'The article is not arguing there is no misogyny in society and that women don't experience sexism from time to time. It is not saying that feminism is bad. '

Exactly pelican. But, as you say, it's zero tolerance! Stay on Message, those menz are b@STARDS! Don't ever give em a break or explore anything other than black and white obedience to the doctrine that every event is part of a continuing narrative of the evils of men, the patriarchy and the infinite misogyny.

SJF, sorry Killarney, as antiseptic laughs, really is quite comical. Basically anyone who doesn't buy into the 'truth' of the grand overarching conspiracy of all men, the ' thousands of years of male privilege and dominance in every sphere of public life', can never be a feminist in her mind.

Back in reality land, outside of the gender studies propaganda machine rewriting history as one grand Adam vs Eve, where men and women have loved and laughed and worked hard together raising families throughout history, however constricted by gender roles, the world is much more nuanced.

I think really what Killarney defines as feminist is to be perpetually angry and bitter and maintain a huge chip on one's shoulder. Cant imagine why women with a balanced and rational and fair minded outlook wouldn't be interested in that.

All I see is an author who revisited the very worst bits of hyperbowl, stepped back and rationally looked at the situation with an open mind, still found misogyny, but discarded the most extreme bits. Traitor! Off with her head!

Poirot

There have been some lively debates on feminist websites about the failure of Australian feminist commentary to seriously challenge the government's Newstart/single parents legislation. I've engaged in them myself and been extremely critical of this failure. I also know several women that have been plunged into dire predicaments because of it.

This is the kind of criticism that feminists welcome and learn from. It is concrete, fair and easily proved. (I suspect that there might have been more feminist criticism about this, but the welfare-phobic Oz media just didn't want to know.)

However, empty generalisations about feminism upsetting men and stopping women from growing up are subjective perceptions that can be neither proved nor disproved. They achieve nothing other than a sense of self-righteousness in the generaliser.

Great article, I also had a look at Sonias article on criticism of women who put child care ahead of career by some feminists, also very well said.

http://bowditchpitch.com/2013/02/22/bugger-off-feminist-movement/

Feminists willing to speak honestly rather than playing for every advantage give the movement credibility, those who blatently play for special treatment undermine it.

R0bert

'It is concrete, fair and easily proved.'

HAhahahaha

Like the basis is of practically all feminist social commentary I'm sure!

I too, have no problem with arguments of this sort.

It's the poor thought out theories that attempt to assign motive to every thing men do that gets my goat. The grand conspiracy theories about the secret Patriarchy clubs, the hive mind of men, the extrapolation, the 1 in 3 statistic pulled out of thin air, the abuse of statistics, the expansion of definitions, all twisted and construed to attempt to fit into this world view, this continuous narrative of the innocent female victim and the aggressive oppressor male.

If only the constant feminist commentary of men was 'concrete, fair and easily proved'. Hahaha

'empty generalisations about feminism upsetting men and stopping women from growing up are subjective perceptions that can be neither proved nor disproved. They achieve nothing other than a sense of self-righteousness in the generaliser.'

Bravo! You have just described feminism. Empty generalizations about men and their 'attitude to women', misogyny, and supposed privilege, and the total denial of women's agency or any responsibility at all for any social problem are subjective perceptions that can be neither proved nor disproved. They achieve nothing other than a sense of self-righteousness in the generaliser.

"However, empty generalisations about feminism upsetting men and stopping women from growing up are subjective perceptions that can be neither proved nor disproved. They achieve nothing other than a sense of self-righteousness in the generaliser."

Self-righteousness on OLO. Never!

An opposing view does not necessarily equal self-righteousness.

The article is not an attack on feminism. I wonder if anyone ever reads these pieces properly.

I am a feminist but.... (looks like the author has a point, no-one is listening)

Pelican, it's a point that is obvious and it's exactly the same point I've been arguing for the last several years on this site.

I gave this link in another thread. It's worth putting here.

http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2013/6/the-blind-spot-in-feminist-political-theory

"When we remember the obvious fact that human communities, including their ruling elites, do not control their destinies, and so do not simply legislate for social order according to a set of ideal values, much that is otherwise inexplicable and even ugly in human social orders becomes clear.Human social orders are functional devices which aim at group survival, and so these orders are more restrictive the more demanding the problems to be solved. Of course, they are not simply functional—societies are strongly inertial, and preserve in their traditions many features the purpose of which have long been lost—but much headway can be gained in understanding social structures by keeping in mind the necessity, for any society, of solving this basic problem of survival."

Feminists have been very successful in convincing shallow women seeking special treatment and shallow men who are desperate to please that the above statement is untrue.

As a result we have a lot of legalised discrimination against men based not on the need for survival of the society, or its prospering, but on some nebulous "values" that are no more than facile justifications of that discrimination akin to the religious "values" that US slave owners used to justify their "right" to behave abominably and to convince the slaves their situation was divinely ordained.

Have a loom at the thread on abortion, where suseonline gives a fine exposition of the slave-holder's mentality.