I was another who was not even going to bother - 'till I realised what's going on in this particular thread and, when I looked back, others: people are harking back to an era when the average modern feminist wasn't even born!

Puzzled by the reference to Germaine Greer I looked her up. The woman was born in 1939 !. Helen Garner, whom we are told will tell us what feminism is all about, was born in 1942!

Marilyn French who one contributor keeps trotting out to prove his point, first saw light of day in 1929! Yeah, agree that her quote was pretty off, but: - her daughter had just been raped, and Judges and lawyers were advising her to drop the case because, back then, women who got raped were "asking for it". So, maybe not excusable, but in the context, understandable.

I have also picked up that the many of the people who take the "anti" stand are middle aged or elderly. Some lived through the days when rock n' roll music was said to be inspired by the devil, young girls were told using tampons would rob them of their virginity and smoking was 'cool'.

O.k., I'm sure the feminists of the '60's, 70's and 80's really rocked your boats.But fight fair. If it is legitimate to damn feminists because of old stereotypes, then it would be legitimate to damn men because of old stereotypes. And stereotyping is a large reason these threads become so lengthy: feminists are nasty, hairy, foaming at the mouth, men are uncaring, arrogant and violent. And neither this article nor anything said to the contrary will ever convince anyone differently.

Go to the library; get hold of books that were written by to-days feminists; talk to some of them - more importantly -Listen to some of them; watch interviews; tune in to Triple J even - and then base your arguments in terms of today and not yesterday.

A feminist is...

whatever a feminist says a feminist is.

Yeah, right rom.

l suppose that those who are say christian should discount the word of jesus b/c he was around 2000 yrs ago. Instead take the advice of someone born, hmmm, 20 yrs ago? Or better still, following your logic to its absurdist end, we should wait until a kid can talk and look no further.

You gotta be joking. That logic is so utterly specious it defies sanity.

Not to mention the unpalatable truth that you so astutely hide from...

what we have today is THE LEGACY of the still alive people you tell us to ignore. Concocting these deflections speaks to the depths of your agenda and exposes your disingenuous nature. Its just a way to keep pushing down the same old path laid by the people you tell us to ignore. Its the very thing that gets people's back's up, because you pass yourself of as reasonable, but you are just a liar. The worst kind of half truth advocating liar who believes your own hype.

Shame on you.

You really do defy your own pretentions to scholarly insight. Sheesh, what library do you shop at?

Yeesh, calm down trade, its just an opinion. You seriously want someone to feel ashamed because of their opinion?

Your christian analogy is a little skewed. Maybe christians shouldn't be listening to the words from 2000 years ago, and rather operate the way they feel is right today, as what is right today quite often differs from that 2000 years ago.

Basically you're saying a philosophy must be unchangeable no matter what...that it can't adapt and grow and change with the climate of the current world. Thus, I put it to you that it is in fact YOUR reasoning that is specious.

I'm curious as to what agenda you think Rom is pushing, cause I cant see one. Perhaps you're seeing something that I'm not seeing. Or perhaps you're seeing something that only you can see. Wanna help me out here?

Frank said:
Why am I now confused? I got lost "

Thank you Frank for your perfect example of Helen's point. Your Freudian Slip is SHOWING

Using democratic logical argument, the answer is you would first need to READ the books before becoming "unlost"

Helen was a feminist of the type that used logic to argue equality in tangible issues eg wages [whereas Greer was based upon 4 words "lady, love your c*"], and Helen did a lot of good work to GET equality

In Stone she is blowing whistle on the young feminists who have piggybacked on her work and have gone way over the top [loosly aligned to lady love your c-word] wanting nothing less than total power in the gender/money war, and doing it by throwing logic overboard

Helen is providing evidence in a logical way as to how this is done with the help of a complient govt seeking the feminist vote. We see, inter alia, where after bloke won the famous "Hairy Legged Lesbian case" in the Equal Opportunity Tribunal, Howard obliged by axing the whole Tribunal, and appointing Pru as Sex/Discrimination Commiss

As example of this power grab, we see that the girls seeking power in Stone want the law changed so that next time they can wear whatever provocative clothes [or none at all] to the Xmas party and once in court the man they accuse of molesting them is not allowed to lead any evidence at all regarding such clothing, or lack of

In other words back to the kangaroo court system in Nazi Germany in late 1930s

well Howard has not so far allowed THAT draconian legislation in full but if I had more space I would explain his Final Solution, but the chilling association, in conclusion, is that ALL of his devices are based upon his adoption of the principle used by Nazis:

"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think"
Adolf Hitler

And Frank, you are the perfect example of WHY the Rodent finds every abuse of democracy so dead easy in his Final Solution

I did not think their were too many feminist left. Natasha is now home being a mum and nobody takes Germaine serious anymore. After 50 years of indocrination most women want to be women and men men. Why don't we ask 'what is a maleist? Nothing has changed. Women in non Christian nations are still as oppressed as they ever were and the women of the West enjoy great freedom except in parts of Sydney where multiculturalism has shown itself hostile to women.