Surprisingly I now realise that I am a male post-feminist. I believe in equal rights for all people, that everyone should have enough to eat and a roof over their head etc. My problem is basically I cannot envisage anyone begrudging a fellow human being these rights. It may be that I am more compassionate than most because I am an identical twin, who shares the physiology but not the psycology of my twin. As hard as he is, I am soft, and so on like to sides of a coin we will never agree.

Anyone who champions unequal rights, that people should starve, not have shelter, discrimination, not only do I not agree with them I can't imagine how it is that they reach those conclusions, to me they are living in another dimension of reality to the one that I occupy. Today's society in Australia seems to be based on greed and selfishness the fact that last year our overseas debt was 75 billion dollars would confirm that, we used to have an Australian identity, of helping your mates [male or female] wasn't important, wasn't charged for, we were simply a humanitarian country. I believe we still are deep down. However since consumerism was inherited it has festered like an infected wound to our identity, sometimes I wish we as a society could return to the 60's however my dear departed old Dad would say "pee in one hand mate, and wish in the other, and see which one gets filled first" even these Aussie expressions have been hijacked

Cireena Simcox makes some excellent points about the complex nature of feminism. I agree with the general sentiment she conveys; but I think her article could have been stronger in two respects.

First, it is simplistic to argue, as she does, that the reasons for the inflammatory rhetoric against feminists and feminisim "could probably be ascribed mainly to complete misunderstanding or indeed widespread ignorance". While I agree that misunderstanding and ignorance are very common, in my opinion it is more important to acknowledge that a lot of the hostility stems from the threat to men whose positions of power and relative privilege would require 'adjustment' if feminist principles were enacted in practice. If power - and all that accompanies it - is to be shared more equally, the more power some women gain, the more power some men lose. That's an uncomfortable scenario for many men to contemplate, so they rationalise their fear in the rhetoric of 'hairy armpits' or 'naturalistic' assertions about female characteristics.

Second, in attempting to correct the limited definition of feminism, I think Cireena Simcox is in danger of muddying the concept - "a feminist is anyone who thinks that every person - regardless of gender, age or ethnicity - has the right to follow their own dreams". If you're going to include age and ethnicity, why not race, religion, socio-economic status (class) and all the other indicators of inequalities?

In its earlier forms, feminists tended to focus too narrowly on the rights and opportunities of a narrow stratum of women; and it is right and proper that they now see the important connections between gender and other determinants of inequality. But in essence, feminism remains an issue about gender equality (for males and females).

I can tell you what a feminist is not, it's not Germaine Greer, or those like her.

They are racists (I'll explain why in a moment) who have simply hijacked the debate, and use it to attack white males - who have given them more rights than any coloured man ever has.

They are racists because, from the early '70's onwards, they adopted post-colonialist, multiculturalist, policy, which skewered their reasoning, and made them argue points such as female genital mutilation is acceptable in certain African and Muslim cultures.

Germaine Greer herself is on record stating that FGM is alright for Muslim women.

This is racism, since she would never allow such barbarity to occur to her, her daughters, or those she cares about.

They are simply protecting misoginists in Muslim nations when they say this, but what it really says is that women from such cultures aren't as important to them as women from the west.

A feminist should be one that cares for women, full stop. Not just women who are white.

Thanks for a great read. There's a number of people on this forum who I hope pay close attention to this article, as the term is far too often thrown around and misused without a proper understanding of the meaning.

I speak of all extremes:
* Conservatives (generally males) who say "but duh, men and women are different! And women have babies so they should stay home!"
* grrl power advocates who think feminism means the right to wear tinsy skirts, and
* angry confused tomboys who think feminism means blaming men for everything wrong in the world.

Maybe its more difficult to grasp for some people, and this is where the confusion comes from, but to me it's quite simple: feminism means the right for both males and females to live their lives and pursue their dreams how they choose without being restricted by gender. And if the message in this article gets through to just one person, the author can be proud.

Awsome.

Signed,
A young male who is both a feminist, and still in touch with his own masculinity...

So the author says we should listen to the superficial spin and not drill beneath? That is not likely when feminist academics and bureaucrats are beavering away influencing youth and politicians. For instance, it matters to mothers that boys may be treated as defective girls in school.

There are core beliefs of Western feminism that are nutty and nasty and reflect the lesbian, Marxist academics who tout them. Mind you, they are less forthcoming in public about their beliefs, such as their desired State control of our daily lives.

Many women are offended by the ad hominem arguments of modern feminists: men, boys and masculinity are guilty of all sorts of awful things, conspiring against women to hold them in servitude. What a load of tosh! Radical and gender feminists have taken anti-male bias to breathtaking limits.

Feminism is a political movement. It is fine to argue when it suits that feminism is a broad church and maybe one should just accept the extremists, but the central tenets are usually the same and some have nasty connotations for society, with nothing viable offered in return, other than the belief that socialism will fix all things.

Rather than admonish people for criticising feminism, we should be encouraging frank and fearless debate of Western feminist philosophy and its goals and strategies. Who gains from secrecy and lack of scrutiny?

The author has been a journalist for twenty years and she would have encountered politicians and other ‘knobs’ who are wont to say ‘Never you mind’ and ‘Trust me’. She would have seen them act miffed and offended to avoid uncomfortable questions. Why then should we accept the same behaviour from feminists who claim to represent women’s interests? If it is all good and clean why not let it hang out on the line for all to see?

With the greatest respect to the author, this article reminds me of the (late) Joh Bjelke Peterson 'feeding the chooks'.

Cireena Simcox says this: “Issues such as the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendments Bill in America illuminate how little headway feminism has made as a political force in recent years.” And she then pears the victory off, with this: “For this reason modern feminists (sometimes rather confusingly referred to as post-feminists) both male and female, have returned more to their humanist roots than their political ones.’

And then she says:

“Today a feminist in the social context is simply a person, once again male or female, who is concerned about injustice and the rights of those who are under-represented such as certain groups of women, minority and ethnic groups, those living under oppressive regimes and children.”

And then proceeds to split the ‘Rights’ logic by saying: “Although the movement has spawned off-shoots both more and less political, more and less radical and more and less visible, post-modern feminism most certainly is not about hating men, envying men or wanting equality with men.”; but only if they are less equal in their rights.

Simcox follows on with Marxologist perspectives (the Material Dialectic):

A feminist is not a woman with hairy armpits and a chip on her shoulder. For those with no wish to plough through hundreds of books detailing the convoluted history of the movement until the present day: a feminist is anyone who thinks that every person - regardless of gender, age or ethnicity - has the right to follow their own dreams.'

Cont’d: