MMM...?

I wonder why nobody has replied to my post above?

I find most of the posts from the "blokes" in this forum - very interesting and valid.

Cheers
Kay

Yes Bennie, the show is hilarious. There appears to be an element of "pisstaking" (pardon the pun) in many of the shows segments, even though alot of it is pretty puerile. You are right, lots of people enjoy the drag racing, dirt biking, bike shows, tractor pulls, etc, etc. Sometimes the behaviour (often drunken) at such events may be a little base to say the least. But are all the blokes attending such events guilty of loutish and offensive behaviour?

I have often seen examples of "suit and tie" types from the bigger end of town, behaving just as offensively toward women in between putting away a 'few' boutique brews at more "upmarket" establishments, on a Friday evening after work. Loutish behaviour is therefore not confined to "the mullet set". I know quite a few blokes who enjoy their bikes, drags and such, yet don't tend to behave like animals after a few beers, bourbons or whatever. Blokesworld, Gentlemens' Clubs, whatever.... same thing different pricetag.

Cheers

Duece
You are “surreal”

Reason,
You haven’t asked me a question.

You are “Blokesworld”
You are “very patriarchal”
You appeal to ”certain elements on this forum”

Kalweb
Blokesworld is likely for someone 18yrs +, and probably it would be highly commercialised, expensive, and superficial. Probably Girls Night Out events are the same.

But Blokesworld is condemned by feminists (who will call it “patriarchal” etc) while they ignore Girls Night Out.

But the greatest danger to women is not from men. Without men, women would not exist, or their life would be much less than what it is now, and I would think that there are many men who are now very tired of being denigrated as a gender, or being constantly made to feel guilty because they are male. This article from Melinda does just that, and almost every other of the 3,000 articles in OLO does the same.

However I would agree that women’s media should be seriously considered. It is normally highly commercialised, superficial and anti-intellectual. It is often just fashion and sex , but enormous amounts are being sold, and increasing amounts are being sold to young girls.

“Marie Claire” magazine mentioned in previous posts is targeted at the 30+ woman.

But “Girlfriend” magazine is targeted at young teenage and even pre-teen girls. The latest edition has articles “The Rudest Celeb Pictures Ever”, “Making Out Master Class”, "The barley dressed posters of Jesse Metcalfe and Josh Hartnett", "The seedy and sensational confessions of a party pashaholic!", "How to do anything (including buying condoms and telling a boy you like him) without getting embarrassed"

Such magazines are not marketed and sold to 18yrs + women, but marketed and sold to quite young and impressionable girls, and mostly by other women (not men).

There has rarely been a blimp from feminists about it, although most fathers of daughters would probably want those magazines thrown straight into the bin, but that could be classified as “denying women their rights” etc, so eventually it becomes up to women to have the quality of their media improved.

I am a male and don't particularly like the idea of 'Blokesworld', I certainly would never attend such an event. But then I look around and see from where "Blokesworld" has been distilled.

It appears to be a combination of components from many 'mainstream' events, like car racing - with its 'pit girls', the Rugby codes and Melbourne Rules (the original, and still most appropriate name for AFL) and their cheerleaders and female followers, objectifying the players as well, and the sort of drinking and fashionably provocative female attire see at New Years eve celebrations and the manner of dress and presentation of 'princesses' at horse racing carnivals. Throw in women going topless on beaches, that is wearing about the same as in wet t-shirt competitions, and you see what I mean.

The amount of hypocracy here is phenomenal. Can society really have it both ways? The display by women of themselves as tantalising objects of desire, or perhaps their sheer ignorance or self righteousness about it (ie the expectation of privacy in a public place, like a beach) is acceptable. The acceptance and enjoyment of those same traits by men in a male centred context is not.

By all means rail against Blokesworld, but get stuck into those other areas as well.

DavidBOAZ "COL.
as a Christian, I have a right and a responsibility to call you, and all others (including myself) to repentance and to embrace Christ as Lord and Savior, but, I have no right to enforce that nor to stick my foot in your door while I 'bash' you with my bible. That call may go unheeded, as is anyone's right and choice. In a forum like this, people can simply ignore me."

Agree totally David We are not that far apart as far as process is concerned -

Process being individual rights... disagree all you want, express your view and I will support your right to do so.

On the matter of content, we differ... that is fine too... whilst Timkins seems to be getting a pasting from the less errudite here you and I can "disagree" on content without descending into the maelstrom of personal attack.

On the matter of Church and Christianity - I have no time nor respect for organised religion. Do not assume that because of that I have not time for beliefs and moral values. I simply believe we are all individuals and we function best when we make up our own minds - instead of having a theorocratic doctine imposed upon us. Hence -whilst I would, likely, not bother to go to "blokeworld" I see no reason to follow the frenzied cries of "ban it". Individuals always ve and always will made better subjective judgements than governments.

I think that the main disadvantage of a lack of censorship, is that things such as sex become commercialised in time, and the people involved will try and push the the envelope as much as possible, so as to make more money. In time there can be a general lowering of standards, and it can begin to seriously affect the lives of children. Some years ago, movie studios in the US were found to be showing M15+ and R rated type movies to trial audiences of young children, and in fact there are very few movies being produced for children less than 15 yrs sold. Almost all movies are M+, and many young children now watch these movies.

Women’s media is now highly commercialised, and almost totally devoted to sex and fashion. That media is now extending down to young girls, and Girlfriend magazine (as mentioned in an earlier post) is basically for 11 – 14 yr old girls, but the majority of the articles in it are essentially soft porn.

So when sex becomes commercialised, it begins to seek new audiences, and eventually it seeks younger and younger audiences, and this begins to rob children of their innocence and childhood. If it is looked at in terms of scale, the most corruption of children’s minds is occurring from women’s magazines that target young girls. It is very wide scale, but few people realise it, because most concentration is on the male gender.

OLO concentrates almost entirely on the male gender, and most other media does similar, but what is occurring in the female world can actually be much more serious, but becomes overlooked.