So why is the sky blue?

[Deleted. Offensive.]

Well, I see the women haters are the first to post opinions on this article.

Personally I think anyone who cares a fig about what someone thinks about what they're wearing needs to gain some strength of character. Sure there are a lot of pink girl toys but from what I see in the toy sections there are plenty of other colours too. So girls really have more choice.

It is probably more in the boy sections that pink is taboo. That's because in becoming men it seems that men must do everything they can to reject the feminine to prove that hey are men. Boys have to actively move away from the feminine and their mothers as they become part of the male world but girls don't have to make this distinction of moving from the feminine world of their mothers to the male world like boys have to. Yes they have fathers but for the early childhood years it is the mother who usually has primary care of the children both boys and girls and so is the most powerful day to day figure in the lives of young boys.

It is men who have issues with pink, girls should just wear it with attitude and say suck it up, your're just jealous because we can wear any colour we like, but you can't because you are afraid of what people might think.

Another fact I have read about the colour pink and red on women is that men are more attracted to this colour on women but they don't understand why. It is because pink and red are the colour of the female sex organ.
Nature still controls us it would seem.

I await the vicious anti-women comments I know this will most likely arouse from the usual woman haters on this site. Because they are so afraid of wearing pink, whereas girls can wear any colour with impunity. (singing of song)Oh! I just love being a girl, or in my case a hard-headed woman who is not easily swayed by much of any thing.

I don't brake for lawyers dressed in black.

Cherful

Being female and self-centred doesn't make you a feminist.

Cherful,

You are correct. Almost every aspect of the clothes of the modern woman is sending out sex signals.

EG. Lipstick is suggestive of engorged female sex genitals, low cut dresses advertise that the modern woman is actually female, wearing high heel shoes pushes out the breasts and the buttocks at the same time etc.

In fact, almost nothing worn by the modern woman has much constructive purpose, except for sending out sex signals.

There is the issue of the handbag, which is probably a remnant from 1000’s of years of groups of women browsing through the bush picking berries and fruits that they put into a dilly bag they always carried with them.

CHERFUL "I await the vicious anti-women comments I know this will most likely arouse from the usual woman haters on this site. Because they are so afraid of wearing pink, whereas girls can wear any colour with impunity. (singing of song)Oh! I just love being a girl, or in my case a hard-headed woman who is not easily swayed by much of any thing."

Men are afraid of pink because they are oppressed by women into believing it is a feminine colour. The matriarchy society has exploited men by forcing shame on them for wearing pink, whilst at the same time women are free to wear any colour with impunity. This is sexist.

Does this type of argument sound familiar?

Does it work in reverse?

Apparently mentioning the fact that sluts rely on the same source of power as feminists is offensive.

I should have realised...

Very interesting. Yes pink is powerful.

When I was a very naive sweet 16 & never been kissed, yes really as many were in the 50s, my mad aunt sent me a shirt for my birthday. Yes it was a pale pink.

The only entertainment in a country town in those days of six o'clock closing, was the pictures, or the Saturday night dance. Now a shirt was a shirt to me, so I wore my new pink one to the dance.

The effect was amazing. A number of the "in" girls, the beautiful ones, who had only talked to me when they wanted help with their maths, were all over me. A couple of them actually led me to the area of brightest light to make sure the shirt was really pink.

Apparently I had made some sort of statement with that shirt, & had suddenly become one of the in people. I reckon it took 6 months or so for them to decide, I think sadly, that I really wasn't one of them, & throw me back.

I was no longer quite as naive, & had certainly been kissed, but I was not "in" crowd material.

That pink shirt had had quite an effect on my growing up, which was just as well, as in just a few months school was out, & life got serious.

Then it was uni, the navy, then uni again. The folks moved to the big smoke, & I never got back to town to see how those in people made out. Pity, it would be interesting. However that shirt sure proved to me that pink is powerful.

As always, the people with funding are shoving their Politically Correect/feminist spin down our throats... the author is a professional feminist (law).

Meanwhile, the majority of normal tax-paying intelligent people struggle to have the truth told - sadly limited to sniping at articales like this one. Writing stuff like this takes time and resources... something that a professional gets paid to do, but normal people struggle to get time for.

So the people with funding get to tell the world that way the way the world *should* be, and the normal people slowly get brainwashed.

Who funds these bigots? We do. Our taxes pay for these professional feminists.

There is NO funding for the other side... for the truth, for the views that the majority believbe in...

I know as a fact that there are zero people paid to promote a balance against this feminist dogma. Zero. Not fair is it?

I actually find men in pink shirts quite attractive. I can't see anything wrong with them wearing pink and I really don't know why these people are carrying on about pinkstinks. Must be something they've got a bee in their bonnet about.

I do however question why men have to say don't play like a girl to their fellow males and put women down as a show of manhood. Couldn't they say something less sexist, like "come on you can do a better job than that."

Aristocrat
<men are afraid of pink because they are oppressed by women into believing it is a feminine colour. The matriarchy society has exploited men by forcing shame on them for wearing pink, whilst at the same time women are free to wear any colour with impunity. This is sexist.>

On the contrary Aristocrat, it is men who seem to need to renounce all things female to somehow prove their manhood. Comments like mentioned above "oh don't be a girl stop crying." It is more likely men who would think you were suspect for wearing a pink shirt than women.

Vanna
<You are correct. Almost every aspect of the clothes of the modern woman is sending out sex signals.

EG. Lipstick is suggestive of engorged female sex genitals, low cut dresses advertise that the modern woman is actually female, wearing high heel shoes pushes out the breasts and the buttocks at the same time etc.

In fact, almost nothing worn by the modern woman has much constructive purpose, except for sending out sex signals.>

I agree with your above statement Vanna.

However It is still pretty hard to hide the fact that a woman is a woman even in more conservative clothes, short of wearing the black sheets worn by some cultures which seems to me to be taking things to the extreme. Most men are still very aware that a young woman is a woman even when wrapped up in a sari like the Indian women or something similar with the African women. In fact rapes are much worse in Africa. They wear village clothing which doesn't include high heels and low cut dresses etc like the Western women. Makes no difference to the men being attracted to them. But I do concede your point that some of the outfits I've seen particularly on young teenagers are over the top in their shortness under the bottom and their lower cut upper sections. I notice that a lot of these girls are rather young though and I suspect they are easily led by magazines and celebrities

I've stated this before on OLO.
Feminist=frustrated, envious, male-hating, insipid, non-sensical, ignorant, stupid, tart.
Why on earth can't females be women & males men ? Women want to be men, dark people want to be light & vice versa, blonds want to be brunette, straight haired people want curls...
Do we really need exceptionally bad economic times again for some people to wake up to themselves ? Is it any wonder we're going down the shute ? On one hand mankind is making huge technological advances yet on the other hand a huge number of people are becoming increasingly senseless.

Be careful Cherful. Someone will accuse you of saying that women who wear tradional African clothing deserve to be raped. The don't-blame-the-victim crowd can add all sorts of meaning to what you actually said.

Cherfull,

Therein lies a problem. Considering the science of the situation, nearly everything worn by most women in our society is actually designed for sexual allure.

And the woman knows it, but yet they don’t want to be treated as sex objects.

Lipstick has nothing to do with engorged genitalia... But it is about sex.

It is about your fertility. Young women have higher levels of estrogen/etc and these hormones make lips fuller. THat's why lips get thinner with age (or childhood). They are fattest at peak fertility.

Same with firmness of breasts, tightness of buttocks etc.

That's why fatness is ugly. Young women are slim as they have just finished their growth spurt... as the years progress they get fatter (as do men). So slim is a marker for youth, and hence fertility.

Everythign I write here is typically speaking/on average/normally/trend-wise/what you typically expect. OF COURSE THERE ARE MANY EXCEPTIONS...

Part time parent.
So that’s why so many women like botox, and are prepared to go through the pain of those injections.

Of course if a husband or boyfriend so much as pinches them, they are likely to shreak with pain and scream out "abuse, abuse, abuse".

However for a better understanding of the modern woman, and a better understanding of why she wears so much rather useless clothing and makeup, read “Peoplewatching” by Desmond Morris.

Vanna
<Cherfull,

Therein lies a problem. Considering the science of the situation, nearly everything worn by most women in our society is actually designed for sexual allure.

And the woman knows it, but yet they don’t want to be treated as sex objects.>

I would have to agree with that Vanna as it is so obviously true.

This is where the huge misunderstandings between males and females occurs. Men are sexually attracted full stop. Women may know this but I don't think they fully comprehend the male sexual connection between their vision and their sex organs because they don't have the same connection so how could they really understand it having never experienced it.
They also don't fully understand in a lot of cases that the male sex drive is 10times as strong as their own because again they have never really experienced it. Where the male has this huge frontal layer of the brain solely programmed for sex, that same big area in the female brain is a seething mass of emotions an emotional reactions desiring emotional connections. They know they have to look sexy to attract a man who they hope may be the emotional romantic partner they seek.

This is why a woman can be having a friendly chat with a man she just met and thinks isn't it wonderful how we are connecting so well emotionally and gets the fright of her life when he suddenly grabs her and starts groping or whatever, it just wasn't on her mind despite the signals the male is getting from her provocative clothes it is emotional connection she hopes for.

I guess it is always going to be a problem between the sexes. But the women are just as guilty in their lack of understanding of the male biology as the men are in their lack of understanding of what it is the female is really seeking.

Maybe the old grannies with the knitting (chaperones)weren't such a bad idea. At least they kept these misunderstandings between the sexes from happening.

Cherful
So if a woman talks to a man, the man wants to grab and grope her.

It is incredible how the male gender is portrayed in our feminist corrupted society.

But certainly men should think more about women and what they are doing, and not be easily lead astray by what the woman is wearing, or in our feminist corrupted society, barely wearing.

I'm fascinated that cherful subscribes to a biologically-deterministic view. Feminism has traditionally decried such a view, preferring a social-constructionalist perspective.

Vanna
<So if a woman talks to a man, the man wants to grab and grope her.
It is incredible how the male gender is portrayed in our feminist corrupted society.>

Vanna, I didn't say this was happening everywhere all the time, I was merely giving an example of how the different biological imperatives of the male and female(blame nature for that)can lead to these kinds of misunderstandings.

Didn't you say that the way women dress sends an I want sex message to men. Are you now saying it doesn't? Well then, it nullifies your argument.

Antiseptic
<I'm fascinated that cherful subscribes to a biologically-deterministic view. Feminism has traditionally decried such a view, preferring a social-constructionalist perspective.>

This is true Antiseptic and I have always disagreed with the feminist movement in this thinking.
I am a strong believer that the human species is as biologically programmed as any other animal on earth.

This doesn't mean we should not try to rein these instincts in enough to have a reasonably safe lawabiding community. Nevertheless, the basic intinct is a strong motivator in our desires and the things we want, even if we have to obtain them in a more considerate, genteel way to hold the fabric of any society together.

Cherful,
No, what I am saying is that most of the clothes worn by the modern woman are actually designed to sexually attract or sexually tease men.

That is fact, but we also have this underlying feminist type portrayal of men as being only interested in sex.

Have a look at the male authors writing articles in OLO, and their range of subjects is considerable, and I think that the portrayal of men as only interested in sex is a normal feminist error (ie. they never get anything right).

But the modern woman does seem to be rather confused and muddled. She is being driven by nature to have babies and reproduce, but her psyche is also being formed by feminism, and to a large extent by women’s magazines, women’s social media and women’s social groups.

I don’t think there is much hope for the modern woman in such circumstances, and the best that men can do, is to keep women alive until they show improvement at some time in the future

Vanna
< don’t think there is much hope for the modern woman in such circumstances, and the best that men can do, is to keep women alive until they show improvement at some time in the future>

I had a good laugh over that bit vanna.

Now seriously, men have made a right stuff up of running the world so far.

You are as guilty of not understanding the female brain because you say that women dress sexily but you don't understand that the female doesn't dress sexily because she wants to jump straight into bed without having any idea of what the men who are loopy on testosterone are like as people. That's why she wants to attract men but first she wants to talk and get to know them a bit. Men are turned on visually, but women are turned on by what they hear. This is a safety delay in their sexual programming that nature has given them for a reason. After all until very recently and still mostly around the world a woman who has sex recklessly could end up holding the baby literally for 20years or die in childbirth as many still do in third world countries.

You might as well blame the flowers for attracting the bees, female biology is just as hardwired as male biology

In defence of the men, (I must be in a good mood),I think the pendulum has swung too far and I think the advertisements that constantly portray men as doing stupid things are out of line.

It was a wonderful sight to see the men swing into action after cyclone Yasi last year. They dominated the streets everywhere. They were constantly flying past in all sorts of heavy machinery clearing the streets of big trees and doing everything necessary to get the community up and running again.
My own husband tied down as much as he could and he sat up all night
in case the ropes holding the house broke loose.

I thought at the time, this is where men really show their capabilities and the great strength and protection they give their women and families in ensuring the community is patroled and protected. It really felt good every time they flew past my house in a big tractor or something. I remember thinking thank god for the men at a time like this. I thought they looked like big brawny angels, they looked as happy as could be as they flew past like they were born to be in control of these type of situations.
Also I will add this. They are capable of producing great beauty too. as they have done with writings and works of art, inventions etc.Their is much beauty in their souls. So thank you to all the lovely men out there.

Cherful, thank you as well. It's easy to lose sight of the common ground that we all share.

Cherful, thanks also from me for the grace of that post.

R0bert

Cherful,

Well I don't mind standing beside Anti and RObert and congratulating you on your last post...very well said.

Never trust a feminist. They will say one thing, and then say the opposite.

After saying

"Now seriously, men have made a right stuff up of running the world so far. "

The supporter of feminism then goes on to say.

"So thank you to all the lovely men out there."

Their duplicity is like a woman wearing some provacative outfit.

"Look at me, I'm sexy"

Followed by "Don't look at me you sexist male pig"

vanna, vanna, vanna where did we go wrong with you?

A very sad response on your part to a great post by Cherful.
As I and others have pointed out before your extremism is no better or more realistic than that of the worst of the feminist extremists.
Rather than accept common ground and better understanding on points of difference you embrace the extreme and conflict.

R0bert

I find these gender based discussions quite distasteful of late - too much misogyny dressed up as masculism. Some men and women determined to see the world from their own narrow POV. I can't see much difference between the rad fems or the rad masculinists. Both are harmful to the goal of a more cohesive and fairer society that I have stopped posting on these sorts of threads.

As a woman stuck between the madness of some of the more radical feminists who make rules about who can and cannot call themselves a feminist and what exactly does it all mean, to men whose hatred of women, which goes much further than a 'cause', simply drips off the screen.

However, I can't resist commenting in this thread and add my applause to Cherful's wise observations and comments on this topic.

Robert,
Who has had an extreme of conflict?

Cherful wrote:
"Now seriously, men have made a right stuff up of running the world so far. "

Followed by:
"So thank you to all the lovely men out there."

It only supports my previous opinion (a well founded opinion I might add) that in our feminist society, many women are now extremly mixed up and confused individuals, who will have to be kept alive by men, until they can sort themselves out at some time in the future.

Yes Cherful A nice peace offering, but I still must take you to task for the earlier assertion that, "men have made a right stuff up of running the world so far". That claim can just not be substantiated in the western, & dare I say christian world.

When you look at the facts we are housed clothed & fed better than the world leaders just a couple of centuries ago. We have the opportunity to make more of our lives than any peoples have had at any time in the past. How can those who have been running the world, who ever they are have done such a bad job?

Sure many paid a high price for our fortune, living through the industrial revolution, but even there, would there have been so many moving from the feudal farm to the city, if conditions were so bad.

We hear much about the sweet shops of China & others today, but the same thing is occurring. The sweet shop must better than the bush, or so many would not be doing it.

Another few decades of peace, & we might all be wearing pink, {Oh except the poor Greeks of course]

Pink is pernicious, Jocelynne. As Eva Cox points out: "Emphasising women as victims also contributes to gender-based biases in political thinking." She's right.

From today's Fairfax press

http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/deadliest-cancers-lose-funding-race-20120202-1qvor.html

"Women's cancers including those of the breast, cervix and ovary were funded generously compared with the amount of death and disease they caused, said the chief executive of charity the National Breast Cancer Foundation, Carole Renouf.

But lung and pancreatic cancer, which have high death rates, received a relatively small fraction of overall cancer funding from government research agencies and independent organisations."

and

"The women's cancers, along with melanoma and leukaemia, received about 70 per cent of all cancer research money, and were ''somewhat to blame for taking the voice away'' from other forms of the disease, she said."

It's just as well a woman said this, or there'd be accusations of misogyny thrown around all over the place from those who see women with breast cancer as a useful tool for "progressively framing the debate".

I'd be interested in Jocelynne Scutt's view,but I have a feeling she's ensconced in her office writing another polemic and won't have time to look at actual facts that contradict her preferred roseate view of femi-politics. Of course,she does have time to chant "you go girl" when one of her cronies has a fatuous piece of fluff published...

About as much substance as a lettuce and much less beneficial in the consumption.

Antiseptic
<I still must take you to task for the earlier assertion that, "men have made a right stuff up of running the world so far". That claim can just not be substantiated in the western, & dare I say christian world.

When you look at the facts we are housed clothed & fed better than the world leaders just a couple of centuries ago. We have the opportunity to make more of our lives than any peoples have had at any time in the past. How can those who have been running the world, who ever they are have done such a bad job?>

I said that in retaliation for Vanna saying, "that men should kill all women because we were not as good as the men or some such wording.
However, if you want to argue the toss on it, I still think if a lot of the male leaders in India,Africa,the Middle East, and so many overpopulated miserable countries had stood up 20 or 30years ago and ensured contraception and women's Child and health clinics, (because it has been at least 30 or 40 years since the contraceptive pill was introduced).
The worlds population would now only be approaching 3billion or even less instead of 7billion and rising.

Even today in these same countries where the West would be more than willing to work with them on this issue in the United nations the men still oppose it. Just recently in Afganistan their were men throwing bombs into schools and at young school girls.

It is the overpopulation in the world that is driving all the misery to my way of thinking.
You seem to forget that the women in Western countries had to chain themselves up to protest at not being allowed the vote

Cherful, it was hasbeen who made that comment, although I do tend to agree with it. The "power behind the throne" has often been a woman and a great deal of Western thought has been devoted to consideration of the needs of women, culminating in modern feminism.

On the subject of contraception, I think it's more complex than you paint it. Contraception, until the advent of cheap chemical means, was often about protecting the rights of men to use a particular woman's womb exclusively. The chastity belt is a famous example. Otherwise, it was entirely the responsibility of the man to use a condom or one of the even less reliable methods.

It's also true that women experience a strong urge to bear children, that is both biological and sociological. Even when contraception is available,as in the West, many women choose not to use it,or to use it sporadically. My own first child was conceived when her mother was supposedly using the Pill (and admitted later she'd been fudging it).

I do agree with you about overpopulation, but placing all the blame on men simply doesn't stack up.

I think the dialogue of blaming men for all that happens even where men are the most visible instruments misses much of the context and background. Not always, there are some cultures where I don't think that do seem to oppress women but not ours. Men and women have been in it together, often as a response to earlier practical limitations and needs which became "the way we do things".

The voting issue was before my time but as I understand it most men hadn't had the vote for long at that period either. Hard to tell just what got the vote for women more quickly accepted, public stunts to highlight the issue probably did highlight the issue and speed change.

From what I've seen and read opposition to social change generally has a fairly big feminine component to it even when the change could benefit women. I've seen a fair bit of material suggesting that those most keen on female genital mutilation are the older women.

Much of the opposition to feminism is I suspect a kickback at the framing of the need for change in terms of male oppression of women, blaming men for the stuff that doesn't work etc. I don't see many men in our society opposing genuine equality of opportunity, equality of rights and responsibilities, etc.

I know in my own case I'm very tired of seeing my gender portrayed as oppressors, as warmongers, as having all sorts of failings. Almost always out of context and ignoring that we are all in this together, as Anti points out there is often a power behind the throne.

It's also important to remember that most men and women in our culture have had the majority of early childhood nurturing done by women, those who want to point the finger at men seem to ignore that.

Blaming men is useful if you want to create a context for gaining special privilege, if you want top be able to oppress, not if you want to further genuine social change to make things better for all.

R0bert