There are "good feminists" who work for equality or fairness, and there are "bad feminists" who are interested in hurting men and giving women unfair advantages.

These Bad Feminists are nasty people... so we have started calling them "Feminasties" ...

Our campaign needs a word that captures the essence of who we are fighting against. We need a rhetoric word, a slogan...

Nasty Feminists -> Feminasties!
=-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-==-=-=-=-=-
1: Feminasty says exactly what we want it to say... Nasty, offensive, vindictive, mean, dangerous, hateful...

2: Feminasty is NOT anti-woman... Women are vitally important to our movement. They are 50% of the population, and 30% of Fathers4Equality! Few women will be offended by this term.

3: Feminasty separates the 'good feminists', from the 'bad feminists'. Few people these days call themselves 'feminists'. But most of us support the ideas of equality and fairness... the ideals that feminism originally supported.

But the nasty, man-haters also call themselves 'feminists' too. Feminasty separates the 'good feminists', from the 'bad feminists'. (see the end for a good definition of the different "flavours" of feminism by Akiva)

4: Feminasty is a word that everybody will instantly understand once they hear it. It is a word that can bee used in press releases and in the media, in conversation and in speeches... It will take off!

5: Many men and kids have been hurt by women... but the opposite happens too... there are bitches and there are bastards... The problem is the system, the Feminist Court, the C$A, Divorce Industry etc etc... It is the system that we need to fix up... there is no point in getting angry about individual women, or women in general... Feminasty is not anti-woman.

5: Most importantly, Feminasty has a sense of humour!

We can make this happen!
We've created a new word... New words are invented every day..

James ADAMS (PartTimeParent)

The problem with advertising is that it relies on stereotypes of both sexes, because stereotypes get their points across quicker. The current issue of New Internationalist sums it up pretty well when it states that "we know by now that advertising often turns people into objects. Women's bodies-and men's bodies too these days- are dismembered, packaged and used to sell everything from chainsaws to chewing gum, champagne to shampoo. Self-image is deeply affected. The self-esteem of girls plummets as they reach adolescence partly because they cannot possibly escape the message that their bodies are objects, and imperfect objects at that. Boys learn that masculinity requires a kind of ruthlessness, even brutality".

As someone else pointed out though, it does depend on your definition of negative portrayals. Take the 'Lynx Jet' ads for instance. Do they constitute a negative portrayal of women, because they show women as sexual objects that exist solely for the gratification of men, or is it a negative portrayal of men because it shows them as boorish, sex-crazed morons? Personally, I believe such ads are degrading to both sexes. Unfortunately though, Lynx sales went through the roof immediately after the ad campaign, so it really does pay off for companies to produce this crap.

I agree with the author’s point that it is bad that magazines such as cosmo and cleo now have male centrefolds. I don't think it is empowering for women to be able to sexually objectify men in the same way that they sexually objectify us (Playboy, Hustler, Ralph, FHM, Zoo, the list goes on). Ideally, it would be nice if neither gender sexually objectified the other. Sadly enough though, when you voice such opinions, you get labelled as a prude or as 'anti-sex' by both men and women alike.

'Take your mind back I don't know when, sometime when it always seemed
To be just us and them'

And so it goes...Joe Jackson.

I am pleased to see that there is a formalised debate about the feminisation of the world. I reckon the 'Feminasties' are supported by the 'ferilisation of everything' mob. Where i come from we call these the GFN, because they seem not only to follow nazi progroms, they are also gay. Hence GFN.

So, there is a mindset out there which is exploitative of mens existance. Amazingly, these seem to hang around the bureaucracy. Why? Because they want it. The figures of women employed in peak NGO's is comparitively low, whilst wage offers are staggering. And yet the GFN is bent on power. And we all know how that corrupts dont we? So whilst men went out in to the world and built all that is on offer, a new movement wants to castrate the erector.

So, the ferilisation of everything really translates in to an imminant 'Feminocracy'. A Feminised or Feminist leadership. So (depending on your gender realisation) if you think things are bad enough now, just you wait.

On the issue of portrayal of men and women in magazines.

Female sportspeople are always decrying the lack of coverage of women's sport, but I have never heard of a 'women's magazine' ever having a sports section. The main time that sportswomen are mentioned in those magazines are in relation to marriage, childbirth or fashion. If women want to have their sporting achievements read about, then maybe they should start pressuring the sisterhood.

Meanwhile while men seem to be portrayed as idiots and bumbling fools in the media (Does 'No Idea' magazine still have a 'mere male' page?) anyone looking a little deeper will see that men's magazines don't have horoscopes. The inclusion of these in women's magazines portray women as superstitious and irrational. The number of ads for 'psychic' con artists is also a major worry when considering the place of women in society.

And if men really wanted to look at pictures of scantily clad women they would be better off skipping FHM and its ilk and buy Cosmopolitan and Cleo, that are full of these images, and they could have a good laugh as well by reading the 'sex advice' columns that seem to thrive in these worthy publications. Not to mention, (well I will mention) the place of 'diets' in these magazines. When are women going to wake up to the simple fact that weight loss is a factor of food intake and exercise? Men find this self evident. Why do women seem so stupid in this regard?

At least men are portrayed as fools openly, whilst women show their foolishness by the very nature of women's magazines.

Myrna Blythe

SPIN SISTERS

"They think all women should agree with them because they are so very sure they know what’s good for you—even better than you may know yourself!

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' is an interesting book to read and after reading it, the media stories will never be the same. The best cure for depression is not anti-depressants! It's throwing women's magazines in the garbage bin.

Some of you may have seen the comment "but then males have always been the level headed logical ones..thankfully for women the world over" made in what was probably a tongue in cheek manner on another thread. I think the author of the comment was having a dig at herself after an overreaction to a comment by another poster. My comments here are not having a go at the poster but rather a reflection on the thinking that the post sparked for me in relation to this topic.

I've seen similar comments posted on OLO previously (I can't find the reference) and if memory serves me correctly by a poster who most definately does not believe it.

The comment is in someway typical of the stereotypes that have a fairly low profile. Assumptions that it is all to easy to not challenge, maybe rarely said out loud but which we use to interpret our world. Similar to some of the portrayals of men being discussed in the article. After a while these things get taken for granted regardless of how poorly they fit individuals.

They get taken for granted by both genders. In the case of the quote I mentioned earlier some women use that as a license act less responsibly and some men use it as a license to not take women seriously. Portrayal of men as second rate parents allows people to ignore a family law system that in one way or another gives the vast majority of post divorce parenting to mothers regardless of the actual skills of either parent. Portrayal of DV as a male thing leaves women thinking what they do is not DV and allows counselors, police and others to ignore female initiated female violence. Assumptions about male violence allow people to ignore the reality that most males are not child abusers.

We need to stop and examine those assumptions sometime and ask how real they are and if they have some reality how much of that is because they are self full filling, people acting as they believe they are.

R0bert