Pelican

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

No, of course not. It's a deeply nuanced and insightful treatise on the human condition. I wonder if you even read my COMMENT, which was about the willingness of feminists to accept fair criticism and learn from it - but I suppose that's too much information to process.

Just to show you that I DID read the article, I’ll do some cut’n’pasting from it – just to save me the trouble of having to write something that won’t be read.

‘The feminist creed has become so unforgiving that … Nuance is not welcome.’

Nope. No attacks there.

‘Deviate from the [feminist] script and you will be brandished a traitor to the cause.’
Nope. No attacks there, either.

‘I am a feminist but, unlike many … I refuse to encourage a way of life that pits women against men in this way.’

Oh, look! Another not-an-attack on feminism!

‘… has our society been conditioned to accept that to criticise women or poke fun is considered misogynist?’

Oh, but this quote has nothing whatever to do with feminism, you understand. No, none at all.

‘I am a feminist, but I feel uncomfortable taking part in this “let’s make it all about women versus men” palaver …’

Oh, lawd! Perhaps the author meant to say: ‘I am a feminist butthead.’

Killarney:

http://tinyurl.com/at5enuc

I'm sorry I couldn't find a link to a 'no true feminist' page. I hope you can still understand the point I'm trying to make but I'm happy to clarify things if you can't.

Cheers,

Tony

Killarney <"Oh, lawd! Perhaps the author meant to say: ‘I am a feminist butthead.’"

Lol!
Never mind Killarney, that's the way I read this article too, but I was also shot down.
Maybe good old-fashioned feminism is still alive outside OLO, but on here feminist bashing is alive and well.

Killarney
"...which was about the willingness of feminists to accept fair criticism and learn from it - but I suppose that's too much information to process."

Well I will try my best. Trouble is that with any criticism of feminism comes comments like that of 'self-righteousness'. This is not informed debate. I am very happy to listen to arguments but if we happen to disagree it may be that we just process this information differently.

There are many examples where offensive events have been put down to sexism when in fact it has just been offensive. Sexism should be identified when it occurs, it is that one should be sure that it is in fact sexism and not a knee-jerk reaction because the recipient just happens to be female.

As a feminist there are things that we accept as offensive to women - that are indeed sexist. Discussions around mens' issues are also needed and are valuable if we are to create better communities.

My personal view is that the PM was not (for example) calling out sexism in the rally about blue ties, rather using it as a electioneering opportunity to push the feminist barrow. This is a divisive tool and only serves to draw a wedge IMO. There are ways of arguing for more women in politics than diminishing men and their apparell.

Governments must serve the interests of all groups.

Even though I believe the term was misused and overstated, I understood the PM's misogyny speech as it was an impulsive and emotional reaction to a nasty and bottom-dwelling comment by Tony Abbott about her father.

The article is putting forward only some criticism of feminism and we can learn from it. We can be feminists together and we can disagree. Feminism should also look at liberating men from their shackles of gender based roles if we are going to be fair. There is a lot more discussion to be had together united than divided.

Pelican, whilst I appreciate what I believe you're trying to say in this piece and you have obviously good intent, I think you've allowed a couple of unexamined assumptions to creep in.

"As a feminist there are things that we accept as offensive to women - that are indeed sexist."

This assumes two things: firstly that we can "accept" certain things as objectively offensive based on our class membership. But the same things would not have been perceived by different members of the same class a generation or two ago. In other words, what we "accept" is a construct, it doesn't follow from the nature of the class in the same way that (say) poverty can be seen as a part of the nature of the class of long-term unemployed people. It's subjective, not objective. That is at the heart of the problem with "progressive" policy formation generally; it is aimed at "doing something" about subjectively-derived "problems" rather than objectively addressing observed inequities. It is informed by emotional advocacy rather than rational enquiry.

Second, that sexism is defined by that subjective offence. You clarify later, but it does show the seductive power of subjectivity.

I'd also like to take you up on the second sentence in that paragraph. There are no such things as "men's issues" or "women's issues" or even "family issues", there are simply "people issues" which need to be addressed holistically, not as a class-based contest.
Part of that is recognising that humans have 2 sexes and that we do better when the sexes are not competing as well as understanding that we have complementary strengths and weaknesses. Trying to make the sexes identical is laughable, as Killarney shows so well with her satire.

Anti

One does not have to be member of a class to identify sexism. Aren't most observations subjective - based on personal experiences and analysis.

My main objection is the careless use of the term 'sexism'.

As for generations ago, there were many conditions women 'put up with'. My great grandmother had many children being a good Catholic and had to raise them almost alone, with a husband who came home drunk more times than not. And a Church that told her it was her duty. Women were also told they could not have abortions but did anyway despite the risks of backyard operators.

Men also carry the burden of major breadwinner and that expectation may be viewed as sexist. Maybe those burdens is why my great grandfather came home drunk - who knows. Men have to put up with a different sort of sexism as highlighted by many previous discussions around family law. I am not arguing sexism is a one-way street. It is complex and I agree with you that the discussions around this have to involve men and women.

I am not talking about gender roles in this context. More the way women were viewed as 'lesser' in terms of their value as a homemaker/mother or in terms of their abilities to be rational, or ability to work in various professions.

Unfortunately the feminist movement, instead of adding value to those traditional feminine roles, chose instead to demean them in the race to be 'equal' to men. In a way feminism swallowed the line that value comes as a productive unit within an economic system. The value to society that come from family solidarity were diminished.

For example comments like 'this is what you get when a woman is PM' or 'women are destroying the joint' are examples of sexism. Sexism is out there but let's be honest about what is and what isn't sexism. However is it government's role to push these sorts of agendas in the everyday unless it is on behalf of men and women.

.../cont