereas now it's more 'competition'.... stupid really">

No Al, Marxism wasn't responsible for domestic violence, rape, child sexual abuse, poverty imposed upon women and children who were abandoned by their "servant leaders".

It was feminism that uncovered those issues and which has gradually worked inch by inch to obtain some justice and balance.

I'm sure that YOU were "ok". Your world worked for you; I can understand why you wouldn't question the entitlement that you believe is your right.

In the process of tweaking - just what did any of our "servant leaders" do, or even propose - towards making sure that other "servant leaders" who mistreated their spouses and kids; played up on them; drank; gambled; had affairs and so on, lived up to their (supposed by some) responsibilities? What were all the "servant leaders" doing about helping abused kids and women?

Al: <"Within a Christian perspective headship is service to others not self." *hoooray* for some decent input.">

Maybe an ideal and a catchy new phrase that we're hearing a lot; but it rings hollow because there is no proof whatsoever that it occurred, except in rare cases, outside of the 50s television screen.
As noted above - blatant fabrication.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 5 August 2010 7:22:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,
If feminism has been wonderfull for women, as we are endlessly told by feminists, then how come women's happiness levels have not increased?

Also, if testosterone is not good, then did nature make a stuff up by giving males more testosterone than females.

Opps, best not ask uncomfortable questions.
Posted by vanna, Thursday, 5 August 2010 8:09:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Vanna,

<"If feminism has been wonderfull for women, as we are endlessly told by feminists, then how come women's happiness levels have not increased?">

I don't know which women or studies you're referring to. If your calculations include women leaving abusive relationships then I can't imagine the departee being "happy"; maybe relieved to be able to leave in relative safety and go on to rebuild an independent life. Doing that with a late start, some trauma baggage and maybe parenting a child or two alone as well is not an easy task. I think it's especially difficult for women who've been raised as traditionalists, with little emphasis on education or work skills and with the idea that some bloke will always support them.

As a parallel - women in Afghanistan. No doubt some husbands are very kind in their way, but is society organized in such a way that a female who is not treated kindly can safely choose an alternative. Are there any moves in government or at any level of the main controlling institutions, ie: men with any power, advocating for women to have equal rights to education and to be treated decently, or do all just turn a blind eye to the beatings, rapes and killings.

<"Also, if testosterone is not good, then did nature make a stuff up by giving males more testosterone than females.">

If testosterone is the source of energy and aggression, then most men prove that it can be channeled positively. Like - using strength to protect the weak and vulnerable. I think that how men choose to use their energy depends a lot on their socialization. Part of that socialization includes obtaining the approval or disapproval of other males who model acceptable behaviour and society's tolerance including whether or not we make excuses for bad behaviour like blaming hormones.

If, as you and the author propose, men are controlled by their testosterone then there isn't much of a basis for claims to being particularly rational and objective.

<"Opps, best not ask uncomfortable questions.">

I didn't find the questions uncomfortable.
Posted by Pynchme, Friday, 6 August 2010 8:11:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pynchme,
As a feminist, you may not have been told about studies into women's happiness, but women's levels pf happiness haven't increased world wide for some decades. Some studies conducted in Australia suggest women's happiness is actually decreasing, with increasing rates of depression.

You will also find almost twice the rates of menat illness amongst unmarried women than married women.

You will also find abuse is one of the least likely reasons for divorce.

You will also find the vast majority of males are not aggressive.

However, I have found that none of the above is rarely mentioned by a feminist, and anything said by a feminist should be regarded as being possible, but not probable.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 6 August 2010 8:25:03 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a direct relationship between happiness levels and materialism. Poverty is at the opposite end with the same effects but for different reasons.

Getting the balance right is not easy and it is our economic systems that affect that balance more than any aspect of feminism.

I agree with some of the comments above. In my experience, when we become too self-focussed and not outwardly or community focussed there lies the foundation for unhappiness and discontent. Religion is only relevant in that context if one practices what they preach which is true of any doctrine, theist or non-theist alike.
Posted by pelican, Friday, 6 August 2010 8:57:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Boazy/Polycarp/AGIR

>>> FRACCY joins the fray in defense of the women.... <<<<

WTF?

Here's a little advice; before you start a rant on your opinion of me, try reading my post first. That way you will appear less of an idiot.

Hope this helps:

>>>> Agree with Briar Rose, Brian Holden manages to denigrate the abilities of both men and women.

All women are naturally nurturers, all men are naturally warriors.

B.S.

Posted by Severin, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 12:18:20 PM <<<<

As you clearly are in need of help, please try to follow:

1. I was in agreement with Briar Rose.

2. The B.S. was for Bull Sh1t, being a disclaimer on the previous line that men and women fall into distinct little boxes; nurturer or warrior.

I sincerely hope you are able to comprehend my post. I can always spell it out, but I'm not sure if I can make it any shorter given your level of concentration.

If you are still having difficulties, perhaps you could read Briar Rose's post to understand just what I was in agreement with.
Posted by Severin, Friday, 6 August 2010 9:23:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna - Which "studies into women's happiness"? Admittedly I haven't read any but struggle to believe there is 'worldwide' statistical data available. Can you quote sources?

Regarding Australia: I'd agree womens happiness is decreasing - along with mens. I believe much is due to overheated economics and personal expectations. 30 / 40 years ago people expected to start with essentials and save to acquire luxuries. Homes were modest but much more affordable. Most couples with family could, with care, live off one income. As a society we've sacrificed quality (of life) for quantity (of possessions). Just my thoughts ...

Regarding you claiming twice the rate of mental illness occurring in single women - How about PEOPLE OF EITHER SEX suffering mental illness are much more likely to be partnerless?? Onset of common psychiatric complaints - bipolar disorder and schizophrenia typically occurs in adolescence or young adulthood. Symptoms tend to discourage offers of matrimony. When sufferers marry or develop mental illness during the marriage, erratic, even dangerous behaviour, lack of effective treatment, knowledge, understanding, social acceptance etc often scuttle the relationship. Mental illness predisposes to single status not the other way round.

Since divorce nowadays is a "no blame" process, where is evidence for your claim: "You will also find abuse is one of the least likely reasons for divorce."? What are the the most likely reasons for divorce? Are you referring to de facto marriages as well as legal marriage?

Quote: "You will also find the vast majority of males are not aggressive."
Virtually every human is CAPABLE of aggression with males more likely to express it physically. Testosterone factors here. HOWEVER socialisation teaches us that aggression must be controlled. I believe that the majority of males manage their innate aggression in appropriate ways as do most females.

Feminism is no longer terribly relevant. The work is done. However without the womens movement western women would 'enjoy' similar conditions to females in countries like Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. Treated well or badly, nevertheless having little to no say about most aspects of their lives. Or would that suit you Vanna?
Posted by divine_msn, Friday, 6 August 2010 9:09:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vanna, if you are going to claim that 'feminism has been wonderful for women, as we are endlessly told by feminists', you should provide evidence of which feminists are endlessly telling us this - things are certainly better than they were, but 'wonderful'? The agenda is fairness, rather than happiness, and it certainly isn't a won war. The figures on pay differences between the genders say it all - and the gains of early feminism and cost of being a super woman who can supposedly juggle family and work with ease are being constantly re-evaluated. Which is why we now have emphasis on work-life balance for both men and women, and on it goes.

On the subject of 'testosterone driven' soldiers who regard women in their ranks as sex objects, I have it on good authority from one amongst them that the problem soldiers are the young men who regard themselves as irresistibly attractive - and therefor assume no woman would genuinely repel their advances. They also think their attractiveness will make them an automatic target for gay soldiers, hence their homophobia. Its a matter of vanity as much as hormones.
Posted by Candide, Saturday, 7 August 2010 1:32:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Candide, "They also think their attractiveness will make them an automatic target for gay soldiers, hence their homophobia."

That would be news to the ADF and the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission, both of whom have often remarked upon the absence of complaints by homosexuals in the armed forces following their acceptance as service men and women. If you have a more credible source then out with it.

You wrote also of 'testosterone driven soldiers'. What you could have said but you didn't was that there integration of women into the armed forces has been excellent and the level of complaint of sexual harassment is low and surprisingly so given the circumstances under which the armed forces operate. It is not like David Jones is it and many charges of sexual harassment in the military do not involve offenders in powerful positions forcing their attentions on allegedly vulnerable women. In the military sexual 'harassment' is usually among equals, or the lower ranks making some very unfair sport of a more senior rank and gender offered another spicy way of doing that. It is so often a foolish prank that goes wrong and could humiliate.

In the military especially there is the danger that feminism could become about totems as it can be in civilian life (which is where you appear to be headed - the man-hating and women-hating rhetoric of radical feminism and its opponents) and service women would be very opposed to that. They can and do stand on their own two feet.
Posted by Cornflower, Saturday, 7 August 2010 5:54:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

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