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.