The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Feminism is passé because it worked > Comments

Feminism is passé because it worked : Comments

By Vivienne Wynter, published 15/8/2006

The equalities we take for granted weren't won without a struggle.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All
Interesting article.

I'm a gen-Y woman myself and my personal opinion is that young women today rejecting the word feminism is doing a disservice to those women in history who fought for many of the freedoms we enjoy today.

I understand that Gen-Y women today do feel that feminism isn't relevant to them but like you said: there's still a ways to go as far as women's equality is concerned. I think it's our responsibility, as Gen-Yers to reclaim the term feminism, wrest it away from the mainstream media and pop-culture, who attempt to sully it's meaning and image, and re-define it for ourselves.

If you'll allow me a shameless plug, it's something I've attempted to do by creating an online feminist magazine called "Wo!". The first issue went live this month and can be found here:

http://www.wo-magazine.com/

Cheers.
Posted by Anna_, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:24:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Before I start, I should probably point out that this is from a male perspective, but it seems to me that this trend of going backwards or doing 'feminism a disservice' could actually be viewed as the epitome of women's rights - okay, yes, it's embarrassing for some, and no doubt these women won't be taken as seriously as they should, but they've been allowed to make that choice. Sure we can rail against them, but it's been their decision to make, and it is a decision which has probably contributed to their success.

I'll admit, I'm a tad concerned when I see young teenagers dressing in skimpy clothes, and no doubt some of this is the influence of those within the media - but men are changing too.
Take a look at what is being currently worn by 'trendy' inner city teen males - for the life of me I can't figure out why effeminate articles of clothing such as tight jeans or black singlets are all the rage, but hey, no doubt they said the same thing about flares in the 60s.

I could be wrong, but I always thought the feminist battle was about being able to make the decisions you want - not necessarily being able to make the right ones. It mightn't have turned out the way you wanted it, but take note that it isn't a trend exclusive to women.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 1:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When ever I hear the word 'feminism', I think of George Orwell's book 'Animal Farm.'

Yep! "all animals are equal, but some are more equal than others!"

Carey Roberts writer and social commentator writes

"Blame It on the Patriarchy
August 9, 2006

The feminism is a secular religion with its own high priestesses, dogmas, and initiation rituals. Its creation myth holds that on the first day Goddess created Eve, and all was right with the world. But that idyllic state was shattered when first patriarch Adam stumbled into the Garden, pounded on the table, and demanded his apple."

continued

"The shibboleth of oppressive patriarchy lies at the very foundation of feminist ideology. So imagine what would happen if people arose from their slumber one day, looked around in amazement at the false idols that now surround us, and came to realize that Betty Friedan, Gloria Steinem, and their fellow myth-makers are the modern-day incarnations of the Jezebels and Delilahs of yore?"
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 8:10:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Feminism gave women two jobs and reduced their quality of life.The real cost of housing has doubled and now we are all slaves to the banks.

If women were smarter,they could have had equality,a family and time to contemplate their navels.

We in the West,have shot ourselves in both feet.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 8:34:40 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When I read posts such as those above and read the "abortion forums" i wonder whether those hard won freedoms to control women's fertility and earn equal pay can't be easily lost by complacent young women.

I am pleased that most women accept as their right the ability to control their fertility and have broader career horizons than previous generations but I also see growing numbers of conservatives on our landscape and I wonder whether the same battles won't have to be fought again.
Posted by billie, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 9:15:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well put Arjay... but on house prices, we can also blame encouraging a rental market, building apartments and skyrises, and not enough disincentives for speculation in the housing market (such as stamp duties).

Part of this rejection of feminism is the great dissapointment which it has largely been. Based as it is in neo-Marxist understandings of everything as just power relationships, it ignored many of the things which make us human, and which make the world interesting. Principly, it treated women like things which needed liberation from many things which they prized. The blinkered view of Pink that in the 50's women were supposed to stay in the kitchen and shut up betrays not only the joy of many families but also the real changes in society that were occuring, with higher rates of tertiary education for women.

As a young'un, I can report that many female friends see a few main problems with feminism...
1) It sees things as a battle of man v. woman. I think that nowadays we understand better that societies operate in units (once called "institutions") like the family, and that they decide how to organise themselves.
2) It sought, and still occasionally seeks, to compel women into work or delaying family for the sake of the sisterhood.
3) It sees women's wellbeing as being divided from men's wellbeing and children's wellbeing. It views society as individuals rather than families.
4) It lacks pragmatism. Its knee-jerk reactions at attempts to do good, such as the recent family relationship centres,
Posted by DFXK, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 12:00:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Are you guys serious?

Comparing feminism with dogma? Saying that feminists are holding a gun to your head and forcing you to work?

Feminism is about choice (for me anyway- I realise it can mean different things to different people). It's about the choice to either stay at home and have kids or work and have a career, whatever fulfills you.

DFXK: "Principly, it treated women like things which needed liberation from many things which they prized. "

Um I don't really know how you came to this conclusion as it was those who were living those experiences who liberated themselves. They obviously didn't really prize having to stay at home and be a housewife.

Arjay: "The real cost of housing has doubled and now we are all slaves to the banks."

Right, just blame the feminists. It was all the feminists fault. Next you'll be blaming them for global warming. Sheesh.

I think you guys need to do more reading about the kinds of freedoms women have because of our foremothers who fought for the right to vote, to be considered part of this nation, to be represented in parliament, to have custody of our children if our partner dies, to work and be able to be members of a union, to be more than a body for baby making and that's just the tip of the iceberg of the first wave at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th centuries.
Posted by Anna_, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 11:55:49 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah, they're serious, Anna, unfortunately. Women have always been told that what suits men is actually what they'd prefer to be doing anyway. Its like when we're told we "care" more about housework anyway ( read do most of it), or that we're "better" at detail work ( read boring fiddly jobs nobody with any real choice would want to do.) I'll never forget my mum - a 50s housewife who hated it - having listened to some bloke wax lyrical about how 'precious' women were, how "special", how he loved to "protect' them and make a fuss of them because they weren't equal to men ...no, no, no - they were superior - leave him with his mouth hanging open when she simply said;
"If that's so, how come its always us that have to get on our knees and scrub the toilet?"
Posted by ena, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 1:41:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whenever I go into the cardboard ballot box to vote I say a silent thank you to all the women (and some men) who fought battles so that I could do so. Whenever I order my own drink, sign my own legal document, earn my own money -- I do so as a direct result of those great efforts of the feminists before me.

I agree with the author that young women are doing well, on balance, and have the right to take their equality in stride, and devote their energies to ongoing improvements for everyone - which is great because there are new battles to be fought and old rights to be defended. Now both genders are free to do so, together, and it seems younger citizens will improve things even more. I'm sure that's what the previous generations' feminists had in mind.
Posted by nowvoyager, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 2:03:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The idea that one must continue a struggle out of deference, out of debts of gratitude to the herstory is illogical. Once you've built the house you dont have to constantly thank, cow-tow to the builder. You pay the bill, thank her and move on.

Democrazy was formed on the back of much spilled blood in the US (war of independence) and UK (parliamentarians versus monarchists) way back when, so l guess that means we have to keep spilling blood for our democracy. Hmmm... sounds like the warped excuse the war dogs use to rationalise killing people in far flung lands. Democracy is now so firmly established that there aint no going back. But dont tell the fear mongers that.

Never can tell how far the tricky will go in their trickiness to push the marginal and extreme. The ideological zeolots are the worst offenders of this and unfortunately for feminism, the movement is bogged down with, and awash in, the fundamentalism of crusty old stallwarts who suspended fair mindedness in the pursuit of ideological pretention.

As a man, l would utterly hate to go back to the bad old daze of slaving myself away into an early grave as the sole bread winner. Would loathe to go back to the bad old daze when daddy didnt really get a chance to appreciate the very early formative years of his children.

Sure, most women still have a long way to go in taking responsibility in courtship and relationship initiation (not to mention changing tyres, starting lawn mowers and balancing cheque books), but at least they are usually amenable to splitting the dinner bill and buying me a drink.

l thank the current dog-eat-dog, screw-thy-neighbour, entitlement ethos that permeates modern society, enabling me to grab a chunk of her assets if l feel like it. Beats working a crappy job for a living.

Thats progress.

Anyway, everything that comes after the 'because' part of the authors essay is irrelevant. The fundamental premise that 'feminism is passe' is spot on. Er, we already know that. Congratulations on your realisation.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 3:21:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hahaha, I dig that post Anna. Keep em coming,

It's funny how common sense can sometimes vacate the premises for a little while.
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 3:56:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Obviously the writer wasn't fully considering the impact of what the Howard/religious right alliance calls "family law reform"....all those changes to the family law act made after the militant lobbying of dysfunctional and angry men shouted about their perceived bias of "the system" because they were not getting their own way in the family court and wanted more opportunity when they were dysfunctional to hassle their ex-partners.

The "reforms" of howard/religious right on family law put women well behind the 8 ball.

Or not the kind of women who move in the writer's circle, the women who can be found elsewhere in the suburbs or those who took off to the country to escape dysfunctional or violent exxes. Of course, if the writer is some urban liberal, they will only be writing about their friends with BA's, Saabs or Volvos who go out on saturday mornings to check out how skilful their property speculation is........then feel good by making a fuss about some offshore war.......but never challenging the local issues that affect the worse off, or where appropraite reform would threaten their priveleged position on the tax ladder.
Posted by Inner-Sydney based transsexual, indigent outcast progeny of merchant family, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 6:21:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ISbtiopomf, "after the militant lobbying of dysfunctional and angry men shouted about their perceived bias of "the system" because they were not getting their own way in the family court and wanted more opportunity when they were dysfunctional to hassle their ex-partners."

That's one bit of the picture, the other part is the men and children who have suffered genuine harm in a system which really does not work well.

Women who were genuinely at threat are given no better protection than those trying to milk the system. There has been almost no protection for men and children from disfunctional and or violent ex wives.

The woman who moves away (and takes the kids) for a sea change gets the same benefits (or better because she does not have to hide) as the one who flees to protect her safety. I'm not convinced that the government has done much that will fix those issues. Maybe in the circles you move in the situation you describe is the norm but for many of us the reverse has been the case. Left in the hands of a bunch of social workers with chips on their shoulders about their own failed marriages or those who think that women are automatically better at raising kids and less able to support themselves than men (not much feminism there).

Feminism has meant that many women do take responsibility for themselves and their choices, the issues that have hurt fathers have been a mix of cases of genuinely disfunctional men, some women grabbing advantage under the misplaced pretense of feminism, some feminists who buy into the power structure thing and a bunch of those clinging to old notions about roles in families.

Roll on the day when all man and women except equality of men and women.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 6:43:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Feminism is all about reactionary need for power,rather than realistically looking at male/female psychology and what satisifies the needs of our common humanity.There is no doubt that women to this day still do the majority of house work while still holding down a full time job.
Women are good at multi-tasking,that is why they are the lynch pin to both family and business.Men are driven by testosterone to who are outwardly strong and powerful, but in reality are far more emotionally fragile since they don't have the social and emotional networks that women naturally develop.This is one of the reasons why male suicide rates are so high.
It is the courage and dogged determination of men that has raised the bar to new horizons,and it is the organisational skill and compassion of women that has raised the next generation to cope with the realities we all face at this moment.

In reality,we need each other.
Posted by Arjay, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 7:40:54 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Like all other 'isms' it is a front.

Its uneasily OK to shop in the front room, but dont look out back... its where the ugly and awful truth lurks.

Dont go there.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 10:38:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Ahhhh yes, feminism. Where would we be without it?

Don't think too long about that question folks, the answers might amaze you.

Anyway, seeing as how my posts seem to have a propensity to get up some people's noses (or skirts) - which of course is what they were intended to do - I'll let someone else speak out on this issue for me. And do take the time to read it. It's just a short piece...

Home News Tribune - Matt Katz
Is there something to hunting and gathering after all?
"We can't seriously expect that 1960s and 1970s social feminism (a concept not even 50 years old) is going to surpass what the female body is genetically, physiologically and psychologically programmed to do."
http://www.thnt.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060813/LIFE/608130348/-1/WEATHER0802

And as for those little dears warbling on about getting "the vote", it may interest them to learn that BOTH men and women got "the vote" federally in Australia at the same time, 1902...

Australian Electoral Commission
1902 - The first Commonwealth Parliament passed the Commonwealth Franchise Act of 1902 which was progressive for its time in granting universal adult suffrage (most men and women over 21) were allowed to vote at federal elections.
http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/when/history/history1900.htm

Prior to 1902, voting rights were a hodgepodge of state legislation favouring the privileged elite, but there was no universal suffrage for men across Australia. All this feminist hot air about winning "the vote" is a lot of bunkum. English men and women didn't get universal suffrage until after WW1. Prior to that, common men (those who died in the war) didn't get "the vote" either.
Posted by Maximus, Thursday, 17 August 2006 11:21:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus excuse me but that's bullsh*t.

Men were granted the right to vote in state elections long before federation. The first state to allow women to vote was South Australia in 1893, the next to follow was WA, only because the Premier thought it would win him the next election. That meant that women were also allowed to vote upon federation if the state legislature already provided for it. Women in NSW only won the right to vote in 1903 and women in Victoria were the last in 1908.

Men were allowed to vote universally but in some states voting was tied to property ownership so that you could vote in as many electorates as you owned property in. Women suffrage activists were denied any support from unionists etc in those states because all they cared about was getting a one man one vote system.

Our foremothers fought long and hard for the vote and in many cases weren't allowed to sit in parliament until much later due to compromises in order to get the vote.

Louisa Lawson, Henry Lawson's mother was one leading suffragist.

Do some research before putting out statements about things you know little about.
Posted by Anna_, Thursday, 17 August 2006 12:53:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Let me correct myself before someone tries to do it for me.

Women who had the state vote also had the right to vote in the referendum on federation. Of course men got the right to vote federally at this time because that's when we became a federation. Women were included in the act out of convenience and consideration for the various struggles on the state level.
Posted by Anna_, Thursday, 17 August 2006 1:05:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No, Anna, sorry, that's not bullsh'.

I happen to know a great deal about these matters under discussion, and obviously quite a bit more than yourself it would seem.

Despite your protestations, your post only confirms EXACTLY what I wrote, except you've muddled state with federal.

States were all independent and were ruled by British governors prior to federation - there was no Australia as such. Only wealthy men, land owners and the like, got to vote in the late 19th Century. After that, egalitarian attitudes slowly allowed more and more people to vote. You are confusing state voting with federal voting. Two totally different matters.

Besides, the facts are the facts. Most adult men AND most adult women were all given "the vote" - FEDERALLY - in post federation Australia in 1902!

Or don't you believe the Australian Electoral Commission either?

Frankly, my dear, I think the AEC is a far more reputable source of information than any of your precious "women's studies courses".

Here are the links again, so the good folks can work out the TRUTH for themselves -

Pre 1900,
http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/when/history/history.htm

Post 1900,
http://www.aec.gov.au/_content/when/history/history1900.htm

Now there are the facts, which I believe to be definitive. They back up some of your case, EXCEPT, you seem to have confused state and federal - I wonder why you would have done that?

You see Anna, I'm not an ism-ist, I don't swallow dogma, I seek and find my own information. And I don't muddle it to fog up the issue.
Posted by Maximus, Thursday, 17 August 2006 1:30:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximvs! Is that you of Kitten News? Regular visitor nice site.

Anna and Vivienne a few months ago the Sydney Morning Herald ran a series on workplace deaths. Guess which gender the victims were? Men! The SMH didn't bother to acknowledge this in any of it's articles I pointed it out but got no reply.

When are we going to have true equality in workplace deaths? Come on these people die building houses and things to shelter you from the elements and make your life easier.

Feminism is passe because it's crap.

Anna you could blame women for global warming, go to the feminist site Minnesota Women's Press, they say that women spend 80% of the family income. They of course see this as 'empowerment' not materialistic greed.

Inner City Tranny

Woman across the road from me ran off with the deadbeat nextdoor didn't want the kids but changed her mind 2 weeks later and he had to give them to her, he had no say and now pays 27% of his income to her and the deadbeat and the latter is now driving his brand new ute for which hubby hard for. This guy never hit her, worked hard and helped around the house. That's what's wrong with the system.

CARNIFEX
Posted by CARNIFEX, Thursday, 17 August 2006 4:24:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CARNIFEX the bit about the woman having all the say about the kids is not feminism (although some feminists do go for it), it's the old attitudes about gender roles coming out and biting us on the butt.

It's not being fixed because those who make the decisions are still tied to those old gender roles. It's also those who don't look at the stats on who abuses and neglects kids.

Your lynching the wrong suspect.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Thursday, 17 August 2006 5:54:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Doubt it Rob

Family court judges were 'educated' during the height of feminism in the 60's and 70s and this influences their decisions to this day. Theirs is not the real world and like academics can only exist in cosseted tax-payer funded enclaves.

I work at resort who's main customers are women. Many of whom were also educated in this time. Feminism has bit them on the bum. Angry and bitter and craving the company of men who will not go anywhere near them. Some were associates of Germs, what a fruit bat she was!

My mother was an ardent feminist, out of 3 sons she's got one grand kid, thoroughly regrets her passion now and can see how it did much more harm than good.
Posted by CARNIFEX, Friday, 18 August 2006 4:22:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anna a good book to read is "The Rantings of a Single Male" by Thomas Ellis.

Christine Stobla wrote "Lying in a Room of One's Own: How Women's Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students" in this she lists three catagories "Errors of fact", "Errors of interpretation" and "Sins of omission."

Other authors such a Daphne Patai, Christine Hoff-Sommers and Melanie Phillips are well worth reading.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 18 August 2006 11:16:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This two posts per day malarkey doesn't really give one the opportunity to defend oneself does it.

Maximus: I wasn't challenging your or the AEC's info on federalism and the vote I was challenging your assertion that there was no suffrage movement in Australia and the vote was just served up on a silver platter. That is patently false.

I wasn't muddling up state and federal. I made it clear I was talking about the vote on a state level, and proposing that the struggles (which had been going on for quite some time) on a state level were of consequence when it came to drafting voting legislation upon federation.

JamesH, my knowledge of the suffrage movement comes from history texts, not women's studies text. So cease and desist with your attempts to discredit me.
Posted by Anna_, Friday, 18 August 2006 1:56:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Any 'right' that is had without spilling copious amounts of blood is 'handed to you on a plate.'

REAL power comes after much violent struggle. Its the nature of our physical reality. If its REAL power REALLY worth having then its worth dying for and definately worth spilling a few pints of blood over. Us evil, uncaring, un-nuturing, ugly men understand this implicitly.

Women on the other hand tend to substitute UGLY TRUTHS with warm fuzzy rationale and sanctimoniously self serving intellectual pretensions like morality. An alleged 'higher' morality no less, because they are women and women by their definition possess a higher moral fibre. Hmmm, how is that for an equality devoid of chauvinism and free of arrogance? Tho, a few good women do intuitively appreciate the implicit nature of the human beast and make no excuses. Small mercies.

Mans capacity to dominate goes well beyond his physical stature. Technology has rendered that advantage redundant. You can leverage the physical with a rope and pulley or with a gun and a bullet. Yes l know, AWFUL TRUTH. Its a bummer and it hurts. Mans dominance is rooted in his resigned appreciation of REALITY. There is no higher moral truth... that is mere fancy, illusion.

If you got your so-called 'rights' on the back of mere words, rhetoric, whinging, whining and nagging, then those liberties are fickle and illusory. Going from from one cacoon to another doesnt free you from the matrix. Congratulations, you got a higher perch in the cage. Well done. Have a soy decaf skinny latte and dolphin free organic lentil burger on me.

Its hillarious to hear fems celebrate what they 'acheived'. Most of it is swapping one relative, figurative oppression for another. Yes, its great to have all these rights you celebrate, but you are only starting to realise that they come with responsibilities, accountability and a grizzy downside. Such is the nature of the beast.

(cont)
Posted by trade215, Friday, 18 August 2006 5:32:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont)

Its even more amusing when fems bemoan the attendant downside of rights. In the same breath championing equality and independance.

l am certainly not advocating going back to the 'dark' old days, merely pointing out the realities, namely:

1. you didnt really have to fight that hard. The powerful hegomaniacal patriarchal oppressors didnt force you to spill blood. They just rolled over and gave you whatever apparent power they werent using at the time. Look around you, you can earn a buck, take a man's kids and dough in divorce, but all the other crap still encumbers you (as it does us).
2. You made your empowered, independant beds and know you gotta sleep in them... alone, as no man worth his testosterone is gonna karmically route himself on the ugly bit of your bitterness and delusion.
3. You are now free to work yourselves thru crappy careers and give up the best daze of the best years of your lives fattening your income statements and balance sheets... like us menfolk have done for eons. Newsflash, a fat bank account, a weighty desk plaque and a nice corner office overlooking the park cant give you a hug, kiss and a cuddle.

You got a few rights but like all politic 'isms' and ideological pretensions, you, like the rest of us have been systematically had. The rhetoric is just used to keep the constituency maleable.

ps. 2 post limit and word limit are a great idea and more forums would benefit from it. It forces posters to think things thru and be succint, rather than flying off the handle with ill contemplations and muddying a forum with emotive, knee jerk responses.
Posted by trade215, Friday, 18 August 2006 5:32:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Women have always paid their way for every tiny step towards equality and autonomy.

Since the late 1400's it has been estimated that at least nine million people have been executed for the sin of witchcraft. The majority of these victims have been women, for witchcraft seems to have been a female crime. Men were generally protected from such accusations because they were considered to be of superior intellect and virtue in both the Judean and Christian cultures.
http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/amethystbt/persecution.html
*
*
WWI
Thirty Thousand Women Were There
http://userpages.aug.com/captbarb/signal.html
*
*

Women's Military and War History: women who fought in the military officially and unofficially, women who served in support roles, plus how women's roles changed for women who stayed home.
http://womenshistory.about.com/od/militarywar/
*
*
PRESENT DAY
In Colombia women who speak out for their rights face intimidation, violence and even death from armed groups on both sides of the country’s long-running internal conflict. Government security forces and their paramilitary allies have labelled women community leaders, activists and human rights defenders as guerrilla collaborators and legitimate targets in the counter-insurgency war.……... Rape, mutilation and abuse of women and girls have been used as weapons of war to generate fear and to silence campaigns for social, economic and political rights.
http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/stories-1-eng
*
*

Uganda:
“Women’s bodies have actually become battle grounds, not only to … the rebels who are fighting government, but … even the government soldiers are violating women, and targeting their sexuality… the violation is all about destroying … the inbuilt strength of a woman to build a community, so both warring factions are targeting the woman’s body to make sure that they destroy that community through this woman.”
http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/Ruth_Ochineg-eng
*
*


August 18, 2006
Women in Afghanistan Fear New Taliban-Like Rule
A women's rights activist struggles to publicize the persecution of women in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where fundamentalist pressures are returning and the burqa is back.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1328
*
*

THE STRUGGLE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS IS NOT OVER. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO REST ON OUR LAURELS.

WOMEN’S RIGHTS ARE STILL FEW AND THOSE FEW ARE LIMITED TO WESTERN WOMEN.
Posted by Scout, Friday, 18 August 2006 6:29:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yawn!

I had always thought that it was only women who were burned at the stake for being witches and imagine my surprise to discover men were also accused of witchcraft and burned at the stake. Admittedly from the records more women than men were burned at the stake.

The following statement is nothing short of mythology
"Men were generally protected from such accusations because they were considered to be of superior intellect and virtue in both the Judean and Christian cultures."

"THE STRUGGLE FOR EQUAL RIGHTS IS NOT OVER. WE CANNOT AFFORD TO REST ON OUR LAURELS.
WOMEN’S RIGHTS ARE STILL FEW AND THOSE FEW ARE LIMITED TO WESTERN WOMEN" Typically this type of statement is used to negate any thoughts that women in the western world are the most privileged people in history.

Mynra Blythe's book "Spin Sisters,How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness --- and Liberalism --- to the Women of America" this not only applies to America but Australia, Canada, NZ and the UK.

Women Who Make Things Worse For Other Women January 11, 2006
by Carey Roberts http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/0111roberts.html
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 18 August 2006 9:29:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Feminism is passé not so much that it worked, but that it failed so spectacularly. Anyone surprised that powerful women who make good through their own hard work distance themselves from it, should withdraw their head from the playground sand pit and check on the kids.

The claims of feminist “progress” are nothing more than deluded. Feminism was never about anyone other than women themselves, and as such, has failed to recognise that everyone outside it, has made even better progress.

Guess it’s the same old Marxist excuse of a failed implementation
Posted by Seeker, Friday, 18 August 2006 11:13:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hello CARNIFEX. How do you do?

Sprung at last. Yes, this is I, Maximus. Thank you for your kind sentiments.

But now, back to the war.

World War 1 in fact, and our good Scout here has been on a reconnaissance sortie across no man's land - Internet searching - and has come up with no end of amazing stunts and stories of fabulous and fearless women.

Unfortunately, her links have not returned the solid evidence that makes good military intelligence - just hints and hearsay. However, despite this she is indeed on the right track. Yes, tens of thousands of genuinely good, lovely and decent women did forsake safety and security in WW1 and commit wholeheartedly to what they saw as their duty and accompanied their men folk to the fronts of battle. High quality women they were in those days. Strong in mind, body and spirit. Not like this feminized lot we've got today.

Mind you, not that many of that 30,000 actually went to the war you understand, but rather held down homeland roles. But they were good and proud women nonetheless. Women a man could respect.

But despite this, their numbers are but a mere bagatelle -

The Battle of the Somme
http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWsomme.htm

"The British and French troops attacked at 7.30 on the morning of the 1st July [1916]. The BEF [British Expeditionary Force] suffered 58,000 casualties (a third of them killed), therefore making it the worse day in the history of the British Army."

58,000 CASUALTIES IN ONE DAY!

And the US managed to rally just 30,000 women for the entire war. Not much of an effort really when put into that context.

And, four and a half months later at the end of the battle - "The British had suffered 420,000 casualties. The French lost nearly 200,000 and it is estimated that German casualties were in the region of 500,000."

That was from just one battle that lasted some four and a half months in late 1916.

And here, an article (opinion) about WW1 and "the vote" -

The green fields of France
http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com/2006/06/green-fields-of-france.html
Posted by Maximus, Saturday, 19 August 2006 3:39:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"The Eureka Stockade is now viewed as the birthplace of Australia's political system. With the benefit of hindsight, it is possible to see the full extent of its impact. Freedom of speech, the right to vote and political equality are the hallmarks of the historic uprising. As Robert Menzies later said: "The Eureka revolution was an earnest attempt at democratic government."
http://www.sbs.com.au/gold/story.html?storyid=86

I guess if it wasn't for the Eureka Stockade us blokes may never have got the right to vote!

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/FWWfeather.htm

The Order of the White Feather was instrumental in coercing men to join the armed services and become cannon fodder.

http://itech.fgcu.edu/&/issues/vol1/issue1/feather.htm

Even the feminists like Emmeline Pankhurst supported conscription and sending men and boys to the trenches. Facts like this tend to be 'forgotten' by modern day feminists.
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 19 August 2006 4:52:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Maximus,

yeah but if it weren't for men there wouldnt be any wars in the first place.

LOL.

Your post saved me the time. l just couldnt be bothered countering the usual misrepresentation that accompanies this particular ideological pretention.

cheerz.
Posted by trade215, Saturday, 19 August 2006 6:02:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hohoho, we're big tough manly men. We start wars so bow before us ye weakling women.

Morons.
Posted by Anna_, Saturday, 19 August 2006 6:09:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Men starting wars.

Well, you could be right Anna. But what sort of men?

Oh look, here's a bit of factual information -

Arthur Hu
Karl Marx wins the award for most deaths in history due to one man

"And the award for the most mass killings credited to one man goes to ... (ta dah...) Karl Marx! Congratulations!"

Need I point out to the good folks of OLO just exactly whose side it is that we find the feminists? The homosexuals? The anti-religious? The pro-abortionists? The academics? The Labor Party? The elite latte set, just like our own self confessed authoress of this very article, Vivienne Wynter?

They like to align with Mr Marx.

And Anna casts aspersions against her detractors with deeply considered debate - "Morons", she writes.

How seriously deep, well considered and elegantly argued.

If people like Vivienne and Anna, pushing for Marxist's isms - especially feminism - would just stop trying to be the saviours of the un-oppressed "oppressed classes", we, the men and the women and the children of this world would all be an awful lot better off. We could stop going off to fight horrible wars. Morons indeed. I think the good people on OLO will work out who the morons are, sooner or later, for themselves.
Posted by Maximus, Saturday, 19 August 2006 8:37:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"So why do I risk being inundated with virulently scornful invective from women everywhere?" Peter Forde

http://www.oz-aware.com/unconscious1.htm

“.......many women have fallen victim to deep, unconscious ‘feelings’ derived from a deliberate and mostly unrealised brainwashing process they have been subjected to over the past thirty-some years. It’s no secret that feminists have long promoted a broad (no pun, honest!) view of the “evil white male”, dominating, suppressing and generally being the scourge of womankind.

Some of that ‘mud’ sticks—often deep inside the psyche of women who do not come close to understanding how severely their deepest thoughts and feelings have been affected by the regular and often subtle bombardment of such deceitful and disingenuous messages. Becoming an unconscious victim of relentless visual and auditory barrages is merely another natural consequence of simply being not specifically a woman, but human.

At the deep psychological level, in the unconscious, feminism has done far more damage to modern women, and therefore to the overall wellness of society, than most can possibly imagine.....”
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 20 August 2006 9:31:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poor oppressed dears. Nothing’s their fault, not even the 10% paternity fraud.

Not only do women NOT fight their own wars, when patriotism calls, they hand out white feathers. Like their reluctance to commit to one man’s family, they’re never quite sure which waring side of men knows best how to treat a lady.

Still they sacrifice their sons, brothers and husbands as only true freedom fighters can. Shaming men into dying for good causes did not start nor stop with WWI.
Posted by Seeker, Sunday, 20 August 2006 10:22:41 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Booyah!
Posted by Anna_, Sunday, 20 August 2006 11:58:27 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The replies to this article give excellent examples of why feminism is still relevant- there is so much woman-hating on display, it is unbelievable. If you believed some of the trash that has been written, women are responsible for every bad thing that has occured in human history.

"REAL power comes after much violent struggle. Its the nature of our physical reality".
Um, sorry, that is not the nature of our physical reality, maybe it is for a few overly aggressive males but you can't tar all of humanity with the same brush. Our entire modern society is based on the principle that might doesn't equal right, it is at the core of our 'western liberal' values and what we are apparently fighting the war on terrorism/Iraq war for.

Maximus, what planet are you from? Do you actually believe that if Karl Marx hadn't written das kapital and the communist manifesto that we would be free of the scourge of war? The word moron could not even begin to convey the idiocy of that statement.

I am a feminist, and I am not a marxist, just like many other feminists. I do beleive that there are differences between men and women, but the problem is that those differences have been manipulated to valorise men and denigrate women. I believe in equality, and I believe that I should have options in my life, instead of being told what to do by men. Why is this so ideological? To me it is common sense.

Why don't you guys stop telling us women what is good for us and let us decide for ourselves- is it really that scary?
Posted by la1985, Monday, 21 August 2006 12:14:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Fair dinkum

http://www.mugu.com/cgi-bin/Upstream/Library/Amneus/garbage/g2.html
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 21 August 2006 8:17:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“Some women actually think that they are better people than men” Toby Green

“Feminist do not want a men’s right movement, even more importantly they do not want books like this one to be written. They do not want challenges to their opinions or male ideas to be expressed, hence it is necessary to suppress the male opinion and points of views. There attempts to label challenges and opinions contrary to feminism ideology as hate crimes.

“When they call you a ‘woman hater,’ they mean ‘How dare you disagree with me?’ Don’t bother getting upset. Why waste the energy?’ It is really only a part of women’s anger strategy to get men to back down.” Thomas Ellis

“..however, criticizing female behaviour is not the same as hating females.” George Rolph.

Come on la1985 when is challenging misrepresentations “telling you (women) what to do?”

And stop trying to manipulate by claiming the victim role “women are responsible for every bad thing that has occurred(sic) in human history.”

If you read some of the books I have referred too, in a previous post. You will notice that they have been written by women!

As for denigrating women, a number of posts made by I assume women call men “morons”, ‘idiots”, “women haters” (misogynists). The only things you haven’t done yet is to comment on the size of our genitals, our sex lives etc etc. This is called 'misandry.'

Thomas Ellis wrote “After going through her stack of books, I realized that it wasn’t just Petra’s illogical babblings I had a problem with. The whole women’s movement had something bogus about it.”

I too, felt that many of the feminist claims just did not feel right.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 21 August 2006 11:16:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Wow. I don't think I've ever been so depressed by the comments section of this site.

As a young woman who benefits daily from the social reforms brought on by the feminist movement, I am rather appalled (not to mention surprised) to see such bitterness against women being granted equal legal and social rights.

I am not saying that some aspects of feminism have gone too far (and I agree that the family court system appears biased against fathers, although this seems to be slowly changing), but surely a situation in which both men and women are free to choose their options in life is better than a system which precluded the involvement of half the population in public life?

I genuinely welcome the fact that I was able to go to university, and get a well-paying job and support myself. And my boyf of several years certainly appreciates that I pay for dinner as often as he does! I appreciate that I am able to vote, and purchase property without having to seek permission from anyone (heh. other than the damn banks!).

I know that some men view feminism as empowering women at the expense of men, but I do not actually see that in the world. Men still earn more money than women, and are in more positions of power and influence than their numbers of the population should suggest.

I like that we now have male nurses and female doctors. I like that men can stay home with the kiddies if they wish, and that women can work if they wish.

Sometimes, choice can be frightening, and we don't always make the right ones, men and women both. But when I look at my life of freedom and autonomy versus that of my grandmothers' life of limited opportunities, I can be nothing but grateful to feminism, for myself, and for the men of my age group.
Posted by Laurie, Monday, 21 August 2006 11:27:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH there are feminist writers challenging some of the problems as well. I've referenced a book by Patricia Pearson a number of times dealing with the misrepresentation of female violence called "When She Was Bad". Some feminists take equality seriously, it may be that the ones who don't get more attention due to more extreme views.

Feminism is not a single dogma rigidly adhered to by all who would go under that banner. It is a broad viewpoint which is adopted in different ways by different people (then almost everything is). There is no single spokesperson for it. Plenty of scope to pick the good bits and reject the rubbish.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Monday, 21 August 2006 11:28:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Laurie;
Unfortunately when women convinced the government to force
lending institutions to lend on two incomes it was not considered what
happens when you dump twice as much money into any market.
The prices in that market rise to take up all the available money.

So now having borrowed on two incomes, it needs two incomes to repay
the loans, not quicker as was originally hoped.
Women now seldom have the option of working or staying home with
the children, they are now *forced* into the workforce whether they
like it or not.
Sorry but feminism was blind and stupid in this matter.
Posted by Bazz, Monday, 21 August 2006 11:37:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Men still earn more money than women, and are in more positions of power and influence than their numbers of the population should suggest." Laurie

I suggest that you read Warren Farrell's book;

" For decades, we in the media have reported that women earn less than men. As a result, we've created a generation of angry women and self-conscious men.

A new book, "Why Men Earn More," by Dr. Warren Farrell, shows we've been dead wrong: For the same work, women earn more than men. His findings are based on a comprehensive review of government and other statistics."

I am well aware that there are many types of feminism.

http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/suppression/nl.htm
Neil Lyndon's case

"Neil Lyndon's world came crashing down after he wrote a pioneering article in The Sunday Times attacking feminism. He was treated as a pariah, and his young son was taken from him. Now that his boy has grown up, the writer has decided to set the record straight."

The above article is well worth reading.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 21 August 2006 12:11:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'll believe feminism is irrelevant when I can walk down the street without being hassled by men, when my appearance isn't considered more important than my character or what I do, when people stop telling me that its the fault of career women that our nation's birthrates have dropped rather than admit that men don't want to marry and women have a right to a career, when women stop getting beaten up, and when the beauty ideal for women excludes anorexia and cocaine abuse to keep weight down and when the female equivalent in attractiveness and age of Bert Newton is allowed on national television.
Posted by Noos, Monday, 21 August 2006 1:29:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think that women like Noos miss the point.Having a highly paid stressful job does not make all people happy.It a is very selfish notion of the feminist elite to assume that all women want full time jobs and independance.For the majority of the population ,men inclusive,work is mundane and boring,something we do until the weekend.

The feminists have been very egocentric and selfish in only pushing the elitest agenda of more power to the top 10% of achievers,without considering the ramifications for the masses,who would rather have more time to enjoy a social life,rather than being slaves to a mortage or some multi national company.

Women in the past didn't have the vote or obivious rights,but they had enormous power within the family and had great respect from men in this outwardly unequal relationship.Today no one seems to respect anyone and both sexes seem diminished by this selfish cold war of power.

The most tragic thing about our society is that we can no longer recognise the simple joys in life without some notion of being the victim,whose life experiences were stolen by some evil oppressor.

The evil oppressor is more often ourselves.
Posted by Arjay, Monday, 21 August 2006 9:52:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yeah Arjay, you seem quite repressed, oops I mean oppressed. My advice to you would be to have a mid-life crisis or something. You're obviously not happy with the choices you made in life. You should stop blaming others for that though.

And I don't know what century that guy just flew in from that was going on about white feathers and all.

This conversation has gone a bit off the wall which is why I'm not bothering to argue intellectually with any of these small membered* jerks who are so loving pissing off the feminists.

*There you go James, I threw that one in there for you.

By the way James, women make up 70 percent of the world's poor and it will take women about another 150 years to receive equal pay. The gap decrease has slowed down somewhat with this rise in "post" feminism. Oh and guess what we're all likely to retire with half the superannuantion of men too. Oh yes, the PC crowd have grossly exaggerated that whole inequality thing. Not.
Posted by Anna_, Monday, 21 August 2006 11:56:45 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Before the 70s, it was perfectly acceptable for people - mostly men - to spew hatred about women - like some people spewed hatred of blacks or Asians, or homosexuals or - in earlier times, Catholics. In women's case it was called mysogyny.
Now, mysogynists have realised its not acceptable to be blunt about their hatred of women, so they replace the word "women" with the word "feminists" and, hey presto, spout the same old neurotic, paranoid, sad nonsense.
I am a human being, guys, with the same rights to my hopes and dreams as you have. I will not be told how I ought to live or what I ought to want. Why is that so frightening to you? I also have the same responsibilities as you have - no more, no less - therefore I am responsible for my own life, my own decisions, my own mistakes, my own happiness or discontent. I am not responsible for yours - you are. Stop expecting women to change to make you happier, and start to take reponsibility for it yourself. Women long ago realised that if they wanted to improve their lot, they'd have to change and, guess what, they did.
Posted by ena, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 8:59:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Smart man, that Thomas Ellis.

“Darren: The one idea from the book that stood out for me was your notion that while men are goal-focused, women are more obstacle-focused…?

Tom: I've noticed for a long time that women often pursue activities they have no real interest in, driven by an obsession to prove something. There's always some obstacle they want to confront, the actual goal being secondary. Sometimes the obstacle is fear, or sometimes it's a sense of inadequacy. In case you hadn't noticed, in the last 30 years, their favorite obstacle is now – us. They set us up as oppressors, then get angry and go out to do all that stuff we keep them from doing. Most women don't want to play golf – unless they're somehow spiting us oppressive men in the process. “

And his advise to men?

“I've been asked for advice a lot since the book came out, and it seems really strange to me. It's like asking someone for advice on flying because they've crashed the most planes. So, I guess I can advise on what not to do. Don't focus so much on meeting a woman's needs that you neglect your own. Don't sacrifice your own viewpoints just because it makes her so happy when you concede to her. Don't tolerate psychotic behavior no matter how good she is in bed. If she even mentions feminism, women's studies or male oppression, run like hell. Don't believe her when she says she can't get pregnant – always use a condom. She can get out of it, you can't. Don't let a woman, her family, or society pressure you into marriage if that's not what you want. Also, don't get married unless you're willing to accept that you will have less sex, that you will be expected to apologize for everything no matter who is at fault, and that most likely, your wife will feel unfulfilled no matter what path she chooses. That said, give them a shot. Just understand the risks you are taking. “

http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/a-b/blacksmith/2005/blacksmith032605.htm
Posted by Seeker, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 9:20:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Once again the same old, tired old, usual suspects are venting their vitriol upon women for no greater reason than an article looking at the progress of equal rights for women. Apparently the very idea that women want to be treated as equals enrages such as these to blame women for, well, pretty much any of the world’s ills one cares to name.

Not all men are like the above mentioned, of course, many realise that they are just as trapped by stereotypes as women,traditional forms of masculinity — based on being emotionally shut-down, dominating others, work-obsessed and aggressive — are often seen now as obsolete, unhealthy and indeed downright oppressive.

Many men are flourishing and are enjoying having more trusting, respectful and egalitarian relationships with their wives and partners, having greater connections with female and male friends, and being involved fathers to their children. Men show increased support for women’s paid work outside the home; young men are taking greater responsibility for contraception and safe sex; and there is increased attention to the quality of fathering.

To be gender-just is to be guided by principles of equity and social justice.

Through their loyalty and closeness to particular women — a mother, a partner, a friend, a sister, a daughter — some men come to an intimate understanding of the injustices suffered by women and the need for men to take action.

Feminism offers men the possibility of freedom from a way of life that has been isolating, violent, obsessively competitive, emotionally shut down and physically unhealthy.

If men are to be effective participants in action to achieve gender equality, they will have to do so in partnership with women. Cross-gender partnerships and alliances are the crucial foundation of men’s involvement in gender justice.

Men are therefore necessarily also part of the solution. If men do not change, then gender justice is simply impossible.
Posted by Scout, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 9:27:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, excellent post.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 10:16:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is it possible that women are more obstacle focused because they come up against more obstacles?
Just a thought.....
Posted by enaj, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 11:43:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
WOW Scout, sounds like Michael Flood!

"Once again the same old, tired old, usual suspects are venting their vitriol upon women for no greater reason than an article looking at the progress of equal rights for women. Apparently the very idea that women want to be treated as equals enrages such as these to blame women for, well, pretty much any of the world’s ills one cares to name."

If you actually took the time to read properly and in particular the books I have referred too and especially the article "Neil Lyndon's" case. http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/suppression/nl.htm

There is no vitriol etc etc.

Cathy Young Consciousness Raising 101 Inside the gender studies classroom is well worth reading.
http://www.reason.com/0302/co.cy.consciousness.shtml

You talk about gender equality but only from the aspect that is men who must change, this is not gender equality. Gender equality envoles both genders being respectful of each other and treating each ohter fairly as well as having the same rights.

This means that men have as much right as you to express their thoughts and ideas etc. Men are often accused of being poor communicators and yet when they try to explore issues which are important to them, and which are not along the lines of the feminist party line every attempt is made to shut them down.

Erin Pizzey writes about what she calls the family terrorist, who remains hidden.

It is both genders which are the parts of the problem and until they can get there act together! There will always be a problem
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 3:14:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout

'Once again the same old, tired old, usual suspects are venting their vitriol upon women for no greater reason than an article looking at the progress of equal rights for women. Apparently the very idea that women want to be treated as equals enrages such as these to blame women for, well, pretty much any of the world’s ills one cares to name."

I work at a health resort patronized mainly by women, the amount of unchallenged vitorol aimed solely at men is beyond belief. I don't usually bother with them, sometimes I do and always beat their lack of logic without resorting to name calling and hatred.

Sample arguements....

Men pollute the planet

Reply: Women are very materialistic and spend most of the family income or that gold ring you're wearing generates 3 tonnes of rubbish to produce, that does'nt include greenhouse gases etc it's just the rock. Most don't even know where gold or anything comes from despite being 'educated' it's just 'there'.

Men cause wars...

Reply: Some do (about .00001%), most would rather not, but many women are more than happy to enjoy the material fruits of those wars and invasions.

These same women also moan of having no man in their life, complain of sexism but read romance novels with alpha males as the romantic interest. Males who pursue and do manly things and don't take no for an answer. The kind they whinge about.

Anna re equal pay, when the workplace death rate is equal, when you produce equally and are equally adept at doing the many things that men, most unknown to you, do for your advantage and comfort. Then you'll get equal pay.
Posted by CARNIFEX, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 4:46:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Many men dislike ideological pretentions of feminism. Most feminists are women, therefore men hate women. Excellent logic. But, male feminists exist, therefore men who disagree also hate men. Hmmmm... methinks you are calling anyone who disagrees with you nasty names. Outstanding reasoning. Wot about women who disagreee with feminism? Are they self hating women?

Usual suspects descend into the predictable 'small member' ridicule plus emotive manilpuations like appeals to guilt and shame... then wounder why they have such a bad reputation and few take them seriously.

Credibility. You look bad.

Attempt to open a more expansive and inclusive discussion and you are summarily shouted down. Wot a surprise. No point anymore. They arent serious. May as well wind them up for some third rate entertainment.

Man-hating fems miss a crucial point of why their movement is on the ropes... you forgot to include the other gender in your 'struggle' for alleged gender eekwalatee. You have no idea how many men like myself are waiting in the wings to support those of you who are serious about gender equality.

You have no idea how many reformed male feminists (like myself) have turned our backs on you only after grudgingly accepting that you were disingenuous and running a sham. Became anti-feminist (as opposed to anti-gender equality) once l came to recognise the truth.

l will consider feminism a success when the self agrandising proponents of me,me,me ekwalatee picket the womens only gymnasiums. A deliberately minor and trivial example. If you cannot even challenge that obvious hypocracy of your own exclusive and sexist tendencies, wot hope have you in tackling the big issues? Anyway, let the rationalisations begin.

This is the true failure of feminism. Women failed to challenge their own sexist tendencies and are complicit in perpetuating a whole host of negative stereotypes effecting men.

Its a two way street.

Its YOUR movement. YOU need to figure out a way to get men on board. Will get back on board the masses of women who dont want anything to do with your incredible negativity.

And stop taking yourselves soooooooooooooo seriously.
Posted by trade215, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 5:19:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No we won't Carniflex.
Because we already do the vast majority of the world's unpaid work and always have done, please tell me some of the unnoticed things men do for our comfort? I can tell you some of the ones we do for yours; scrub the toilet ( as noted in a previous post), change the toilet role, clean up the kitchen - including when we cooked and when you cooked, look after your children and so lose any chance of decent super when we retire by interrupting our careers, give you the emotional support you are usually unable to give one another, not care when you get fat or bald or both, admire you when you are young and goodlooking silently - rather than howl it out in public places, not criticise your driving on a gender basis, allow you only to represent yourself rather than every other man, admire your intellect rather than feel threatened by it, celebrate your success rather than resent it, remember to pick up bread and milk when its running out, know the names of our kids teachers, dentists and doctors, make the appointments and take time off work to take them, accept the blame when our kids behave badly and share the praise when they do well, know we will be blamed if the house is untidy, while you never will, feel guilty about working or taking any time for ourselves when we become mothers, not mind when you travel with work and we get to stay home changing nappies, know when the sheets need changing - and change them, sort your socks, underwear, shirts, take responsibility for all the housework (even if you help) and at least some of the financial contribution, remember birthdays and buy all the presents - even for your family - and wrap them, and act as your social secretary. Anything else you can think of Scout? Anna?
Posted by enaj, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 5:21:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Anna re equal pay, when the workplace death rate is equal, when you produce equally and are equally adept at doing the many things that men, most unknown to you, do for your advantage and comfort. Then you'll get equal pay."

This comment is quite ridiculous. Besides the obvious sexism involved. Perhaps you should let the CEOs know that they shouldn't be getting all that cash considering their job doesn't involve them operating heavy machinery. I'm a journalist. If I were to report from a conflict zone I'd hope to be getting paid the same as the men also putting their lives at risk so you can sit on your arse and be kept up to date with what's happening in the world.

The whole point of the equal pay argument IS equal pay for equal work. If there's a field where men dominate pay is obviously relevant to that field and if there are women in the same field doing the same job then they damn well should be paid the same, but "work" by definition doesn't just include being a tradesmen or what have you. So stop with your ridiculous argument as to why women shouldn't be paid equally.

And Trade215- I'd hoped I wouldn't have to pull out the irony meter and slap you round the head with it. The "small-membered" comment was in response to James insinuating that that's where we'd go next with our arguments.
Posted by Anna_, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 5:36:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anna so that it explains it. I guess you probably about 30+?

I guess a decent journalist would do their research rather than regurgitate propaganda.

But then how do journalists cope when the results of the research conflict with their own personal and political beliefs?

There was a national news story which made all the headlines. I had the inside information. Yet when I read the story in the papers the only thing that was the same were the names of the people involved. The story published in the papers was a complete fabrication. (The Privacy act prevents me from giving more detail.)

It funny that Leslie Cannold, has an article on this site about mainstream media exercising important quality control over what we see, hear and read.

If one really bothers to do the groundwork and check facts and figures the mainstream media’s quality control is extremely questionable. Until the advent of the internet this was very hard. The media is about propaganda and manipulation, whilst real facts and figures get lost in the ‘sophistry’ and many journalists are sophist’s.

Two decades ago Lenore Weitzman published her now infamous research which showed that after divorce women’s standard of living fell by 73% and a man’s rose by 43%. The media fell over each other to publish this research with unquestioning devotion.

The only problem was that Weitzman’s research was WRONG! She denied other researchers access to her figures for about a decade. http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm

The plain fact of the matter is that the media rush each other to publish material which later is untrue or a plain misrepresentation of facts. Even at the time of Weitzman’s research there were people questioning her findings, but because they did not fit in the woman are good and men are bad category they were ignored.

In the rush to crucify men, truth, honesty and justice fly out the window. We wind up with Joseph Stalin show trials, and laws which are beginning to look and sound like they are taken straight from The Malleus Maleficarum.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 8:37:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anna feminism in your eyes is all about power of the individual and you have demonstrated that your personal ego is more important than logical,calm debate.
I'm not advocating the return of the bad old days of almost Islamic subjugation,however the raving feminist lunatics miss the point to the detriment of both sexes.There is a price for everything and just being the Chief Honcho with the BMW and the absolute water front property,isn't without it's downside.

Are we to rise above the raw,gonal urges of unadulterated power,or move to an understanding of our common humanity?
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 8:57:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
See what l mean. Cannot even take responsibility for one's comments without playing the blame game. 'l never said it. lm just saying someone else said it." Or aluded to it, or implied it.

Meter out the irony.

Boyaah-di-daah-di-blah.

Crediting others with your opinions and getting others to defend your assumptions is a favoured tactic in these parts. Very cleverly done too. Great distraction.

Tho thouroughly passe. This is pretty obvious stuff and just what gets folks to switch off to your message.
Posted by trade215, Tuesday, 22 August 2006 10:30:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
trade 215,

why are you so defensive about being called a woman-hater, when you see no problem in calling people 'man-hating fems'? You claim that our arguments lack credibility, but such hypocrisy makes you look bad.

Of course life isn't all about individualism and becoming a rich CEO. But is there any reason that women should be denied the chance to pursue that life path, if they so wish? Strangely enough, I want both a meaningful career and a satisfying family life, and I don't think that is unreasonable. I dunno, maybe one of you can tell me why I shouldn't be wasting my time on working and getting an education and instead should be married and pregnant by now.

"Don't focus so much on meeting a woman's needs that you neglect your own. Don't sacrifice your own viewpoints just because it makes her so happy when you concede to her."

Hmmm Seeker I wonder if you would still agree with that statement if it was talking about women not focusing on men's needs to such an extent that they neglect their own. Because it cuts both ways. As James H said earlier, "Gender equality envoles (sic) both genders being respectful of each other and treating each ohter (sic) fairly as well as having the same rights".

By the way James H, I agree with you on that point, and in my experience of feminist literature that is something most feminists would agree with. Do you actually read feminist literature, or do you just read sources that trash it?

Feminism is about power. It is about equalising the power relationship between the sexes, so that neither is disadvantaged. Those that believe feminism hasn't gone far enough think that we haven't reached equality yet. Those that think feminism is irrelevant think we have already reached that point. Those that believe it has gone too far think that the balance of power has shifted too far in favour of females. But to say that feminism is essentially about shifting power so that it is unequally in favour of women is just wrong.
Posted by la1985, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 12:03:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trade215 - for your edification this is how the exchange went down:

JAMES: "The only things you haven’t done yet is to comment on the size of our genitals, our sex lives etc etc. This is called 'misandry.'"

Me: "...I'm not bothering to argue intellectually with any of these small membered* jerks who are so loving pissing off the feminists.

*There you go James, I threw that one in there for you."

Get it now?

And James, yes I agree with you too on the mainstream media being flawed systematically. Add to that the fact that journalists are charged with compressing large amounts of [sometimes] complex information into a more digestible and shortened form for the public and mistakes do happen.

But that's a whole other forum.
Posted by Anna_, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 12:15:45 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enaj

I won't go into details but I do all those things that you've mentioned and much more and I work full time. If I had the choice of keeping house or working I'd know what path I'd choose.

If men in Australia and other parts of the western world were the bunch of overindulged deadbeats that fems have made them out to be then Oz would look much more like Somalia or some other 3rd world dunny. Which is what it's slowly becoming, thanks in part to the handmaiden of multiculturalism, feminism fawning over those wonderful 3rd world cultures.

Anna, I knew the CEO thing would come up. If any person wants to make the sacrifices to do it then they're welcome to it. I just think it'd be nice for some to stop whining about how hard they have it and grow up a little.

You're a journalist, that figures, remember the articles on workplace deaths in the Sydney Morning Herald? They were all men, not one mention of it though let alone the fact that men make up over 90% of workplace deaths, didn't mention that either. Any idea why Annie?

You're the expert here
Posted by CARNIFEX, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 6:41:21 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It seems to me that the key issue is just what constitutes 'feminism' or being a 'feminist'. People like Greer give an overwhelming vibe that they consider 'feminists' should reject all things 'feminine' and pursue lives that belittle males, reject domestic roles, agressively engage careers and generally are absorbed by proving a point. I think female generation 'Y's' are alot smarter/ mentally sound than that!

As a 26yo male I can safely say that a majority of females in the 20-35 yo bracket are not interested in waving the flag that Greer waves. In fact many of them are now putting males my age on the spot and demanding marriage, children and picket fences by the time they are thirty! Of course this is not to say these females are home bodies- many are university educated, professional and more than capable of holding their own in the wide world.

Women of all ages these days also express resentment to Greer and her like- they were so obsessed with making choices available for women but now they seem intent on taking these choices away. Why is it wrong for females to look great in a skirt, have children and become wives? Afterall guys cant do any of these things! The answer I think is that Greer's 'brand' of feminism stemmed from insecurity and resentment. Females these days arent insecure, dont need males but have actually decided that instead of resenting males they might actually like them. Maybe males are becoming more likeable than Greer and this is what pisses her off so much?!
Posted by wre, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 9:11:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good for you, Carnifex, but I suspect many men and women reading this will see at least some reality in the picture I paint of the un-noticed work women do for men. I am still waiting for a list of the un-noticed work you do for us - and I'm not being smart here, I really want to know. I think if you claim to do it, you ought to be specific about it.
As for staying home or going to work, I've done both and nearly went troppo stuck in lonely suburbia with two small children. I will never forget how, not just my life, but my entire families life improved when I was lucky enough to get a part-time job when my youngest was two and a half. It didn't just improve financially either, it improved because I was happy and engaged and intellectually stimulated again, and my happiness mattered to all of us.
if you'd be happier staying at home, I'd encourage you to find a way of doing so. That is what the much-maligned feminist ideal is all about, life choices for individuals ( yep, male and female) that are about their own desires rather than some rigid gender role imposed by others.
Posted by ena, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 11:10:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a slug-fest.

All this vitriol over women wanting equal rights and opportunity to men.

Well, for a start, at least all this slug-fest proves unequivocally that Feminism IS NOT PASSE.

Constant vigilance is required. However, I am optimistic, the majority of anti-female posters here, primarily only post their POV's on female related articles. They are indeed (as Leslie Cannold called them) ‘the stalkers of the internet’. They have either been badly hurt or have major issues of self esteem. And that is their problem, not mine, not Ena's, nor Anna's, nor R0berts, nor LA1985’s; not one of us is under any obligation to justify ourselves to these sad men.

As I have stated previously, men stand to benefit from a fair and equitable society, just as much as women.

The 'usual sexists' have nothing to offer in place of feminism, because there is nothing. They fear equality, because they cannot deal with the idea of competent independent women. They are to be pitied, not feared. Most men do not fear women and prefer confident, intelligent women.

Men, such as Dr Michael Flood, are proactively pursuing greater equality and communication between the sexes. Below is a link to his web-site:

http://www.latrobe.edu.au/arcshs/Staff/michael_flood.htm

Don't let the misogyny of a few disgruntled men be the catalyst for continuing the slugfest. We know there are men who are actively engaged in domestic care, such as Carnifex, however he is still the exception. Most of the domestic sphere is still dominated by women as most of the external world is dominated by men.

As the author says in her article;

"we should not get too hung up on the labelling or image of feminism. The truth is: feminism worked. It took. And the way young women live today is the evidence. There is still a long way to go, but we should recognise and celebrate the effects of feminism on the present generation of young women.”
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 11:29:30 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
La1985; Yes, I do read feminist literature (Dworkin, Greer, Wolfe, Friedman. Summers etc) and if I had chosen the academic direction I would have my PhD by now, that is if I managed to get pass the university propaganda and censorship board.

Have you read, David Thomas, Warren Farrell, Katie Roiphe, Bly or any of the other books I had previously listed?

Now if, I as a bloke were to make personal attacks and comments about female body parts, this would be labelled as ‘bullying’ and ‘sexual harassment.’ But! Then we have different ‘rules’ for men. Don’t we?

Flood is not encouraging greater equality and communication, he promotes communication along specific lines only and is dismissive of communication which conflicts with his indocrination.
“I wouldn't have to pull out the irony meter and slap you round the head with it” This is a threat of violence. It doesn’t matter if it is tongue in cheek or whatever, it is still a threat of violence.

How do we measure equality so that we know when it has been achieved?

Is it when men and women achieve parity under the law, we have equal numbers of each gender as CEO’s, politicians, when husbands do an equal amount of housework even if that means that they spend many more hours of actual work?

It is funny this argument about unpaid work, whilst there may not be any direct cash recognition for this work, there are many other indirect payments made. Oh! Yes married women control and spend about 80% of the household budget. If women did the vast majority of upaid work then how come their standard of living decreases following separation and divorce?

The propaganda machine comes up with snazzy and catchy words and phrases like “Backlash” “Glass Ceiling” etc. But in reality a lot of it is and has been about the choices and decisions women make about their lives.

One thing I have noticed is that women often accuse men of the very behaviours that they themselves are doing. This is called in psychology, ‘Projection’.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 4:07:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Warning: irony meter might make an appearance in the following post in a possibly violent manner.

Now the metaphorically challenged come out of the woodwork. (For any figuratively challenged people out there: I didn’t literally mean James came out of woodwork, I don’t know how one would, you know, literally do that).

Clutching at straws James, clutching at straws.

Clarification: I don’t actually mean that James has straws in his hand and is clutching them.

Maybe you should all “stop taking yourselves soooooooooooooo seriously.”

See that, that was something trade215 said. And I used it against you. Ha!
Posted by Anna_, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 5:40:42 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
(cont)

PEOPLE like you set the tone and make the rules in the world of ideological pretention. Its easy enuff to identify the modus of the logically lazy, who run veiled, self serving, selfish agenda to exclusion. Easier following your lead into the abyss of everything that is unreasonable discussion/debate. Only on the internet. Real life is too short to get bogged down in ideology. Healthier to grow a funny bone and laugh. Plus, why would l broadcast my position? More can be achieved in the face of controlling ideologues by ‘keeping them closer’ and placating them with words.

Eventhough women have made themselves difficult (tho not impossible) to like, they will always be very easy to love.

Replacement for feminism? How about HUMANISM… equality of BOTH sexes?

Ironically, feminism hasnt created many independent women (financially self reliant tho shackled to ideology, precluding independence of thought). The real challenge, the major gripe of so-called ‘anti-women’ men (bizarre idea given where we originate), is that feminism hasnt actually created truelly responsible and accountable women. Most still play old head games of deflected personal accountability, now they do it a lot more cleverly.

Men who dont care about women’s equality dont get involved. Being here trying to engage discourse speaks to the fact that we care. The men who dont care and dont have respect ingore you, larf in your faces or snigger behind your backs. Many men whom you think most respect your position, when behind closed doors amongst men only, have some pretty ugly attitudes.

Being blunt, crude, gruff, reflects frustration (YOU don’t seem to care), hurt (gender war) and a bit of tuff love (men can be confronting), not blatant, hateful disregard.

Anyway, let the name calling, personal attacks, misrepresentations, projected attributions, assumptions, distortions, deflections, dishonesties, evasions and dismissals continue. There's plenty on offer in this post to latch onto and run the predictable routines. Above all… justify, rationalise, deny.

Zealot types, you are too complexcated for this simple mind. l forfeit. You win.

Cherry pick away.

Good pluck brainiacs.
Posted by trade215, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 7:38:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Enaj, good thought on obstacles. Does our natural world create more obstacles for women than men, or are these all constructed and socialised by us men? I don’t see this reflected in our laws or institutions. On the contrary, women seem to be well taken care of by men whom you consider obstacles? As obstacles, we’re pushovers – you can even have my child and have me support you without my consent, but I guess nature then gets even and imposes an obstacle on you – the child.

While discoursing on feminist theory with city girls I note these ladies prefer living in cities. I diplomatically mental-note that not so many of those happen to be built by women but that is probably precisely why in less guarded moments these same ladies dream of the obstacle-free matriarchal cave dwelling of eons past. Don’t mention the fifties to these ladies! They want to wipe the slate completely clean and start again from the very beginning.

Noos, your list is unlikely to reinvigorate the fem revolution – men want all those things too.

La1985, Feminists don’t much focus on meeting men’s needs –otherwise, at least for equality credibility’s sake, they would help stamp out things like paternity fraud. Yes I wonder why they’re so uninterested.

Wre, a very balanced and obstacle-free view. “…Greer and her like- they were so obsessed with making choices available for women but now they seem intent on taking these choices away.” There’s a simple reason for that. It’s not Marxism.
Posted by Seeker, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 10:04:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JamesH poses a very good question; one I’ve been meaning to ask myself – “How do we measure equality so that we know when it has been achieved?”

If not based upon his prompts, then is women’s equality branded a success, when all women are equal to the most powerful man, or when the uber-alpha-female (say Scout) is equal to the most powerful man (who would that be – Gates, Bush, or someone a little more Marxist like Putin perhaps)? Is it that the most disadvantaged women must equal average men? Or is it dependant on each individual woman grasping equality from her current male partner? If that fails, divorce?

Do you then consider yourself entitled to a promotion if you come across a “better” specimen (and how do you measure that?), or demotion when you’re again single but older. If like most women, you like to marry up, do you place clear expectation upon yourself to improve to his level, or do you prefer to bring him down a notch or two. Is it perhaps more of a compromise – you meet half way?
Posted by Seeker, Wednesday, 23 August 2006 10:07:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I will know that I am "equal" when I am judged according to my ability, my talents and my character rather than by my gender. Sometimes and to some people - both male and female - this is not an issue, I am a person first and a woman second. With others, I am a woman first, last and always, and as such when I act, speak or argue in certain ways they find me particularly difficult to deal with, because they have a rigid view of how women "ought" to think and behave.
By any objective measure, women are more often restricted because of their gender than men are. In general, we earn less than you do, own less than you do, retire on less than you do - even though we live longer than you do - fill fewer positions of power than you do - despite performing better at school and uni than you do - more of us are poor than you are, and less of us are mega rich. It is too convenient to dismiss this as somehow natural or all our own fault. I'm not blaming men for this, by the way, not individual men, anyway, just the way society has been unfairly constituted for a very long time. But it is surely only reasonable to ask you to recognise the very real discrimination that still exists, and it is deeply unreasonable to complain about the great steps towards a fairer society that have occurred and want women to remain second class members of society, not only for evermore, but without complaint!
Posted by ena, Thursday, 24 August 2006 8:15:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Having watched the discussion turn into somewhat of a grudge match i felt compelled to add the following comments to my previous post....

I'm a professional male and I work with alot of professional females. In fact more females are graduating from bachelor degrees and into professional jobs than males currently (this is not a 'made up' fact). While within the professional world some male dominated bastions still exist, this is becoming increasingly rare. Put simply the mighty dollar is dictating that the best people get the best positions- no mnc with a bottom line cares about the sex of a person anymore. I cant help but feel some of the posts from females are from uni students with no real world experience or baby boomers who cant really pass judgement on women of generation y.

Before typing this post I asked a number of females what they thought. To them pay wasnt an issue- if they got less than males they would simply go to a job where they got the same (the market place allows them to do this). Some said they worked harder than some guys to prove their ability, but this was fine because it benefitted them in the long run anyway.

My point is that the smart women are out in the work force actually making corporations and businesses stand up and take notice. These women are doing more for future geberations than the Greer's ever did- they are proving their ability and skill rather than whinging and burning bras! 100 years ago women were forced to stay at home in corsets by males. Now the Greer's of this world are telling women to stop wearing skirts and makeup and to never be mothers/ wives. What is the difference?
Posted by wre, Thursday, 24 August 2006 8:30:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Un-noticed work that men do for women? Personal therapist, emotional counseller and punching bag, psychological analyst, issue and insecurity molifier. Men who try to make things better by being involved and engaged would happily go from captain free therapist to $250hr shrink.

Just finished interior painting for a female relative... without monetary pay. Maybe l should send out an invoice for $3k, just to keep your scorecard mentality squared up. But... money wasnt the reason l did it. Love and personal responsibility were. Feels good doing things for loved ones. A smile, hug, kiss ... warm fuzzy feelings that dont come from balancing ledgers. Sigh, some people are all about the money, keeping scorecards...

Evidence of pretending... cherry-pick a few words speaking only to that, dismiss entire discussion by distortion and misrepresentation. Find something that can be twisted for sake of personal attack. Crediting others with your own opinions, like defensiveness, then claiming respondents have to defend your projected assumptions (woman-hater). Come on, we've been thru this stuff already. It’s a charade. Where can l send batteries for your now over-worked irunee metre.

Favourite tactics... distract, flip the script, ad-hominem, chase-thy-tail, tire everyone out to evade full, frank, reasonable, concilliation, with a view to PROGRESS. Claim to want improvement whilst thwarting it at every turn when not complying fully to your un-yeilding agenda. Make little effort to construct your own concepts and ideas, instead cherry-pick the fodder of your trickery. You are sowing the seeds of your own disrespect, based on overtly willfull lack of credibility.

Its just easier to walk away from these people and march to the beat of own drum. Seems that many men and women have been doing this lately. Maybe it has something to do with the accusations of 'commitment phobia' and the constant complaint 'that all the good ones are either taken or they're gay.'

Do you realise how far ahead of the curve many men are in terms of actually living equality? While listening to the self-proclaimed champions of equality deny reciprocation. You cannot even manage mere verbal admission nor compromise. Its tiring.
Posted by trade215, Thursday, 24 August 2006 4:08:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Your problem is not your isolation," I was told. "Your problem is your husband, he oppresses you." Erin Pizzey.

Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." (radical feminist leader Sheila Cronan).

Intriguingly some decades after these statements were made women are now complaining that they cannot find a partner! Or that they remain dateless and childless.


Blyth persuasively argues that today’s media bombards American women—the most prosperous, healthiest, well-educated and privileged group of people ever—with constant messages of unhappiness and victimization. And that these effectively crafted messages also push and promote a liberal political agenda that the Spin Sisters themselves share. ‘Spin sisters’

Welcome to boogeyman feminism even Pru Goward resorts to this tactic. Reading mags like Marie Claire and one gets exposed to 'how hard life is' and how women must be on their guard less they loose the hard fought freedoms and women still have a long way to go.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 24 August 2006 4:54:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whoa!

See what happens when you go away for a few days - as soon as your back is turned, they have a mini-war on OLO. It's not fair. I missed all the fun. Oh well, better luck next time.

Anyway as some previous poster noted - feminism certainly ISN'T passé. And that's the truth. So therefore, the remainder of the article's title "because it worked" is clearly rubbish too.

Bad luck for me. I missed out this time. But it is fascinating to note that there's plenty of people to take up the cause for you when you're not there. Excellent. Feminism is definitely on the skids, as demonstrated by the dialogue on this page, because simply, it just didn't work.

Yo! LOL.
Posted by Maximus, Thursday, 24 August 2006 5:08:58 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think you might have a slightly inflated idea of the world wide impact of the debates on OLO, if you think this indicates anything other than a few diehards with rather old fashioned views about the way women and men should relate to each other.
Glad someone finally gave me a list of the un-noticed work men do, mind you, i might notice if you re-painted a wall, and be suitably grateful too.
The emotional punching bag thing is also reciprocal, of course, at least in a healthy relationship. In my 30 year marriage ( some of you blokes will be astonished to learn that a guy could live with a wicked, nasty, emasculating feminist like me for so long - he claims to rather like me, even after all this time, bless his heart) I have supported my husband emotionally through hard times and he has done the same for me, we have also painted a number of houses together - him doing the big walls and me doing the fiddly bits, skirting boards, edges etc. We are pretty equal, that is why our marriage has survived, I think. He even changes the toilet roll, but he still doesn't know the name of the kid's dentist - we're working on it.
Posted by ena, Thursday, 24 August 2006 5:25:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
the pity of this discussion is that its turned into a primary school discussion on whether boys are better than girls.
Posted by wre, Thursday, 24 August 2006 5:31:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You are completely correct wre. But, whilst they play that game, I'm more than happy to oblige.

And ena, congratulations on your marriage. I have one too. But you're ahead of me by about 3 years, and to paraphrase your words - some of you girls will be astonished to learn that a chick could live with a wicked, nasty, patriarchal sexist like me for so long - she claims to rather like me, even after all this time, bless her little parts.

And BTW - dentists? I don't even know the name of MY dentist. Trivia like that just isn't worth concerning one's self about. Only a woman would worry about rubbish like that - but I do know the name of my wheel-aligner and that's a very much more important matter.

One day the message will get across. Some things are women's business and some things are men's business. That's just one small insignificant point that shows that men and women are different and will never be equal. And they don't have to be. Everybody is unequal, different and individual. We are all beautifully unique - but some of us are more beautifully unique than some others. FIGJAM.
Posted by Maximus, Thursday, 24 August 2006 6:17:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Have you ever noticed that lot of feminists have a servere inferiority complex.They are so aggressive and very defensive about their fundamentalist turf,much like our fundi Muslims who defend the supression of women in the name of religion.

Why do so many of these fundi feminists go out of their way to look butch and ugly?Are they trying to deny basic human urges to be liked and accepted by their sexual peers?In trying to be different by rejecting conventional modes of behaviour,they are merely conforming to their own insular biased view of the world,that has not withstood the test of survival for their species.

The extreme feminists are a bitter,sad and lonely lot,too blinded by narrow ideals to appreciate what they've got,since like many males in our society also,have lost the discipline,manners and humility of our past generations.

Feminists like Muslims are too easily baited,since deep down they have serious doubts about the validity of their arguments and cling to the dogma of the "oppressed" to justify aggression.

Perhaps they need to invent "The Feminazi God" that cannot be questioned or derided and then they could appeal to the anti-religious vilification legislation to stop us analysising them.
Posted by Arjay, Thursday, 24 August 2006 10:17:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
And I guess you are not being remotely abusive or aggressive in your post Arjay?
Ever heard of the pot calling the kettle black?
I'm a feminist and as such, I am far too civilised and sensible to call you names, but may I suggest you remove the mote from your own eye before criticising anyone elses?
Posted by ena, Friday, 25 August 2006 9:02:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Radical feminists - such as Andrea Dworkin, for example - do the rest of us a bad name with their wild statements. But to some extent, you NEED people going off the deep end and taking an argument to the extreme to be able to find a good point where most people are happy.

And truly, surely even the most fervent anti-feminism people here would not wish away the ability of their wives/ sisters/ daughters/ etc to vote and own property and enter higher education and the professions and generally be respected as full people?

Surely the distaste generally found around here for the second-class citizen status that women have in many parts of Africa and the Middle East is based on a recognition that allowing equal legal and social status for women is a fairer system and one that on balance is much better for men and women both?

I think it is, and I am glad to have been born and grown up in an era where my life options are limited by my tastes and skills, not by my sex.
Posted by Laurie, Friday, 25 August 2006 12:04:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hey Ladies!

Want equality? Take up scuba diving. I regularly go diving and I've found the dive boat to be a mini utopia of gender equality and mutual respect. Why is this? It's probably got something to do with the fact that safe diving is about personal responsibility and teamwork. Not being competitive helps too but everyone gets along and no one blames the other for their weaknesses. Diving science is hard science and no one questions it because it works and all want it to progress for the benefit of all.

I've also noticed that most diver ladies have boyfriends and husbands.

I know women in the dog and horse showing world were the exact opposite is true, little responisibility is taken, histrionics and tantrums reign supreme. Few boyfriends too. A potential boyfriend will come on the scene only to disappear weeks later and they all say the same thing to her, 'its not you it's me'. The typical line for breaking up with losers.

I've known feminists, my mother was one, regrets it now. I also knew Pearlie Brown in the late 70s early 80s. Big aussie feminist from that time. Used our house for storing her propaganda from her feminist bookshop. I read it, nasty stuff.
Posted by CARNIFEX, Saturday, 26 August 2006 7:33:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Laurie;

"And truly, surely even the most fervent anti-feminism people here would not wish away the ability of their wives/ sisters/ daughters/ etc to vote and own property and enter higher education and the professions and generally be respected as full people?"

I have yet to see anti-feminist's support your above assertion.

Such statements are emotive manipulation of the boogeyman feminism type. Designed to introduce 'red-herrings' into the debate.

It is interesting that when men start trying to raise genuine concerns about feminism, arguements about 'loosing the right to vote', 'education' etc, for women start being used.

If you have bothered to reading the links I have added and the books I have referred too. You will see that the claims you make do not exist. There may be a very small number radicals somewhere who may play with such ideas.

Feminism built it's house of cards on alot of emotional rethoric and enormous amount of male bashing
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 26 August 2006 8:35:36 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Online Opiners,

I agree with Vivienne's article, that 'feminism is passe because it worked'.

I would add, if someone hasn't already, a observation made by Garry Trudeau in the Doonesbury cartoon a few months back.

Observing in the U.S. the same modern disdain for 'feminism', one of his characters states that just as the feminists of the sixties, seventies and eighties did not describe themselves as 'suffragettes' or some other name from earlier activists for women's rights, so too do modern female activists hesitate to use the word 'feminist' to describe their struggles for fairness for women.

Cheers,

Tomess,
Brisbane
Posted by Tomess, Sunday, 27 August 2006 10:20:51 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tomess

I am wondering if you actually read the article. Are you saying that the word 'feminism' is passe because of negative connotations or that the struggle for equality is over.

If the latter, I have wonder what you make of the imbalance between men and women in positions of power, women's status in third world countries and, closer to home, the abuse any discussion of women's equality brings from an embittered male minority?

I think we still have a long way to go before both sexes throw off the shackles of the superficial roles we are supposed to play. One of the positives that feminism has brought about is that men are now questioning their place in the world and limitations as sole bread winner and what is perceived as 'manly' behaviour.

Sure, 'feminism' has become a reactionary word for some people, however the goal remains:

Liberty, Equality, Humanity!
Posted by Scout, Sunday, 27 August 2006 12:39:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Actually Tomess, the term feminism was first coined around the same time as the suffrage movement. If you look at the online etymology dictionary ( http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=feminine ) it says:

"Feminism is from 1851, but meant at first "state of being feminine;" sense of "advocacy of women's rights" is 1895. Feminist is 1894, from Fr. féministe (1872)."

Second wave feminists didn't call themselves suffragists because the suffrage movement was primarily about votes for women. As second wave feminists weren't fighting for votes for women it wouldn't really be appropriate to identify with that term.
Posted by Anna_, Sunday, 27 August 2006 2:11:01 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I only skimmed through some of the numerous posts here, so forgive me if you brought this up already, but I believe the writer of the article is either incredibly naive or incredibly heartless.

Feminism has worked? By God, it hasn't even begun yet!

Do you people not consider women in non-western societies, particularly Muslim ones, where women are truly a second class species?

In Pakistan this week there is a debate going on about repealing the disgustingly barbaric Islamic law that a woman raped must produce four male witnesses and if she can't she is imprisoned, possibly even stoned to death.

I am yet to hear western feminists even comment? The way I have seen this issue develop, and I have followed it closely, is that western feminists altered their core values sometime in the 70's, where they subscribed to the irrational leftist dogma that non-whites have no agency.

In other words, they became racists who use political correctness as a cover for racist cultures who still mutilate women's genitals, commit honour killings, and generally treat women like animals.

You don't understand? Racists, yes. A racist is someone who thinks lesser of other cultures, to not be concerned about the goings on in say, Iran, for women.

Oh, there are real feminists hard at work in these nations, but they are usually ignored by the western ones, who adhere to the laughable notion of cultural relativsm.

It is incredibly ignorant to say feminism worked when in reality, it has only worked in the enlightened world, that of European cultures.

For the rest of the planet, women are suffering forced marriages, mutilations, sick notions of sexual repression by incestual males (extremely common in Afghanistan according to NGO's, and likely other Muslim nations too) and yet, here, from the comfort of this forum, people are discussing how it worked!

The world is bigger than the cultures of Europe you know...
Posted by Benjamin, Sunday, 27 August 2006 2:52:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Benjamin,

I think it's a tad unfair to say that western feminists have ignored the problems of those countries where women are treated as you mentioned (i.e. fgm, rape laws, being treated as property etc.) It was actually feminist organisations in the US, like NOW, the Feminist Majority and other organisations that prevented the Taliban being considered a legitimate government by the Clinton Administration when the US wanted to run an oil pipeline through the country. That's one example of many, for example campaigning against sweatshop labour, human trafficking etc.

I think where there is some hesitation to get involved is the opposite of your statement that "they subscribed to the irrational leftist dogma that non-whites have no agency." From my understanding, western feminists don't want to take the paternalistic route and railroad over the work already being done in specific counries by the women's rights activists who are from there (and certainly have agency) and subscribe more to the approach of working together with them in already set up NGOs etc. I don't think there's much cultural relativism going on though and I don't know where you got that idea from. Culture should never be an excuse to violate human rights.

And as far as rape goes, our own laws are far from perfect (though of course far better than those in countries like Pakistan and Iran). Here, the victims are still put on trial, accused of wanting to be gang raped because they were enjoying their first kiss (as was the case with Tegan Wagner) and only about 10 percent of reported rapes end up in any kind of conviction (and that's only out of the 10-30 percent that are reported and 17 percent of those that end up in court).--These figures are from a report put out by the NSW Attorney General's rape taskforce that was set up in 2004- I think the report can be found on the AGs website).
Posted by Anna_, Sunday, 27 August 2006 6:17:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"I think we still have a long way to go before both sexes throw off the shackles of the superficial roles we are supposed to play. One of the positives that feminism has brought about is that men are now questioning their place in the world and limitations as sole bread winner and what is perceived as 'manly' behaviour."

One area that tends to be ignored is that the behaviour of women have an enormous influence on the behaviour of men.

"If women only had sex with men who walked on their hands. Pretty soon almost half the world would be walking on their hands!" I can not remember who wrote this.

Esther Vilar in her book "The Manipulated Man" writes

"Women let men work for them, think for them and take on their responsibilities - in fact, they exploit them.

Since men are strong, intelligent and imaginative, while women are weak, unimaginative and stupid, why isn't it men who exploit women?"
http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/vilar.html

Such is the slaves happiness.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 28 August 2006 8:49:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Benjamin

Clearly while you were, skimming this thread you missed my post of 18th August, therefore I include a link to it below.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4781#52109

Here is an excerpt from the above link:

”In Colombia women who speak out for their rights face intimidation, violence and even death from armed groups on both sides of the country’s long-running internal conflict. Government security forces and their paramilitary allies have labelled women community leaders, activists and human rights defenders as guerrilla collaborators and legitimate targets in the counter-insurgency war.……... Rape, mutilation and abuse of women and girls have been used as weapons of war to generate fear and to silence campaigns for social, economic and political rights.
http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/stories-1-eng

Uganda:
“Women’s bodies have actually become battle grounds, not only to … the rebels who are fighting government, but … even the government soldiers are violating women, and targeting their sexuality… the violation is all about destroying … the inbuilt strength of a woman to build a community, so both warring factions are targeting the woman’s body to make sure that they destroy that community through this woman.”
http://web.amnesty.org/actforwomen/Ruth_Ochineg-eng


A women's rights activist struggles to publicize the persecution of women in post-Taliban Afghanistan, where fundamentalist pressures are returning and the burqa is back.
http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1328

……..

WOMEN’S RIGHTS ARE STILL FEW AND THOSE FEW ARE LIMITED TO WESTERN WOMEN.”

I should not need to point out that conditions for women in 3rd world countries are not just issues for feminists – they are about Human Rights. This means men as well as women need to work together for equality. Since I made this post not one MALE has commented, apart from you. Instead the female posters, including myself, have been subjected to mockery and abuse.

I politely suggest, that in future, Benjamin, you do not merely skim, but take the time to read all posts. Blaming women is a nasty game that needs to stop – you claim to be concerned about women’s rights well, then start with yourself and your attitudes to all women be they western or from 3rd world countries.
Posted by Scout, Monday, 28 August 2006 12:20:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, you were not subjcted to mockery or abuse that I can recall, but, you were subjected to objective argument. Argument that presented cases and referrences in dispute of the pro-feminist arguments presented here.

The only abuse I can recall came from Anna.

If you have perceived the postings here as mockery and abuse, then there's little point in entering comments. If you believe that those who don't agree with your stance are personally persecuting you, then you're incorrect - it's your opinions which are subject to argument, not yourself. How can there be any debate, with such an attitude?

Feminists have been getting away with unsubstantiated ranting for so long now, without argument, that they now perceive disputation of their information as a personal attack. I'm sure you're a beautiful and wonderful person, I wish you no ill, but I'm not going to sit quietly by, while I hear the same old feminist rubbish and spin regurgitated as facts that must be believed, because it's feminist gospel.

Being pro-feminist doesn't give anyone the right to assume their beliefs are beyond dispute.

For example, the "facts" that you present above - twice - are from extremely dubious sources - Amnesty is a well recognised feminist propaganda mouthpiece and so is women's-e-news. They don't tell anyone the whole truth, they push pro-feminist spin.

Now, to the point - women in third world countries might have it bad, but the men there get it far worse - men don't get raped, they get maimed and murdered and in far greater numbers than women. And that happens even in Australia too! Check the latest ABS Personal Safety Survey.

When feminists begin to adopt human attitudes toward men and boys in society then they might begin to earn men's respect. But in the meantime, many of us, both men and women, have had a gutfull of their belly-aching, lies and deceit.
Posted by Maximus, Monday, 28 August 2006 3:12:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I was watching the news one night and in between the coverage which was either about rape or domestic violence, the female news reader announced that 10 men had been killed in Iraq.

She reported in a very matter of fact manner, almost like discussing live stock being killed. Somehow the lives of 10 men mattered very little when compared to rape or domestic violence.

Author of 'Heterophobia' Daphne Patai writes that men have become the universal scapegoat and feminists show no tolerance towards those who dare question or heaven forbid challange their authority.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 28 August 2006 9:34:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi James, how are you going?

Talking about that sort of feminist sex-biased reporting, I was taken-aback whilst watching SBS news one evening. The news reader -

Lee Lin Chin
http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/anchors.php#leelin

- reported the following, regarding a disturbance in the Middle East...

"Blah, blah, blah, a disturbance, blah, blah, blah, one woman was killed and another person."

Another person!

Think about it. What other kinds of persons are there besides women?

Yes, women are women, girls are girls, but boys and men are "persons" or at best, non-persons - "males". Anything to dehumanise the situation where men are involved as victims. They don't like talking about men unless of course it's derrogatory, such as, "A MAN was arrested and charged today, blah, blah, blah..." And they emphasise it.

Also, when it's a woman in the wrong, they'll give her cover in the story by using a generic title like, "A teacher was arrested and charged today, etc..."

And that sort of sex-biased reporting is in the news every day.
Posted by Maximus, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 12:21:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Maximus, how are you?

Having studied feminism and the claims often made by feminists and women in general. Many of the claims such as equal rights etc, are little more than a trojan horse to cover up "bullying behaviour."

http://www.angryharry.com/estrojanhorsesoffeminism.htm
http://www.newswithviews.com/Roberts/carey104.htm

Rereading Daphne Patai's book "heterophobia" she asks the question why would heterosexual women support many of the claims made by lesbian feminists and the attack on heterosexuality. The only possible explaination as to why heterosexual women did not object is that they wanted to join the lesbians in bullying men.

Pure and simple it is about bullying and that is why any discussion about feminism not along party lines is to be condemmed and derided. Labeling such men as women haters etc.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 3:44:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hi Ladies,

I just ran this forum through a nifty little thing called the "regenderator". Or at least that's what I called it. It gives a little insight into what it would be like with gender roles (and all attitudes within) reversed. Give it a go for a bit of distraction from the woman-baiting this forum has spiralled into:

http://regender.com/swap/http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4781

Some highlights:

"I work at resort who's main customers are men. Many of whom were also educated in this time. Masculism has bit them on the bum. Angry and bitter and craving the company of women who will not go anywhere near them. Some were associates of Germs, what a fruit bat he was!"

"The claims of masculist “progress” are nothing more than deluded. Masculism was never about anyone other than men themselves, and as such, has failed to recognise that everyone outside it, has made even better progress."

"Men now seldom have the option of working or staying home with
the children, they are now *forced* into the workforce whether they
like it or not."

"I'll believe masculism is irrelevant when I can walk down the street without being hassled by women, when my appearance isn't considered more important than my character or what I do…and when the beauty ideal for men excludes anorexia and cocaine abuse to keep weight down and when the male equivalent in attractiveness and age of Bertha Nellie is allowed on national television."

"Why do so many of these fundi masculists go out of their way to look butch and ugly?Are they trying to deny basic human urges to be liked and accepted by their sexual peers?"

"In Pakistan this week there is a debate going on about repealing the disgustingly barbaric Islamic law that a man raped must produce four female witnesses and if he can't he is imprisoned, possibly even stoned to death."

"When masculists begin to adopt human attitudes toward women and girls in society then they might begin to earn women's respect. But in the meantime, many of us…have had a gutfull of their belly-aching, lies and deceit."
Posted by Anna_, Tuesday, 29 August 2006 11:39:03 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"What I learned so far from this and other experiences in that context is that it does no good to tell women who put themselves upon a pedestal that they are wrong. In the eyes of such a woman no lesser mortal has the right to tell her that she did something that is not right, not even objectively and without being critical. It will make her feel bad and produce nothing but her wrath. Given that she has the perception of being in an elevated position, she will have the illusion that she has absolute immunity and can therefore pee on lesser mortals without making a great effort in doing so.

We can talk all we want about the differences between absolute and relative realities, the truth is that we must live with the harsh reality (an extremely subjective one) that many women's illusions can and will be used as the justification for causing other people and especially men a lot of pain. Don't be surprised that when women inflict pain they will be made to feel good, and that often they will inflict pain on others for no other reason than to revel in that. Many women have the perception that it is their right to be made to feel good, and that anything that causes them to feel bad is a transgression against them that is felt by all women. It took me almost 70 years of my life to learn that, and I am still far from understanding most of it."
http://www.fathersforlife.org/News_now.htm
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 6:23:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Clearly, real manly men have a lot to be afraid of. Look what can happen if a woman gets a job - the house work isn't done! The entire fabric of society will unravel! The end of the world is nigh! If only women could be dutiful towards their men, then maybe the human race can survive, maybe.

"Guys: a word of advice. Marry pretty women or ugly ones. Short ones or tall ones. Blondes or brunettes. Just, whatever you do, don't marry a woman with a career.".............Michael Noer, news editor of the online version of Forbes magazine has found that women who undertake paid employment are more likely to fall out of love with their husbands, to be unfaithful, to have fewer children and to be unhappy about staying at home with said children, and - as career women spend 1.9 fewer hours every week wielding a mop and duster than their non-career-driven counterparts - "Even your house will be dirtier."

............it must therefore be conceded that career women - who have self-evidently chosen to dilute their concentration on the home - do indeed make bad wives. Or rather, they make bad Doris Days........"

Read on at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/gender/story/0,,1860221,00.html

It is most unfair of the little darlings (god bless 'em) to want the same rights as manly men, when manly men can't cope with a job AND domestic chores as well. Its all a bit much really, now girls, back to the kitchen with you - he'll be home soon and expects dinner on the table, a clean house and children that are out of sight.
Posted by Scout, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 7:07:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout "when manly men can't cope with a job AND domestic chores as well." - damn, there goes my masculinity again :(.

It might help that the housework is not always as up to date as it could be - no obvious signs of me being a neat freak.

I'd like to see a statement on just which changes some of those opposed to feminism would like to see rolled back in our society.
- Those who blame working women for increases in house prices - should women be forced to leave work when they get married?
- Others who are concerned about statements by extremist feminists - which laws reflect those views and how can we do things better?

In my own case I'd like to see a clearer stand by feminists against areas where women seem to have an unreasonable advantage. Treatment in the broad area of family law is a biggy for me. I've acknowledged the good work done by Patricia Pearson on the misrepresentation of female violence elsewhere so I am aware that some feminists are already doing this.

I have concerns about affirmative action, some female friends have mentioned being approached to take on team leader roles primarily because of their gender. It's insulting to them and unfair to male co-workers.

On the whole I think we still have a way to go, more so in the shift of community attitudes than in law. There are still to many on both sides who think gender should influence how people are treated.

The kind of feminism which I support seeks a society where each of us has available to us a range of choice which is the result our ability rather than our gender.

The same goes for the kind of mens rights that I support, where my treatment as a parent is based on my parenting not on stereotypes of men.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 8:23:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Gents, I just can't get over how unfair you are being.

In the halycon days of the 1950s
1. married women were not able to work in high paid employment - there was always factory and shop work
2. women earned 2/3 of the male wage, irrespective of whether they were widows, or had an invalid husband
3. women could not get a mortgage unless a male went guarantor
4. divorce was not acceptable so there were some very unhappy families living together because mum and dad couldn't part company
5. women were economically dependent on men, irrespective of thether the man was capable, incompetent, fair or mean and violent.

Truthfully gents, now that we use machines to do the heavy grunt work, many jobs can be performed just as capably by women so men who don't make the grade just get discarded.

Its often said that young men are poor judges of a woman's character. Time and time again you hear mother's complain that their son has fallen for the facade a young woman is projecting and being quite surprised when her true mettle shines through.
Posted by billie, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 8:44:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From Maximus and James' comments up above it seems that they might need a little patriarchy overthrow of their own, considering men have it so bad at the hands of other men. What do you think guys? You with us?
Posted by Anna_, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 11:34:14 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Barbara Leckie in her research paper 'Girls, Bullying Behaviours and Peer Relationships identified a number of factors in the bullying behaviour of girls.

"socially sophisticated strategies of aggression whereby the perpetrator can inflict harm on a target without being identified
(Bjorqvist, 1994, p179)".

some types of bullying behaviour included, spreading rumors, telling bad/false stories, writing nasty notes etc.

Other researchers found that girls quickly adapted the use of technology such text messaging, the internet such as websites and chat rooms in which to carry out their bullying.

In the end Thomas Ellis is right when he wrote "It's women who do not get it!"
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 30 August 2006 4:40:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antonio Gramsci would be so happy to know just how far we’ve come.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2006/08/25/schwarzeneggers-miscreant-moms/
Posted by Seeker, Friday, 1 September 2006 8:59:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So isn't it a good thing that the feminist cause has largely succeeded? Why remain militant and belligerent when the need for such attitudes is long past. The way I see it, some of these Gen-X women want to keep up the fight just so they can feel relevant and useful. They fear that they and their glorious cause will be forgotten if they do not make some noise. I think they are selfish for doing this. But such attitudes are not confined to the realm of feminism alone. History is littered with the ignoble exploits of revolutionaries who just won't let go of their tired and irrelevant causes. Look for example at Mao Tse Tung and his ill-conceived Cultural Revolution. It is the rare freedom-fighter/revolutionary who is able to lay down his/her arms and enjoy the hard-won peace. Personally, I admire Gen-X feminists for the strides they have made but think little of their ability to adapt to a new reality, especially one have helped to carve out.
Posted by bentan, Thursday, 7 September 2006 2:47:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sorry, I'm not done yet: Some of these people mentioned in the article who lambaste other women for sporting a "vacant smile" and selling their sexuality seem to have taken over the role of men in putting women into a mould of their own liking. They do not seem to understand the meaning of basic human freedoms. If Paris Hilton wants to be a bimbo what business is it of theirs? Heck, there are guys with good looks and no brains as well. That's what I call equality and freedom: the right to be what you choose to be without having to pay homage to someone else's cause or agenda.

By the way, I found this forum while Googling for Germaine Greer. And I just heard of this person because of the very callous remarks she made about the late Steve Irwin. A very shameful and disrespectful person who cares nothing about the sensibilities of the bereaved family. Sad that she would campaign so ardently for the rights of women but fail to realize she is losing her grip on what it means to be a human being. Some people are just so blind.
Posted by bentan, Thursday, 7 September 2006 3:13:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"women make up 70 percent of the world's poor and it will take women about another 150 years to receive equal pay." Posted by Anna_, Monday, 21 August 2006 11:56:45 PM

"During my life I've traveled far and wide, visiting some of the most poverty-stricken regions of the world. And I've never seen anything that resembles a sex-based imbalance of poverty.

Indeed, a 2000 document from the UN Economic and Social Council had to admit, "Despite observations on the 'feminization of poverty,' for example, the methodologies for measuring poverty among women respective to men are still inadequate."

The Feminization of Poverty?
Carey Roberts

http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2006/1004roberts.html

"Fuchs went on to note, "between 1979 and 1984 poverty rates rose for both men and women, but they rose relatively more rapidly for men." So according to Dr. Fuchs, the real crisis was the masculinization, not feminization, of poverty."

"A few years ago sociologist Martha Gimenez sagely observed that the feminization of poverty myth only serves to fuel "conflict between men and women, young and old, and white and nonwhite."

Therein lies the secret of cultural Marxism.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 5 October 2006 6:13:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy