What are you talking about? It's true I missed the Australian article but it would have been helpful if you had provided some definition of this supposed 'goddess' problem. Having read the entire article I ma none the wiser.

Thanks Jim, this type of "explanation" will wake up the intelligent, and baffle those poor unfortunates who can't see the cosmetics for the grease, there is a creed amongst most women that if they are not card carrying members of the "feminist union" they are letting their gender down, one of the edicts is to put those "bloody men" in their place, particularly after they have "graciously" submitted to SEX.
We are supposed to think we are being done some fantastic favor and should be showing eternal gratitude, that sexual relations between a man and a women is a TWO WAY street is one thing they don't want to admit to.
Deciding that it's not worth the bother brings out the true facts, and most men know all about the wrath and anger of "a woman scorned" and suddenly these "virgin queens" show an amazing lust for sex.
Fortunately there are some very attractive older women who have looked after themselves and not fallen into the trap of indulgence and laziness.
Quentin Bryce still looks attractive for her age but all of that is undone when you look at what a greedy, arrogant, indulgent, lump she really is, she as a solicitor thinks because no LAW is being broken she is doing nothing wrong, the lack of morality of her position means nothing to her.
As you rightly point out Jim there are many women who while beating drums to the "moral high" ground turn a blind eye to the antics of some of their feminine heroins and then wounder why there are "so many MISOGYNISTS".

Oh Dear..

On the one hand I'm musing that it's curious the way it seems only the opposite sex can be critical of its other. You rarely see men complaining about men, or women about women. Then I get annoyed sometimes that women get away with it but men are labelled misogynists.
Then I'm wondering that a 65 year old is condemning women for denying their age and condition, yet his photo is of an Adonis.
On the substance of the article I'd have to say it does look like misogyny, or at the very least a lop-sided world view.
Since when is the ALP "feminist"?
I suspect too that the men enjoy just as many perks as the Governor General does in her clothing allowance.
I'd love to see her and the Queen getting around in sack-cloth, but we live in an elitist world and the clothing allowance is no doubt comparatively modest by our elitist standards.
And why should elderly women be "dignified and realistic".
In my experience women often feel sexier as they get older, and I for one am not indifferent to their charms. The spice of sex is after all fantasy, and not vested in nubility. Indeed I've always found young women tedious in their generally idiotic conversation and infatuations (young men are seldom any better).
I think a good-looking mature woman has every right to play the goddess. Indeed many older women whose looks and figures are gone may still retain more sex appeal than their young contemporaries.
Finally, as Jim Morris illustrates, men tend to have just as many conceits--or should I say "mental illness"?

Yeah things are pretty messed up. It's a very ungenerous (Not to mention aimless and pointless and sour) analysis here that it gives no discount for the fact women have been valued by their looks above all else for so long.

I suppose it's as un-generous as the average feminist is with the results of male gender conditioning. A bit like this....

http://www.dailylife.com.au/life-and-love/real-life/why-do-men-refuse-to-do-fertility-tests-20121005-2743n.html

'Haven’t men been practicing for this moment their entire lives? Aiming issues aside, how hard is it to ejaculate into a jar?'

With the lack of insight and empathy going around it's a wonder men and women ever get together. Lucky the silent majority seems much more sane than these 'commentators'

'Since when is the ALP "feminist"?'

You'll bring back the ghost of antiseptic with that one...

Emilyyyy's lissssst!

They're carrying on like a bunch of rad fems at the moment. Whooping it up with You Go Girls! organizing hit squads to out 'misogynists' and being on the front page of Jezebel. Julia is revisiting her undergraduate yoof with that last spectacle.

Squeers, how could you accuse the author of misogyny, when he has described Ms Brice as glamorous. All I see in her, in those horrible pastel suits, is mutton, dresses up as lamb.

I agree that a woman requires quite a few years to become beautiful. I doubt any under about 40, with some character showing could be so described.

How would you describe the new lady royal. She could never be described as pretty, & who would want such such an insipid appearance.

She could never be described as beautiful, although she does have beautiful eyes, which she uses to great effect.

No I think gorgeous would come close, but what does that mean.

I once lived with a gorgeous lady. She was far too hot to be beautiful, [beautiful is cold to me], & was not insipid enough to be pretty, but she was a traffic stopper.

It was her cross. The constant need to be not only admired, but reassured of her attractiveness got to me. She was a lovely person too but I had to get out. Perhaps that says as much of my immaturity at the time as it does her insecurity.

I once referred to my very attractive younger daughters make up as camouflage paint. I had meant war paint, which was probably acceptable. It was many days before she actually spoke to me, & weeks before I was forgiven, so do be careful.

Granted, Misogyny's a fine sounding word, and no more empty of content that women's criticism of men. The article's more of a rant than misogyny, but it lends more strength to women's cause than men's.
As for the perennially-unedifying spectacle of politics, they stand for nothing; politicians are the worst kind of populists. I do believe I might have some respect for a genuine politician, but it's a contradiction in terms.
Hasbeen,
I sympathise. I have a very attractive daughter too and god knows why she plasters the make-up on. She's intelligent too, though you wouldn't think so when she's with her mates. But you do sound like a chauvinist--just the era. Feminists will probably make eunuchs of us all and then complain when the shopping utopia comes to an end and they need real men.
That's when the goddesses will need their wiles.

An excellent letter in today's West Australian newspaper states what many intelligent women have been forced to conclude"Rather than advance feminism Julia Gillard has set it back a decade." Actually she, and her clique, have set it back by more than a decade - try about thirty or forty years! Not only has her lust for power resulted in an abandonment of fundamental principles of decency and morality, she bleats sexism and misogyny from those who chastise her.

Many mature women - who don't condone the practice of masquerading behind makeup, high heels and seductive clothing - are increasingly supporting male politicians because elitist females have shown that they lack the egalitarian qualities of true statesmen or stateswomen.

And yes, I am a proudly grey haired woman who has encountered far more discrimination from generationally younger women than I ever did from chauvinistic men.

Oh you're over 60? Perhaps you should update your photo.

But for God's sake man! Perhaps you think that now you're reaching the end of your career you'd like to share your pearls of wisdom with the rest of the world?

Please just drop it, because from my perspective all you're doing here is demonstrating to everyone that you're still a long way from getting over your divorce. Oh your poor ex-wife must be both mortified and vindicated at the same time!

Or as they say in Blighty, "takes all sorts dunnit?".

This article states that- <Single mums are an oppressed class but ironically they are oppressed by their Goddess-in-Prada sisters.>

Agree totally and I am not a single mother.

I fail to see how taking $100’s a week off the meagre income of single mothers does not highly disadvantage their children,(Australian children).
It is the children who suffer when their mother can’t afford to feed and clothe them properly. It is a nasty, shameful, policy.

CHERFUL,
based on what I recall of your posting history, you only object to which party came up with this "austerity" measure. In other words you're a bloody hypocrite; beating up on single mums is beloved of conservatives and you resent Labor's cutting your turf.
I can trump that; I despise them for it.

Whilst shopping with my husband and sometimes my father, they both at times make derogatory comments about women walking past, like-“ she’ll have to get her weight down, or criticism of the way they’re dressed or something. Meanwhile there is a passing parade of men walking past with their stomachs hanging over their trousers and as old and ugly as any woman I see going past, plus they are sloppily and appallingly lacking in any kind of dress sense.

I find this annoying and think to myself, “bloody men! so judgemental. “Now I notice men
sitting on seats in supermarkets especially those over 40 or 50years and I can see them doing the same thing all the time.
It is well known that men will often only hire young beautiful women over highly qualified older women. Then men blame women for their obsession with their looks.

But hey girls, why do you read articles in womens magazines, that say , “you must do this, this or that if you want to find a man?
I think to myself who cares! and immediately switch to more sensible reading. But then I am in the older woman brigade myself and I love it and have embraced it fully.

Nobody tells me what I should wear or not wear, I dress the way I like. When I go out I look the world straight in the eye. If I want to wear a feather in my
hat I will. I have an underlying amusement for younger people and their foolishness but also an understanding and compassion for their youth. There is a strength of character,wisdom, and power that comes with aging.

I love my imperfections and blemishes. I earned every dam one of them on my journey through life. Embrace the power and beauty of old age and realize you are inferior to no-one. They are are merely young, foolish and unenlightened who do not see this.

based on what I recall of your posting history, you only object to which party came up with this "austerity" measure. In other words you're a bloody hypocrite; beating up on single mums is beloved of conservatives and you resent Labor's cutting your turf.
I can trump that; I despise them for it.
Posted by Squeers, Tuesday, 16 October 2012 8:25:37 PM

Dear Squeers,
I am no blind follower of any side of politics, I see them all as representing the
Upper end of town given that most of them are lawyers and Uni graduates these days since
the working classes were able to send their children to Uni. There is nothing wrong with
having a Uni education but it does mean that the Labour party struggles these days to
truly represent Labour and not the elete. Failing to be able to identify so much with
the working classes anymore, they identify with the Hippie Utopian ideas they learn at Uni
about saving the world’s masses.

The Labour party showed me way back in the 1970’s
that they were less of a friend to mothers in the home than the Liberals actually were.
This was the time when Daycare was being fought for and won by the then Labour Party Women’s
Electerol Lobby. They opposed any kind of financial assistance to one wage families
with children at home. It was Malcom Fraser whom I never liked, who paid the first family
Payment directly to Mother’s with children and not to the Fathers. I always give him credit
For this.
The treatment of single mothers in this country is right across the board(not just Labour or Liberal) and it is based on ill feelings from ex-husbands and jealous new girlfriends or wives, especially of the ex-husbands financial responsibilities to his children with his former wife. I would have given the Liberals an equal serve if they had done it too.

Fair comment, CHERFUL, and sorry about my tone.

For what it's worth, I don't think the new measure against single mums is the spitefulness of the "Goddess-in-Prada sisters".
It's about the economy, pure and simple.
The economy was why women were driven out into the workforce, and now single mums. It was never about empowerment for women; that's just the spin.
The economy must grow and it takes increasingly more cashed-up consumers to service it. The dole is just a drain on the public purse and it doesn't provide any real spending power or, ergo, any economic growth.
In Labor's case, they can rationalise the measure as a way to create jobs, which they see as their (impossible) mandate.
We should long since have entered a phase whereby jobs and salaries are shared on part-time bases, but the same problem; the money would just be spread around more thinly and the economy would be deflated. Thus everything is pitched at keeping the system vicious and lean, even while we get fatter (62% now of the population).
It's all about the economy and nothing to do with gender or age.

Our getting fatter is another economic outcome. Paltry as the dole is, it's vacuumed up by bottom-feeders; fast food, soft drink, cheap booze vendors and the like. Thus we have, what did I hear yesterday, some 450,000 Queenslanders alone "living in poverty", even while they get fatter, drunker and more cracked.
The wealthy elite of course--the Gods and Goddesses in Prada--are protected from all such viciousness as paying tax, eating junk food or getting fat, thoroughly distasteful all of them.

Dear Squeers,

Couldn't agree more with your assessment of the snouts in the
trough. The rest of us are merely gun fodder they keep around,
to put between them and any invading or perceived enemies, plus the money they can make out of us.

They and their children of course will be nowhere near the gun fodder
ranks.

Not all women are nice people and not all nice women are nice all the time.

If other citizens are labelled misogynists and treated with disrespect for saying so then there will be no justice in society and ultimately a very costly breakdown in social order.

All citizens should be judged by their behaviour, and yes decency of dress and language are important behaviours. You cannot exclude them from judging social conflicts out of fear of being legally deemed a misogyist. That is a mockery of justice. Only lawyers (mostly alpha males) & their political masters could find this acceptable in modern society. It simply transfers judicial power from the people to the rich in society, using women as a bullwark.
Women will be no better off. They will just find themselves abused by the rich more often than they are now while attempts at legal justice fall on deaf ears!

Its nothing new. Its called aristocracy (let them eat cake syndrome) and its been around since the dawn of time.

The Only upside is it ALWAYS get its up-commance in the end and at great social cost. Always!

ITM women are attracted to evil men. Its part of evolution and breeding. Women call it 'EASY Street' for God's sake. When they get hurt and dumped the only men they can hook & get hold of for revenge are decent citizens with good hearts. It would be hilarious if it weren't so tragic.

Police and justice officials need to be trained better to spot these situations not just in the name of justice but in order to maintain social harmony. To allow women the right to hook and abuse reasonable citizens as pure revenge for being hurt by others is in itself a crime and an abrogation of basic decency. It renders the term misogyny TOTALLY irrelevant and the search for the 'Qui Bono' (who's benefitting from the situation) the NEW imperative.

And another thing!

On the topic of 'Qui Bono', Barry O'Greiner's sudden push for the billion dollar Packer Casino cathedral in Sydney (see today's Herald) is relevant here.

It will be a chick magnet with women looking for high rollers and bad boys. And when these women get hurt and fleeced, guess where they will head?
Down to the local supermarket to bag some decent blokes out of revenge.

Fancy a NSW leader trying to run a State by feeding off the weaknesses of its own citizens. In the long run the social costs will far outweigh any profit except for a few conniving ghouls!

Shame on you Barry for this short term and vested interest thinking!

Here's a tip ladies - when you lose at the new casino, take your mysogyny-rage out on Barry at his home address.