The “successful integration” mentioned here in relation to an Andrew Robb comment is in direct opposition to our ridiculous multicultural policy. Further proof that the people supposed to be running this country do not know what they are talking about as they blunder along, dictated to by minorities.

The author also misuses the term “racism” in relation to religion. We should not be listening to people who do no even know their own language.

Further, discussion of feminism, sexism and anything gender based is passé. The author needs to find a new interest.

On your contribution Leigh (1st cab off the rank):

Quote: "[O]ur ridiculous multicultural policy [is] further proof that the people supposed to be running this country do not know what they are talking about as they blunder along, dictated to by minorities." Sounds like you'd prefer the government was dictated to by your sort of minority.

Quote: "The author also misuses the term 'racism' in relation to religion. We should not be listening to people who do no even know their own language." Sounds like you'd prefer your own form of racism. And even your own brand of English.

Quote: "Further, discussion of feminism, sexism and anything gender based is passé. The author needs to find a new interest." Sounds like you're not interested in this topic. Why can't others be interested?

Another bloody post on the problems being caused by Muslims. If only all Australian pollies had the guts to do a Jack Straw. This carry-on is perfect textbook multiculti. It is also why Australians have given it the big thumbs-down. It is time to tell these people that covering up your face is bloody rude, and that refusing to shake hands is also bloody rude. Both might be fine for the sand-dunes of 8th century Arabia, but they have NO place in 21st century Australia. There is nothing more un-Australian than the way these people carry on.

So can we all please stop wasting so much time dissecting them and start TELLING them to shape up or ship out.

Power is an interesting concept and this article brought Luke's theory of a third dimension of power to mind. Lukes argues that consensus is seen to exist if no grievances are identified and therefore no interests are at stake. When a person can see no alternative to a situation that they are in, or if they perceive that the situation is "natural and unchangeable, or because they value it as divinely ordained and beneficial", this is the dominant and most subtle exercise of power. People's priorities and consciousness are shaped by it. The assumption that a lack of grievance is a measure of consensus, is to ignore the possibility of manipulation.

Another feminist academic dinosaur attempting to rationalise the obvious inconsistencies in radical feminist thought.

Cannold's article is full of holes and I suspect that the problem is that the author allows her own attitudes to undermine her critical faculties.

Yet for all of that turgid feminist posturing and patronising name-calling, I get the distinct feeling that Cannold's heart really isn't in it any more.

The tribal wisdom of the Dakota Indians, passed on from one generation to the next, says that when you discover that you are riding a dead horse, the best strategy is to dismount. Ms Cannold, you could take that advice.

Oh, well said Lainie; and cornflower too

I too am an anti-consensorist. Particularly when consensus is enforced by propaganda, the media, or worse no FIO.

What I have detected about this multicultural feminist article is that it is mono-genderous, mono-political, and embraces gender-apartheid.

Did anyone notice?

I bet this article represents either the GFN world view, or probably more likely, the new world order of Feminocracy.

Anyone agree?