Underlying this lemon-sucking article is the man-hating idea that there's something wrong about men being sexually attracted to women.

Grow up.

And, pray, what "coercing" was done to get women to pose topless? Gun at their head, I suppose?

If all the author can base her argument on is the assumption that selling pictures of topless women is "exploiting" them for "profit", then every other exchange of goods and services involving human beings must be bad for the same reason. The woman by posing is exploiting men for profit too, I suppose? Buying a meal at a restaurant means you're exploiting the cook for profit, buying a house means you're exploiting the the builder for profit, and so on.

Shades of dreary 1970s insipid marxoid feminist hate speech.

Yes JKJ, feminists have dirty minds and heaven forbid that a for profit business venture should try to maximise it's income by catering to it's target demographic.
41% of The Sun's readers are women, does it occur to the author that maybe women also like to see attractive female models in their newspaper of choice and maybe like the men the female readers have a healthy, mature attitude toward sex and aren't instantly overcome with feelings of arousal when seeing a picture of a naked person?
And in any case, as my wife says "It doesn't matter where you get your appetite as long as you eat at home".

I have no problems with pictures of healthy looking, attractive young women in photos being shown in the papers at all.

What I am wondering is if there is 41% female readership of this paper, why they don't at least alternate days with photos of healthy, attractive young men?
I am sure at least some of the 59% male readership would appreciate some good-looking male forms in the papers too!

Suse,
Go and look at The Sun's "Dear Deidre" section, there's loads of helpful advice for couples and plenty of pictures of scantily clad men and women.

Come on Suse, there are thousands of photos of topless men in papers every day. How many do you need?

I always find this stuff totally disingenuous. Walk down any beach in warm weather, & you'll find thousands of ladies with their boobs out on display. No coercion required with the attractive ones, or indeed with many less so, they can't wait to get them out. Is it advertising, or just more comfortable that way?

I still remember the days of the beach inspector, fighting a loosing battle to keep the girls reasonable well covered & the beaches "decent for the little children", as if they cared. Remember the 2 inch rule for the side of bikini bottoms?

The feminists always promote page 3 type stuff as exploitation of the women, when it is infact just the opposite.

With the drug trade, it is those pushing the product for profit that are depicted as exploiters of the poor addicted.

Well in the sex/dolly bird trade, there are huge numbers of addicted. Who is being exploited when some top heavy bird, natural or man made, gets her boobs out for profit? It is the birds exploiting the men, rather than the other way around.

Just remember Evelyn, most of those page 3 girls have a short career, they can't convert their skills to lecturing, so stop being jealous.

What's next? Whistling a dirty tune?

Rusty

If sexy women didn't equate to more sales of shoes, aftershave or cars or whatever, there'd be a lot less of this titivation?

If you've got it flaunt it, preferably before gravity kicks in and makes what used to point skyward, aim at your shoes; or worse, start to look like a pair of bowling balls in socks. (swing low sweet chariot) Careful you nearly took my eye out with that :-) And referred to as knockers, when they bump (boom boom) against the knees.

Even then manageable, by throwing/kicking them over the shoulder or contained in the confines of an over the shoulder boulder holster?

And a little elastic lets the oldest drinking vessels in the world, bounce around like a pair of rabbits on the lookout for the farmer and his gun?

And don't be fulled by bare chested men in their budgie smugglers Suse; some cheat and shove a pair of socks down there, when they're not simply opening their mouths to change them?
Rhrosty.

"What I am wondering is if there is 41% female readership of this paper, why they don't at least alternate days with photos of healthy, attractive young men?"

Well why do you think, Suse? What might be the bleeding obvious answer to that question?

Much of the ground has already been covered, so I’ll try to offer something constructive and different. My starting position is that I am perplexed by the allegation that I as a male might be complicit in taking advantage or abusing (that’s what exploit means) women.

Dr Tsitas works at a university, though as a kind of communications manager rather than as an academic. However, she could still put her agile mind to the following thought experiment.

Imagine, Evelyn, that you have set the following essay or examination questions for your students.

• What practical steps could a man take to prevent the exploitation of women as described in this article?
• What practical steps could a woman take to prevent the exploitation of women as described in this article?
• Compare and contrast your answers and use the results to formulate recommendations for best addressing the issue.

Then, Evelyn, imagine the answers you might get, plus your own answers, and write another piece with some practical advice for your readers, or maybe for the whole world, to reduce the exploitation that so concerns you.

Actually rereading this, I'm not so sure Evelyn is concerned about exploitation, or is jealous of those girls with lush boobs.

I think she is laughing up her sleeve at the whole thing, & having a bit of fun with it.

If that's the case, good on you Evelyn, we could with a lot more fun poked at those who take a Bit of Bare Bouncing Boob far too seriously.

JKJ

'"What I am wondering is if there is 41% female readership of this paper, why they don't at least alternate days with photos of healthy, attractive young men?"

Well why do you think, Suse? What might be the bleeding obvious answer to that question?'

Ummm ... Because we girls still live in a man's world, according to men's rules and men's decisions, must still view the world through the male gaze and spend our lives desperately living up to men's fantasies.

What other bleeding obvious answer could there be ...?? (Rhetorical question only. No reply required.)

The fact that men like looking at women's breasts doesn't mean its some kind of abuse or injustice, and it doesn't mean you have to "view the world through the male gaze".

Grow up and stop whining.

That's like me saying that, because women's magazines exist, therefore we live in a woman's world, according to women's rules and men's decisions, must still view the world through the female gaze and spend our lives desperately living up to women's fantasies.

It's just a whining bitter stupid senseless sexist thing to say, that's all.

"(Rhetorical question only. No reply required.)"

No reply required because you're not interested in the truth.

Let's cut to the chase. Why do you think there is something abusive about men wanting to look at women's breasts, and thinking old women are ugly?

Because we do.

<Ummm ... Because we girls still live in a man's world, according to men's rules and
< men's decisions, must still view the world through the male gaze and spend our lives
<desperately living up to men's fantasies.

What other bleeding obvious answer could there be ...?? (Rhetorical question only. No reply required.)
Posted by Killarney, Friday, 23 January 2015 3:50:45 PM

"Yes Dear, now is it alright if I can go to the pub?"
"I'll promise to mow the lawn tomorrow."

Killarny: Ummm ... Because we girls still live in a man's world, according to men's rules and men's decisions, must still view the world through the male gaze and spend our lives desperately living up to men's fantasies.

Feminism has moved on since the hairy legged, boiler suit, dirty hair days. The reality is that women have ruled the world since Eve found out where Tasmania is.

Boobs, etc are so old hat now. Nobody even gives a second glance. That's why the has been more & more revealed recently in Magazines to try to get people to buy them. I personally hate gynaecological shots.
I was brought up on a farm with Cows & Horses. ;-)

JKJ

'Why do you think there is something abusive about men wanting to look at women's breasts ...'

That's NOT abusive.

'Grow up and stop whining.'

Now THAT's abusive.

'It's just a whining bitter stupid senseless sexist thing to say, that's all.'

So is THAT.

Continually putting women's naked and scantily clad bodies on display throughout the culture, for both men and women to look at, is a perpetual reminder of women's inferior status. (In non-Western societies, the converse usually applies - i.e. women's inferior status is expressed through covering their bodies from head to foot, including their faces.)

That's simply a neutral observation of how power is distributed across the genders in our society. But if you prefer to call it 'a whining bitter stupid senseless sexist thing to say', knock yourself out ... and enjoy the boobs.

I have made a voting poll and although I did not make it in regards to this it is about topless women please check it out and give your opinion:

http://www.poll-maker.com/poll223370x43F11100-9

tep the feminist r certainly confused. They want the right to bare their breasts wherever but also want the right for men not to look. Obviously have no idea of how man and woman have been designed. Pity secularism turns girls into objects.

They can't make up whatever it is that passes for a mind can they.

It was the feminists that burnt the bra. I can remember being quite shocked the first time I was confronted by a couple of cold thrusting nipples behind a thin work blouse, on a Sydney street.

Now we have decided we'll look at them, if they hang them out, they bitch about that.

Feminists are only happy when they have something to be unhappy about.

Hasbeen, the only thing feminists are unhappy about are the misogynists among us.

Once the current crop of good ol' boys have passed on to their male-dominated heaven, maybe the next crop will be more reasonable.....

Doubtless Evelyn would be having a smirk at the power women have over men, and the endless opportunities to act 'violated' when the 'wrong' male looks. Double standard.

Women are so competitive. As the decades pass and the nipples display a consuming interest in the toes below it is not surprising how quickly women discover rudeness and lewdness where before they 'innocently' let it all hang out, blessing Wonderbra for finding what was not apparent before.

2015
No1 Problem of First World Feminists - pert tits on page 3

No1 Problem of women in the Third World - http://nypost.com/2014/10/21/woman-stoned-to-death-by-isis-militants-her-own-father/

Men are so competitive.
As the decades pass and their scrotums display a consuming interest in the toes below it is not surprising how quickly men discover rudeness and lewdness where before they 'innocently' stuffed their jocks with socks, blessing Viagra for finding what was not apparent before.....

Hasbeen

The right to go topless in public is not, and never has been, a feminist issue. They have other priorities, like ... well ... income gaps, rape, domestic violence, childcare, women owning only 1% of the world's wealth despite being 40% of the world's workforce - you know ... trivial stuff like that.

'It was the feminists that burnt the bra.'

No, they didn't. There is NO record anywhere of a feminist-organised demonstration of bra-burning.

This myth got started at the 1968 Miss America Beauty Pageant, where a group of feminists staged an official demonstration outside the venue, in which they crowned a sheep as Miss America and dumped girdles, cosmetics, high-heels and bras into a 'freedom trash can'.

There was no fire.

However, because it was the Vietnam era of burning draft cards, the media (namely the New York Post) used the term 'bra-burning' in one of its headlines when covering the event, to draw parallels with the draft protests. After that, the term 'bra-burning feminist' stuck and has been used as a term of anti-feminist ridicule ever since.

(Susan Faludi's book, Backlash, also documents in detail two staged events during the 1980s, in which US news networks hired PR firms to hold 'bra-burning demonstrations' using paid professional models. People who claim to have 'seen' feminists burning their bras on TV would have been watching one of these staged PR events.)

So ... a feminist demonstration to raise awareness about how the quest for beauty is restrictive to women's bodies, lives and budgets was - courtesy of a male-centric media - reinvented as a sleazy boob-perving fantasy for men. No matter what feminists do or say about women's concerns, experiences or viewpoints, the media will always give them a male-centric perspective.

Esther Villar wrote "The manipulated man"

"Vilar writes, "Men have been trained and conditioned by women, not unlike the way Pavlov conditioned his dogs, into becoming their slaves. As compensation for their labours men are given periodic use of a woman's vagina." The book contends that young boys are encouraged to associate their masculinity with their ability to be sexually intimate with a woman, and that a woman can control a man by socially empowering herself to be the gate-keeper to his sense of masculinity.

The author says that social definitions and norms, such as the idea that women are weak, are constructed by women with their needs in mind, and that praise is only given to a man when a woman's needs are met in some way."

Women are so fickle and follow fashion.

A few hundred years ago, French ladies decided that evening wear should show bare breasts and it was popular for a time.

Then the old girls realized they could not compete with the young because of gravity, so they covered breasts again.

Now the young are showing breasts again and the old girls are jealous

Killarney: No, they didn't. There is NO record anywhere of a feminist-organised demonstration of bra-burning.

Whoooa! I remember the big Feminist Rally in front of the Capitol Building in America where they all took off their bras, made a pile a pile of bras about 4 metres high & danced around the burning spectacle singing, "We will not be moved." It was big on the Movietone News & TV back then with lots of interviews & no blurring in those days.

Name me one year where at the World Women's Convention that hasn't ended in an all out brawl. I don't think any Country will host the Convention any more. The one in China a few years ago, the Chinese tossed them out of the Country half way through. An' women want to rule the World. Yair right, Ha! One of my wife's friends came back with a black eye & bruises all over. She probably looked at another woman over there & her girlfriend didn't like it.

JayB

‘Whoooa! I remember the big Feminist Rally in front of the Capitol Building in America where they all took off their bras, made a pile a pile of bras about 4 metres high & danced around the burning spectacle singing, "We will not be moved."’

WOW!

Topless women dancing around a 4-metre-deep-brassiere-funeral-pile?? (Mathematically, that would require many, many thousands of brassieres, requiring many, many thousands of topless women.)

How decadently Pagan? How savagely Wiccan? The penultimate dudely women’s mud-wrestling/wet T-shirt night fantasy!

And pray tell, Mr Gender Accuracy Historian, if such a patriarchal wet dream actually DID occur, why wasn’t it front page news throughout the Western MSM for days, weeks, months … years … decades? If such a Feminism-Meets-Playboy event actually happened, then the MSM wouldn’t have to pay journalists to make up all this fake bra-burning stuff.

‘Name me one year where at the World Women's Convention that hasn't ended in an all out brawl.’

I’ve no idea what the World Women's Convention is, but if you are referring to the World Conference on Women, then Ditto all the points raised above. The Western MSM has a voracious appetite for stories about women hating and violently assaulting other women.

So … where are all the front-page headlines? Even dutifully conservative Wikipedia has nothing to say about this ‘feminists are out of control’ story: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_World_Conference_on_Women

How many words have been written regarding the page 3 girls, as opposed to those devoted to No. 2 as highlited by Onthebeach above?
When were the 'frightbats' outraged by Onthebeach link?
Just asking? Maybe a T shirt or a #tag? Nope, nothing.

Killarny: Topless women dancing around a 4-metre-deep-brassiere-funeral-pile?? (Mathematically, that would require many, many thousands of brassieres, requiring many, many thousands of topless women.)

Yep, that's exactly how it was. There were many famous film stars on the steps of the Capitol. It was in the News Papers, TV, & Movietone News at the Pictures. It was around the late 60's early 70's & was one of those "March on Washington" for Women's Rights.

Wolly: The author says that social definitions and norms, such as the idea that women are weak, are constructed by women with their needs in mind, and that praise is only given to a man when a woman's needs are met in some way."

Spot on Wolly.

OTB: Doubtless Evelyn would be having a smirk at the power women have over men, and the endless opportunities to act 'violated' when the 'wrong' male looks. Double standard.

Spot on OTB.

SOL: Once the current crop of good ol' boys have passed on to their male-dominated heaven, maybe the next crop will be more reasonable.....

If only that could be said for the Ladies. (Oops, women.)

"That's simply a neutral observation of how power is distributed across the genders in our society. "

It's not neutral, it's biased and circular. It means that whatever facts you look at, you conclude that it's bitterly unfair to women, and justifies your hate speech against men.

It's clear that the women in this thread have got a problem with sex itself, i.e. the existence of the sexual difference.

Susie's idea that because men like looking at women's breasts therefore women should equally want to look at men's breasts is one of the stupidest things that anyone has uttered ever, anywhere, at any time in the history of the world. Yet that is the mental level that all the women in this thread are operating at. It wouldn't be so bad if it wasn't combined with such bitterness, as if the fact of the existence of sex shows how hard-done-by women are, which is exactly what these harridans think.

Get this:
1. men like looking at women's breasts
2. men see younger women as being prettier, which is the same thing as saying they see older women as being uglier

Get used to it, because
1. it's never going to change, and
2. there's no reason why it should because there's nothing wrong it.

The fact that men are attracted to women is not any kind of evidence of any kind of oppression, unfairness, wrongdoing, exploitation or social injustice. Bitching and moaning and harping and complaining and mewling and puking about the fact of the existence of the sexual difference, is nothing but bigoted ignorant intolerant stupidity, and you need to grow up or shut up, simple as that.

Nor is it abuse to point out your ignorance and intolerance. You've got it back-the-front. It's the feminist culture and habit of hate speech against men that's abusive, and you need to change it.

If you don't like pictures of women's breasts DON'T BUY MAGAZINES WITH THEM IN IT FOR GOSSAKE.

Finally JKJ something you & I agree on.

Ssssshhhheee. Women & their mental problems. Ithe only thing in this World I fear is a women with a mental problem. I guess that about 80% according to a female Psychologist at the Melbourne Uni.

Killarney,

I feel it's only fair to inform you that if you're going to engage with Jayb, then you will be well served to keep in mind that there's is almost no connection between the things he says and actuality.

Jayb likes to regale us with any and every fiction that his imagination can foster. It makes absolutely no difference how many times he's skewered in debate and how many fibs are exposed...he just marches blithely on enjoying the attention.

Just saying.....

<Once the current crop of good ol' boys have passed on to their male-dominated
<heaven, maybe the next crop will be more reasonable.....
Posted by Suseonline, Friday, 23 January 2015 7:48:49 PM

<The author says that social definitions and norms, such as the idea that women are
<weak, are constructed by women with their needs in mind, and that praise is only given
<to a man when a woman's needs are met in some way."
Esther Villar

Basically, Suseonline will continue to be critical of any male on this site who dares to challenge what she writes and she will only praise those who agree with her.

An interesting little story indicating just how mixed up many ladies are about their boobs, & what they want to do with them.

I installed a large pontoon out the reef, moored about 30Ft of the drying Hardy reef. We could moor the large 300 passenger cat on one side of it, & the 60Ft coral viewing "sub" on the other. It had a swim platform at water level on the end nearest the reef, & a ladder down to it.

On one occasion I was standing lookout up in the wheelhouse, while the skipper had some lunch. I watched a couple of attractive 20s something young ladies wearing modest bikinis, climb down to the swim platform with a couple of friends not in swimming gear.

After putting on goggles & fins/flippers, they slipped into the water where they hung onto the platform while they took their tops off, handing them to their friends on the platform.

I think it is the ladies with some obsession about boobs. These wanted to snorkel topless with the fish on the Great Barrier Reef, but not walk around the pontoon topless. It could not have been a modesty thing, as there were many people snorkelling in that same area.

There must be some mystique for the ladies, about the things, which we men can not understand. I have even seen some hiking in the national park topless, where I would be wearing a good tough work type shirt, to protect from bramble scratches.

Mildly amusing.

So many men on this thread opining their expertise on all things boobies.

They're rather useful for nourishing babies (in my experience) - and they're obviously a feminine feature of distinction for both genders

"There must be some mystique for the ladies, about the things, which we men can not understand...."

Come off it, Hasbeen, fellas are just as fixated as women. I take it you've never tried to hold a conversation with someone of the opposite gender, where a sizable chunk of their conversation is directed at your chest?

Well, reading the posts one can understand why men come from Mars and women come from Venus!

Yes we are wired differently, and no amount of gripping is going to change that and the fact men find erotica sexually stimulating; whereas most but not all women need tactile sensations and stimulation of the erogenous zones to become sexually aroused/interested?

Women have controlled men for all time, given every man started life cradled in a women's arms, and completely dependent on her for his very life!

And then in the formative years, for many of his character traits!

The statistics (bureau of stats) show there are more women than men in both Australia and America.

That they usually outlive males by around 8 years, and therefore own more of the real estate and bank accounts than mere males.

It is also interesting to note that more and more young men are choosing to remain single, and avoid the tender trap, that is so called marriage, where they are asked to consign at least half their worldly goods and chattels to a (endlessly complaining) Venusian, they simply can't understand

And given the greater number of Venusians, they also outnumber mere Martians at the polls, and theoretically, should therefore control parliament and power!

The fact that they don't, evidence of a divided rabble, who have trouble agreeing on anything, let alone the most logical outcome.

Finally, if you don't like looking at women's udders, (pass the uder udder to my uder bruder) just don't buy the boring publications!

I certainly wouldn't cross the street to buy a women's mag, or read any of the tripe that seems to interest women, who wore what and was seen sleeping around with who?

Men don't want to be emasculated or controlled by women!

We've usually endured as much as we can stand of that garbage, by the time we reach puberty!

Go where you wanna go, do what you wanna do, be who you wanna be, read what you wanna read!
Rhrosty.

You do kid don't you Poirot.

I surfed as a young bloke. The number of the boobs hanging around Bondi & Cronulla beach were enough even back then to make most of us almost immune to the sight, [if not the touch I'll admit], for life.

Then remember I spent years out around the Pacific islands, New Guinea & the Solomons. Less than a couple of miles out of any of the few large towns every boob would be hanging out. A sarong type thing around the hips, or a grass skirt was what the women wore. You just stopped noticing.

A couple of times I encountered plantation owners wives, particularly on atolls, who had adopted local dress, & found this a bit of a shock. We are pretty heavily indoctrinated in these things. Boobs on the beach, fine, boobs in the lounge room, shocking.

In the same vein, the Rabaul yacht club had a number of picnic & snorkelling days on beautiful beaches on nearby islands. I don't recall ever seeing a boob on any of those days, although I'm sure a number of those ladies would have sunbaked topless on the Gold coast, or Bondi beach. Are small communities, where everyone knows everyone more inhibiting?

It would make an interesting study why some places are acceptable, & some not, to bare a boob.

In the same vein, my mother born 1911 was horrified at girls going topless. However when I recently went through some of her old photo albums, those knitted swimsuits she wore in the 20s & 30s were positively indecent. Much more revealing than going naked would have been. I guess it is what we are used to.

Who knows, Hasbeen : )

I have to tell you that I used to surf...and among the females at our beach, I was the only one out there on the waves sitting on the board waiting for a wave with the boys.

I do remember looking back to the shore and watching the other girls baking away on the sand - and thinking how bored and hot they must be waiting for the boys to come in....and I was out there with them having the time of my life.

I remember once going to Watson bay with my bother and friends. I noticed a rather stunning female walking down through the park (I think) and she set up her towel next to us, and proceed to take her top off.

After a while she just faded into the background until I looked up to the board walk and there was a group of males, dressed in suits or long pants and sports jackets, standing just above where this young lady was sun baking.

That made me feel very uncomfortable as they were not being subtle at all.

On a somewhat related matter it is hilarous the fuss the feminist are making over Bouchard (tennis player) being asked to do a twirl. Don't they realise that these girls are not getting paid for tennis ability. If they were they would have to compete against the men to get the same money. They are being paid to entertain and it seems to twirl (whatever that is) is part of it.

Give us a twirl, runner?

(it's not as if you're here on your ability to make cogent argument)

Rhrosty

‘… men find erotica sexually stimulating; whereas most but not all women need tactile sensations and stimulation …’

Says who?

You ought to read some Mills and Boon – a lot of that is pornographic, as is most women’s romantic fiction these days and it’s a much bigger industry worldwide than porn is.

Women are every bit as turned on by erotica and a good male body, and do just as much gazing at men’s body parts. The difference is that the culture does not openly acknowledge or encourage this kind of behaviour in women, in the way it does men. Also, unlike men, women are not conditioned almost from birth to believe they must be always ‘on the make’, or to believe that gazing on men’s bodies (to the point of making men uncomfortable) is some kind of god-given privilege of their gender.

‘It is also interesting to note that more and more young men are choosing to remain single’

Again … says who? Mostly anti-feminist websites, from what I can gather.

I just Googled ‘Why men are not getting married’ and I got 75 million hits. I then Googled ‘Why women are not getting married’ and I got 87 million hits.

'Give us a twirl, runner?

(it's not as if you're here on your ability to make cogent argument)'

Oh Poirot your predictable regurgitated doctrines might make you feel superior but are full of obvious holes. Thinking is certainly not one of your strong points.

Reading some of the replies has me wondering why the same undoubted land whales who are clueless about surf swimming claim to be so shocked by Tony Abbott's Speedos.

The Aussie iconic Speedos were designed expressly for swimming in surf. I prefer them and shorts, top too, which are easily shed. Women wear their Speedos, which again are very practical. Yes, I have done triathalon for years too as have practically all of my SLA friends, men and women.

In all honesty the very worst, most persistent perves and nuisances on the coast are from cultures that treat women as second class citizens, while claiming to 'protect' them from themselves (take that both ways I suppose).

The jealous, censorious feminists, interfering purse-lipped old trout left over from the last Millenium, say they want to 'protect' women too. Yeah, right!

Who can forget that silly old feminist hen Premier Anna Bligh and her feminist Police Minister Judy Spence sooling the Queensland Plod onto young women sunbathing topless on high rise balconies on the Gold Coast? Feminist Anna must have had keen sight indeed to spot that young competition! The chauffeur-driven Anna was supposed to be inspecting a Formula 1 track at the time.

Aussie women can decide for themselves and do what they want, thank goodness.

There are topless 'girls' (infantilise women to control them eh, feminists?) on page 3 of a tabloid? Gosh, you don't say! Next?

Perhaps the publishers should do a run of two or three copies, with page three removed, so the prudes can enjoy their paper without being offended.

I suppose the author was held at gun point and forced to buy the paper as well.

Don't like it, don't buy it!

Poirot <<Give us a twirl, runner?>>

LOL i thought she was asking him for a dance

Miss America Pageant in 68. While they weren't allowed by the Police to burn their Bras they did throw them in a big 44 Gallon Drum.

The Jeannette Rankin March, in 68. While I can't find any reference to Bra burning, you know what the Prudish yanks are like, there was a bra burning & many notable women did pose on the Capitol steps without bras. It was on Movetone News, TV & the papers.

Another big one was the women's Strike for Equal Rights in 1970.

Pro-family campaigner Connaught Marshner blames feminists for creating their own negative public image:

Feminism projected a new image of women: a drab, macho feminism of hard-faced women who were bound and determined to save their place in the world no matter whose bodies they have to climb over to do it. This image provided the plot line for such cultural weathervanes as Kramer vs. Kramer. Macho feminism despises anything which seeks to interfere with the desires of Number One. (The Selfish Feminist. Marshner 1982, 1, 3)

Bottom line is this. The author is suggesting that there's something exploitative, coercive, abusive, socially unjust, and ridiculous if not despicable about men because of an ordinary incident of male sexuality, namely, liking to look at women who aren't wearing clothes.

So it's hate speech.

You might have seen recent pictures in the news of Islamic State 'executing' a homosexual by throwing him off a tall building. It never seems to occur to them that they could or should react any other way to that person's sexuality than by hating him.

That's the moral, mental and emotional level that the author and anyone who agrees with her, are operating at. The only difference is that instead of hating homosexuals for their sexuality, they hate male heterosexuals for their sexuality. And like the Islamists, they persuade themselves that they are acting from a position of moral superiority, of pained solicitude for their erring fellow human beings.

You need to understand that you spewing hate speech in public; you wrongly think it's clever or morally superior because you have swallowed an ideology of bigotry and intolerance; and you need to learn to understand that what you are doing is offensive and abusive. Feminists are just the West's inversion of the Taliban. Like the Islamic State, they don't recognise that the violence they advocate is violence if it's done by the State.

JKJ, that's an excellent comment.

Bloody laptops, I didn't mean to hit "post" just then.

To continue:

It's important not to throw the baby out with the bathwater, however. The fact that some feminist agitators take an extreme or absolutist position doesn't mean that all of their arguments are wrong.

What we need to do is to establish the core points and come to a consensus about what might be done to sort out the problems that they arise from. For example, there is no question that if a small woman is hit hard by a big man she is likely to be hurt, possibly badly, so it is a good idea to do what we can to stop that from happening. However, that doesn't mean we must, as the absolutists would like us to, paint all men as violent aggressors and ignore the circumstances in which the violence might occur. That is not just unjust, it's worse; it's ineffective.

Unfortunately, we have allowed our society to become driven by squeaky wheelism and that needs to change.

Ah Google, far more authoritative than the Bureau of stats and official information?

Who would have thought Killarney?

As a young man, I collected a fair few wolf whistles from admiring females, while in uniform.

Had our roles been reversed, I'd have been accused of sexism, or objectifying the opposite sex.

Okay when the other side not only does it, but as usual, gets away with it.

And scored more than my share of passionate kisses during the usual new year celebrations, which included the very occasional furtive fumble.

Had our roles been reversed I'd have been charged with sexual assault?

And the highlight of my young premarital life was being sexually seduced by a drop dead gorgeous female nurse determined to have her wicked way with me.

Naturally I resisted manfully; even as every fibre of my being wanted desperately to give in!

So I've been misinformed, and by no less than authoritative women writers explaining how the female libido works, and or how marriages my be saved, by just putting the "boat" in the water, and start rowing.

I used to take my greatest pleasure in my ladies pleasure, until I broke my back and was unable to perform, least of all become aroused at the sight of a couple of, HO HUM, female mammary glands.

Where are those females who can become aroused at the sight of an athletic male body, why wasn't I told?

Could it be women are naturally duplicitous, and or wish to "control" the inferior sex?
Rhrosty.

Craig Minns

'JKJ, that's an excellent comment.'

I seriously hope you were being ironic, but sadly I don't think you were. And if so, then you lose all credibility in my eyes (but that's my problem, not yours).

The comment you refer to is one of the most grotesque, abusive and deliberately misleading diatribes I have ever read on OLO.

JKJ's premise is that ANY attempt that ANY social justice group makes to raise awareness regarding ANY form of privilege enjoyed by ANY group at ANY level of society is ... HATE SPEECH.

And underlying this premise is the smug double standard of privilege - i.e. that it is HATE SPEECH only when those of an inferior social status analyse the privileges enjoyed by those of a superior social status - but never the other way round.

So ... if non-whites in a white society analyse the privileges enjoyed by whites, it's HATE SPEECH, but not when whites pour out their bigoted prejudices about racial minorities and indigenous people. Ditto, welfare recipients and low income earners who raise awareness of discrimination practised towards them by the rich and well off are practising HATE SPEECH, but not when the rich and well off pour out their distorted bile about dole bludgers and welfare cheats and sterilising welfare mums.

And, of course, women who point out how patriarchal systems operate are automatically guilty of HATE SPEECH, no matter how well-informed or perceptive their arguments. But men and male-centric women who pour out all their distorted bigotry about hairy, male-hating feminists dancing topless around bra-bonfires are just being normal, well-adjusted adults.

No, JKJ's comment was neither excellent nor even worth taking the trouble to read. It should not have been given even the dignity of a reply - let alone grovelling praise.

Absolutely, Killarney.

"No, JKJ's comment was neither excellent nor even worth taking the trouble to read. It should not have been given even the dignity of a reply - let alone grovelling praise."

JKJ's final paragraph:

"You need to understand that you spewing hate speech in public; you wrongly think it's clever or morally superior because you have swallowed an ideology of bigotry and intolerance; and you need to learn to understand that what you are doing is offensive and abusive. Feminists are just the West's inversion of the Taliban. Like the Islamic State, they don't recognise that the violence they advocate is violence if it's done by the State."

...is merely a rehash of the same old same old turned this time address this issue.

He "always" accuses his opponent du jour of being offensive and abusive - usually in an offensive and abusive way - and includes in any debate in which he's taking part a requisite reference to his opponent advocating violence (by linking it with the state)

It's kind of like his equivalent to a free set of steak knives...included with every offer.

Rhrosty

Way, WAY too much information, mate.

I made a comment to you about how society encourages the appreciation and expression of erotica in men but mostly discourages it in women, and you replied with a long, very detailed and somewhat bragging account of your sexual exploits - which I neither wanted nor asked for.

Oh, well. I guess that kind of proves my point.

Poirot

@JKJ '...Feminists are just the West's inversion of the Taliban'

Hee-hee. I think the poor old Taliban would drop dead from shock to even be included in the same sentence as a feminist, let alone stand accused of being the 'inversion' of one.

Killarney, I was responding to the specific post of JKJ's, and I stand by that initial response, although I can understand that you may feel affronted, especially if you are considering a posting history rather than the particular comment.

That comment was about the problem of absolutism and the potential negative consequences of taking a narrowly dogmatic view. You might recall a discussion we were both involved in a few weeks ago in which I was somewhat scathing about what I called the tribalist approach to the topic of gender.

I would like to see the view put by JKJ made more widely known across all sides of this and many other contentious topics. The parallel he draws with the absolutism of some Muslims is quite striking, but he could have made the same point referring to any number of other types of dogmatic belief systems.

Holding a desire to do good does not absolve us of considering that what we do may itself be bad.

Poirot, a tainted source does not necessarily imply a tainted comment. Whatever you think of JKJ's posting history and I must admit I've often failed to agree with the views he puts, if he or anyone else makes a particularly good comment it deserves to be acknowledged.

Similarly, we should feel free to tell people we might normally agree with that they're talking rubbish if that is the case.

Killarny: No, JKJ's comment was neither excellent nor even worth taking the trouble to read. It should not have been given even the dignity of a reply - let alone grovelling praise.

Poirot: He "always" accuses his opponent du jour of being offensive and abusive - usually in an offensive and abusive way - and includes in any debate in which he's taking part a requisite reference to his opponent advocating violence (by linking it with the state)

Sort of proves what Marshner was on about, Ay.

Pro-family campaigner Connaught Marshner blames feminists for creating their own negative public image:

Feminism projected a new image of women: a drab, macho feminism of hard-faced women who were bound and determined to save their place in the world no matter whose bodies they have to climb over to do it. This image provided the plot line for such cultural weathervanes as Kramer vs. Kramer. Macho feminism despises anything which seeks to interfere with the desires of Number One. (The Selfish Feminist. Marshner 1982, 1, 3)

Killarney
You haven't established that there's anything "inferior" about a woman showing her body and breasts to a man or men because they like looking at her. All you're doing is re-assuming your premise - that there's something bad about ordinary heterosexual behaviour.

No question of privilege arises. Neither the woman in question, nor the man or men in question, are doing anything that answers the description of privilege. Women have exactly the same right in respect of men, and some exercise it, but generally they don't for the obvious reason that ... what?

For example CLEO famously had, and then discontinued its male centrefold. And the obvious reason is ... what?

Even if female interest was low to merely neutral, why not have it just for the sake of it, just for a lark, and just for why-not?

Because ... what?

To anyone not blinded by an ideology of hatred, it's obvious. What's the answer to the question?

Bragging? Sexual exploits Killarney?

As I understand it, sexual exploits usually involve coitus!

No reasonable person would say I described that!? Just that I was normal and sexually responsible, and not given to betraying trust!

As usual Killarney you've completely and quite deliberately missed the point, which is, if our usual roles were reversed, I'd be up before the beak; whereas, women who act in a similar manner, continue to walk away.

How many men still teach in our schools?
And you think it's women being victimized by men?

Look, we started out discussing Boobs until you introduced mills and boon pornography.

Thought I was conversing with a mature sophisticated woman, with a penchant for mills and boon pornography and male hunks?

I was wrong, given you seem to come across as both unreasonable and unnecessarily abrasive; and no sense of humor whatsoever!

Guess it's okay for you to be both unnecessarily rude, marginally offensive, and reinterpret both my words and their meaning, given you're a Venusian!

And if you think Venusian body language is a mystery for most Martians, you'd be right.

I've read where entirely unreasonable hairy legged feminists have put back the female cause by a hundred years, just by being nasty, vicious, control freaks, or par for the course Killarney, which is just how you come across.

Put another way, you'd catch more flies with a teaspoon of honey, than a whole jar of vinegar!

I mean, I don't recall needing your permission to (you didn't ask) relate part of my history, or the fact the we men know as much about women as one could write on the back of a postage stamp, using a crow bar for a pen.

As I said, there are more women than men now, yet they don't control government or power.

Imagine what a commercial boycott would achieve in our board rooms, if directed as affirmative action by those who do the majority of the shopping?

No, you and all your ilk are just to busy being antisocial shews!
Rhrosty.

Hey Rhosty, can you imagine a Parliament run by women. There's chaos no, imagine that. Be good TV though. Blood, Guts, Hair, Teeth, all they'd need is a big pool of spaghetti in the middle of the room. Whooa! Top ratings. ;-)

You can pick a sour feminist from miles away. Just look at the mouth for the "Bitter lines." A happy non-feminist has lines around the eyes, from smiling.

No Craig, JKJ's comment was nasty.
He ranted and raved and yelled about hate because others don't agree with his views. And I have already said that page 3 girly pics don't particularly bother me.
He is carrying on the good works of other haters like Runner and Constance.

Rhosty, no one wants to read about your supposed sexual exploits.
I think this thread has run its course for me.

See you all on another thread.
Suse.

I'm really sorry you see it that way Suse. I look forward to reading your comments in future discussions.

What a storm in a teacup:

Men like to see women's breasts because as boys they were not allowed.
Besides being the "forbidden fruit", boys got to compete among themselves over who manages to see that which is forbidden, so it became a matter of prestige/self-esteem and early impressions made it seem as the ultimate achievement.

In societies where the women's feet must not be seen, a similar obsession occurs about their feet and where the whole female body is invisible, seeing any part of it becomes an almost uncontrollable obsession.

As the taboo on nudity lessened in the last generations, so was men's interest and this is the simple reason why "The naked breast is now in retreat". Too late for the baby-boomers though because childhood impressions are difficult to erase.

Yes, women have ongoing and legitimate socio-economic grievances against men, but the two issues are not related.

Craig

If you want to condemn tribalism in forum discussions, then practise what you preach.

So far, I've never seen you refute the tedious smear trope that feminists are absolutists, extremists and troublemakers - indeed, you endorse it. I've never seen you condemn the constant harping on feminists' supposed lack of attractiveness or f*kability. Neither have I ever seen you deflect the relentless derailing tactic of reducing any feminist argument, no matter how reasonably argued, to a personal attack on all men everywhere.

These are all well-worn tribalist tactics to isolate, discredit and silence feminists. But you appear quite happy to engage in some or all of these tactics yourself.

That's your prerogative, but don't reserve the right to pontificate about 'tribal approaches' on gender threads. That's being a tad hypocritical - don't you think?

JKJ

'All you're doing is re-assuming your premise - that there's something bad about ordinary heterosexual behaviour.'

No, that was not my premise at all, so I can't re-assume a premise I never had. In fact, you haven't a clue what my premise was. All you did was rant and rave and bluster and fume about what you DECIDED for yourself that my premise was.

Suse

I'm with you. I'm outta here too.

Just one more comment before leaving the thread ...

Yuyutsu

'Yes, women have ongoing and legitimate socio-economic grievances against men, but the two issues are not related.'

No, women's 'ongoing and legitimate socio-economic grievances' are not, and never have been, against men. Those grievances are against THE PATRIARCHY - which is a socio-political SYSTEM.

But a lot of PEOPLE of both genders insist on ignoring that all-important difference.

Killarney, a little reminder

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16867#296820

I don't have to endorse all the details of the particular dogma that you support for us to find common ground, surely?

Dear Killarney,

<<No, women's 'ongoing and legitimate socio-economic grievances' are not, and never have been, against men. Those grievances are against THE PATRIARCHY - which is a socio-political SYSTEM.>>

Indeed, I am ignorant in these matters, such as the differences between socio-economic and socio-political, so if you care to explain to me what you mean by 'patriarchy'?

Anyway, I am glad that you agree with me that men's psychological woes regarding women's bodies and women's socio-economic-political grievances are two separate issues, so you do not blame the poor men who are so conditioned from boyhood to desire seeing women's breasts that they are willing to pay for it, or those who make business out of it, as the culprits, but rather that "patriarchy", whatever that is (could it include women?).

Killarney
"In fact, you haven't a clue what my premise was."

Well why don't you explain what it is?

I thought your premise is that "we girls still live in a man's world, according to men's rules and men's decisions, must still view the world through the male gaze and spend our lives desperately living up to men's fantasies.

Isn't it?

And that there's something wrong with men looking at women's breasts. Isn't it? Otherwise there'd be no issue, would there?

Would there?

Susie, it's not abuse to point out that your idea that women should be equally attracted to looking at men's breasts is one of the stupidest things that anyone ever uttered. That's not abuse; it's mere description.

Jardine K. Jardine "You haven't established that there's anything "inferior" about a woman showing her body and breasts to a man or men because they like looking at her. All you're doing is re-assuming your premise - that there's something bad about ordinary heterosexual behaviour."

Yes, well spotted. It's a logical fallacy called begging the question and/or circular reasoning. Feminists, like most leftists, assume their stance is morality incarnate without having to even explain why. For them, it just is. This is why feminism has more in common with religious tenets than with reasoned argument.

It's a blight on the academe (and tax payer) that this stuff is taught and funded.

JKJ, if you want to refer to men's chests as breasts, that's up to you, but I certainly didn't.

Most women certainly do like admiring a fine male chest, but may stop short at admiring those men with so much excess flab as to have developed obvious breasts.

But....whatever rocks your boat......

Brought to you by the www, White Women Whine. Nothing real to fret about so they go an invent increasingly obtuse "Problems" involving the evil of 49% of the population. As a genuine minority (male) it is time the nice G. Triggs did something about it.

Susie

Okay then, if you are suggesting that women should equally like looking at mens' *chests*, it's still one of the stupidest things ever uttered.

One of the most mysterious and unpleasant aspects of feminism, is that it has spread through the population the learnt stupidity of transposing the case of male and female whenever there is a difference, and assuming it must be because of some social injustice against the female. The reason it's stupid is because, from an ideological premise that the genders are and should be equal, it concludes that the sexes are or should be the same EVEN AS CONCERNS SEXUALITY = stupidity itself.

But the fact that we don't see publications of pictures of naked men or mens' naked chests for female consumption is obvious.

And what do you think it might be, Susie?

(Hint: it's really, really, really obvious.)

Susie

Why do you think we don't see publications aimed at female consumers, showing pictures of men's naked chests?

Only someone blinded by an ideology of deliberate stupidity and hateful sexism could not see the answer.

What is it?