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 > What is happening to women? > Comments

What is happening to women? : Comments

By Mary Bryant, published 7/3/2007

What has happened to our liberation, freedom and to the role of women in our society?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
What a wonderful article from Mary Bryant. The author succinctly clarified the myriad of issues affecting all women and particularly young women in our society. And the author is right on when she identifies a lack of hope for young women underlying all these issues. When we no longer offer young women hope for a decent and better world we deny our selves the same hope. Women every where need to start talking about these issues, writing letters and working together to improve this society and bring back the concept hope through action.
Posted by Billy C, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 10:05:28 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
Mary Bryant, well done. The article is certainly salutary and thought-provoking. But, more than that, it gave sound advice on what must be done.

Your list of actions is practical and can be taken up by ordinary people - with the will. We can and we must

- stop watching shows that degrade women;
- stop buying magazines that promote women as non-thinking skinny things;
- stop voting for leaders who show no commitment to civil liberties and equality;
- stop accepting violence and women’s position as status quo.
- write letters when advertising exploits women;
- talk about how to make parties safe for young women; how to oppose work practices that discriminate against women and how to ensure that women enjoy the same civil liberties as their male counterparts.

I find your action list inspiring.

One other thing we can and must do: stop propping up institutions that treat women as inferior beings - like the Church you work for.
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:02:03 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
One of the most lethal condition many women suffer is lack of Empowerment. Not understanding their own potentials leaves them with a winning formula of 'playing the victim',thus perpetuating this mindset for generations.

Our young women do indeed need we older ones to guide them through life, imparting our 'wisdom's, in whatever way we are able to.

A few years ago at a Doctors surgery, sitting near the table with a stack of magazines on it, I took the opportunity to show my then 10 yr old daugther the difference between a standard women's magazine and a Time magazine as far as topics and advertising is concerned. Needless to say, she was astounded to learn how women's magazines typically dumb women down , by making them focuss on less important things.

The sooner our young sisters understand that Women's Lib, was never truly about women's liberation, the sooner they will make the right choices and become contributors of substance to our sisterhood in helping others gain strength through empowement.
Posted by cyanide, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:14:51 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
I think that Mary Bryant has hit the nail on the head with many of her observations relating to the problems that females face. I would venture to say that so many of these acts of violence against females could be attributed to the laisse faire attitude prevalent in schools where discipline cannot be enforced adequately for fear of retribution. It's certainly not enforced in many homes, so this nascent attitude is carried over into adulthood because self discipline has never been taught at school and "outcomes" (whatever that means)are the priority.
Drugs and alcohol (the latter being more destuctive) are freely available and are considered "adult" without the education that should be provided in its control. What a wonderful world it would be if the users of these substances were properly shown the results and consequences of their addiction before they started. We would have few assaults and the hospitals would have so much more money available for alternative medical therapies. The prisons would empty and perhaps we wouldn't have to lock everything up. We lived this way 50 years ago when respect for others was taught at the end of a cane or ruler.........but of course this is now regarded as "assault" and the poor little treasures would carry a malaise into later life. It was quick, solved the problem and did not have lasting effects. I had experience of those ways and and can catagorically say that I am glad of it. In many ways they were happier times.
Posted by snake, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:45:47 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
Many of the suggestions Mary makes are good but maybe we would make more progress by stopping the generisation of issues which impact across the gender divide.

I can hear the critics screaming that Mary writes about women and that I should write my own article if I want mens issues addressed. What I am seeking is a removal of a focus on gender when it is not the issue. We should should oppose all non-consentual violence regardless of the gender of the victim and perpetrator, we should stop watching shows and doing business with advertisers who provide use gender messages in a way that does harm (anybody still have an account with the bank that thinks violence is an appropriate response to bad manners?).

Some issues primarily impact on women or men, those should be addressed on a gender basis, the rest should be addressed as human/social issues and addressed as such.

A focus just on women for issues that impact across genders reduces the impact of the message.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:20:58 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
A listing the problems of being a women.
Is that not the problem. We compartmentalise as women and men, we use hierarchal dominance as excuse for control. Men can be nasty---yes!
The main issue highlighted is sex and its surrogate the body as issue.
Have we a prejudice that makes sex so different from the rest of living. Yes.
But then sexual hormones are in ways not completely understood impatient drivers of activity, particularly for the younger and for those who substitute sex for satisfactions their life does not provide.
So sex is a religious thing, unlike say sport or learning? Special subject to double standards and all the ploys the human mind can use.
Women sexually abuse but less frequently than men. Women exploit their bodies (advertise) but so do men. Men are sexually demanding but is the hormonal urge greater? A girl loses virginity and she is a slut. Men suffer little penalty relevant to their age. Young men brag about scoring, do girls?
Men by custom, inadequate concern for human beings, by pay and position exploit women.
Why?
Surely this is the complaint.
If sex is not regarded as sin but as part of living with dangers like most other activities, were taught as part of life would things be better
continued
Posted by untutored mind, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 12:25:44 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
As usual the women here talk more and say less.
Men are fundamentally different to woman. This
difference causes them to hate women. It is
this hatred of women that women have to fear.
Protect yourself with a gun because he hates you.
Posted by Mercy, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 3:33:43 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
First let me state that men can be called sluts just as easily as women in fact I often say that men are sluts. Why use the term sluts only for women there’s no law against using the term for men is there? The competition that exists between women causes some of them to call other women sluts out of jealously. The sisters should take some of the responsibility for this slur directed at women. Stop directing it at the women and start directing it at the men.

Men have a different reason for wanting to put women into two categories. Men have no way of knowing who there children are. Hence they want to marry a virgin to make sure of paternity. On the other hand they want the non virgins so they can have sex on the side.

So girls stop all the silly romantic nonsense about love and relationships and play the game the way the men do. That is put all women who can take it on the pill and let them have safe sex with any man who they fancy as long as they are willing to pay for it.
Stop playing the virgin game that the men want you to play for their benefit. They’ll soon have a rethink when they realize that they will never be able to sire children their whole lifetime. If any woman does wish to have a child maybe it could be done through artificial insemination or sleeping with a lot of men so none of them ever know their own children.

Don’t get romantically attached to one man when you can have as many as you like without ever being left holding the baby if they decide to piss off with a younger one when the responsibility of children gets too much for them.

Women often turn on other women out of competition and jealously and this stops them seeing that they have to make a united stand against the men to even things up.
Posted by sharkfin, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 5:20:14 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 have absolutely zero faith that women will be able to stop buying trash magazines or watching crap like Desperate Housewives. You're your own worst enemy.
Posted by strayan, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 5:27:24 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
Pt.I Women and Slaves
One of the most revealing aspects of Athenian society
was the similarity of the positions of women and slaves:
a considerable number of references and symbols connect
the two categories. The legal term for wife was damar, a
word derived from a root meaning "to subdue" or "to tame."
...Like a slave, a woman had virtually no protection under
the law except insofar as she was the property of a man.
She was in fact, not a person under the law....

Some Classicists argue that the ancient Athenians were mild
masters to their slaves, thus echoing Aristotle, who wrote
of the "customary gentleness of the Athenian people." Such
evidence as we have, however, suggests that slavery was
more unmitigated in Athens than in many other ancient societies.
A telling detail of their customs was the use of an object
called a "gulp preventer" (pausikape), a wooden collar
closing the jaws, which was placed on slaves who handled food
to keep them from eating it....

Sexually, as in all other ways, slaves were at the mercy of
their owners. In fact, we will see that slaves, whether owned
by public and private brothels or by individuals, provided
men's habitual sex outlets, a circumstance which in itself
must have generated an equation of sex with domination.

Eva Keuls, The Reign of the Phallus.
Posted by Hawaiilawyer, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 5:37:50 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
Pt.II The Image of the Conqueror

The charter of the sword -- what better one is there?

As the miltary aristocracy of western Europe extended its lordship
outwards in the eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth centuries, its
members created not only conquest states and colonial societies,
but also representations of themselves and their enterprises. These
images of conqueror and conquest are enshrined in the histories and
charters that their clerical brothers and cousins drew up... Written
memorials of this kind...elaborate a terminology and rhetoric of expansionary violence.

Mythic motifs recur: the first coming of the conquerors; the figure of the heroic military pioneer, perhaps a
poor knight or noble, who took the gamble of foreign conquest; the superhuman exploits of the new men.
What emerges from such records is the self-image of the conqueror.

The conqueror was a man with a special set of drives, certain patterns
of emotion. Those classic image-makers, the early chroniclers of the
Norman conquest in southern Italy..., do not ascribe Norman success to
numbers or to technical advantages, but to a series of psychological
characteristics...they had mental qualities that gave them an edge.
First was their energy (strenuitas). This is a theme particularly
prominent in the pages of Malaterra, who writes of the energy of
the Hauteville clan, the leaders of the Norman enterprise; of
Norman chiefs who are "energetic in arms"; of men who "obtained
the favour of all through their energy"; of a pre-battle harangue
in which the Normans are urged "be mindful of the much praised
energy of our ancestors and our race, which we have maintained
unto the present"...Robert Guiscard's invasion of
the Byzantine mainland in l08l showed his "great daring and knightly energy."

As well as being vigorous, the Normans are courageous, the "toughest
of soldiers"...

Part of the change was towards a new cruelty, brutality and blood-
thirstiness, for savagery was as imporant a part of the image as
vigour and valour...To the local Lombard princes they
seemed "a savage, barbarous and horrible race of inhuman disposition."
It was an image that was...cultivated....

Robert Bartlett, The Making of Europe.
Posted by Hawaiilawyer, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 5:59:36 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
Scandinavia has tried but exploitation of women for a market exists, but relations as human beings? Common parlance promptly labels the behaviour deviant promiscuous degrading. So to nudity a matter of plain interest to the young is classed as sin, not as acceptance and wonder. Do young women also have interest in discovery of another’s body?
Sure society is hard on women, and other group that by allowance reductional training can be classed as different, inferior.
So start realising from young children on that empathy is more useful than religious prejudice or male dominance. Co Operation might aid in less violence if poverty was alleviated and the status that goes with such. If frustration, common to us all not only sexually was taught as such and methods of coping learnt, no not just sexual frustration, after all if masturbation was not still taboo but taught as alternative and acceptable this frustration might be reduced, we all might be able to live more peaceably. Still seeking goals but recognising the right of others
No I am not balming women but maybe subscribing to the idea that gender is socially made sex is biological. Perverting social behaviour towards a belief has its own penalties. In human behaviour hormones count, sublimation is possible with penalty, male or female guilt ispwoerfuland cruel.
Posted by untutored mind, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 6:11:37 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
Hawaiilawyer: “ The image of the conqueror”

It was ever thus and still is. All over the world the would be male conquerors are still among us. Some call them revolutionaries some call them freedom fighters. Some are called warlords. Some are already world leaders. They are always there ready to rise up and take control if they feel they must for whatever reason.

They always regard women as part of the territorial prize as every male species on the planet does. This is the way they have been wired by nature, evolution, whatever.
It doesn’t change. When war comes man’s true nature comes out from behind the mask of polite society.

Womens liberation is fighting a losing battle if they think they can ever permanently change basic male instinct.

The one thing that has allowed women to gain a lot of ground is the fact that they fought for and won the vote and the male politicians have had to give them things they wanted to win elections

Without democracy there would be no womens liberation at all
Posted by sharkfin, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 8:28:19 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
Oh dear what a dreary article.

"There was a wave of feminism that rolled from the 60s and into the 80s that gave birth to the hope that violence would be reduced,"

So what went wrong with feminism's grand plan to reduce violence?

Firstly since Erin Pizzey opened the door the first refuge, the definition for domestic violence has been expanded to the point that almost any sort of human (male) behaviour can be classified as domestic violence.

Just perhaps violence is not as simple as the feminist model would have us believe and this has inhibited any real change in the levels of violence, except for one problem, murder rates in Australia and the US have been decreasing since at least the 1970's.

Interestingly the author comments on Women's magazines and the role they play. Myrna Blythe wrote the 'Spin Sisters' which is about how the editors of female magazines sell unhapiness to the women of America. Considering most of these magazines like Marie Claire are global this applies to other countries like Australia as well.

However like the editors of these magazines the author focuses on negativity, designed to create anxiety and fear.

It is predicted that the number of female billionaires and millionaires will outnumber males in I think the next 15 to 20 years. Mostly this will occur because they outlive their partners.

So while many women's super may not be as big as some men's, for women who remained married they will experience a nice windfall.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 8:46:17 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 feel so sad that so many men feel the need to vent their anger and express their inadequacy on OLO. Let me assure the author that there are many men who are not like the twisted tragics and antagonistic aggressors who feature on this forum.

Perhaps the intelligent men are ashamed to be seen in the company of the misogynists who inhabit OLO.
Posted by FrankGol, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 10:45:29 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
This article may be “dreary” but so are the lives of our youth.

I doubt the statistics given reflect the actual facts. No mention was made for example, of anal sex which is practiced by 12 -14 year olds as a passport to acceptance, a preventative against AIDS and STD’s and a way to preserve virginity.

Party games like “Rainbows” spread from porno movies; footie club rituals like “Soggy Sao” are passed down as rites of passage; ancient wisdom such as “No really means yes” “Men don’t cry” and “Give ‘em an inch an’ they’ll take a mile” are learned at backyard barbies; messages such as “Never trust a woman” and “Men are only out for one thing” get passed on by bitter and disillusioned parents, while the cult of violence is lauded by a society who passively accepts that might is right.

Our suicide rates for young men under 25 are the highest in the world, while the combined number of male/female suicide rates for the same age group exceeds the number of traffic fatalities. Yet while our road death toll is constantly referred to as “horrific” our suicide rates attract little attention.

Potentially fatal illnesses are referred to as “disorders” (as in eating disorders) despite the fact that any illness causing the same number of deaths would be categorized as pandemic. (compare for example the number of deaths through bird flu in Australia to the number of deaths from eating disorders).

I stood beside a woman in a supermarket one day who was complaining to her friend about the younger generation. She thanked God her own middle-class, Christian family who practiced old-fashioned values had produced two level-headed teenagers.

Yet two years before I had fetched her vomit-covered 14 year old from a suburban (parentally supervised) party where she had lost her virginity in public up against the back fence.

Maybe our own complacency is as big a threat to our children as anything else that is “out there”.

Many older Australians think kids are going to the dogs. Do they ever wonder who drove them there?
Posted by Romany, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 11:08:52 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
Leadership at Community levels is an extremely critical issue for women, especially in isolated rural areas - (such as) where I live, here in Cape York.

With my eye on the Mayorship - I tell you the battle has been against regional foul play, over previous years.

Unless there are safe-guards, outright support for women, woman in leadship will always be victim to all forms of abuse, and many leave.

a) Structural Systemic abuse is the worst. Silo-gangs being reproduced by visiting officals, who accommodate the views of a selected few (mostly men), make things extremely difficult.

The risk to "speak out" and even to report this level of "crime" over the years, has been phenomenal.

No department listens because it is not their problem.

Legal Aid is too far away and costly, without local mediation supports.

Professional Women (who ought to know better) can be (themselves) the worst offenders.

b) It takes a mighty effort to cut through the culture of violence and especially when you are like myself.... strong, critical, but against fighting violence with more violence.

c) Defamation, Vilification and Scape-goating is tolerated (by many) out of fear, as on-lookers become fearfully scared.

Without transparency, it is difficult for anyone to understand the causal elements, hence it is difficult for concerned locals themselves, to comprehend.

Apathy breeds more apathy in this climate.

4) While I have struggled through many local campaigns, in the end, it is about leadership.

To expose specific issues alone, is risky, and without more support...... things often remain consealed, because .... the reprecussions of exposure can be distruptive, impacting on the entire community... should the way it is handled, back-fire.

However, things at a local level, are improving.

With the Beattie Government allocating 3 Million Dollars today toward a Multi-Purpose Event Centre, I believe social cohesion within the region, will improve.

Our Council CEO Mr Mark Pitt has made a real difference to our local agenda, meaning, where there is some opportunity to communicate, there is also reason to press on.

Good leaders, no matter who they lobby for, are priceless!

http://www.miacat.com/
Posted by miacat, Thursday, 8 March 2007 12:10:52 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
"Our suicide rates for young men under 25 are the highest in the world, while the combined number of male/female suicide rates for the same age group exceeds the number of traffic fatalities."

So what is causing this?

I have had discussions with two people who have worked in the coroners office and the thing which surprises me is they talk about the number of men 60+ who commit suicide.

90% of men in a group I had the privilege to listen too, admitted to have thoughts about driving their cars into trees.

So something is very badly wrong.

The author of this article uses three elements, sex, violence and money in a similar fashion to the editors of women's magazines. The very magazines she criticises.

For example a magazine can have two different spins on the same subject and in the same edition, one may be 'how to be hot in bed' and the other 'how to tell if you have been sexually abused.'

Daphne Patai uses the term 'inflammatory annalogies' as a technique used to manipulate our brains. Many people prefer not to think, but to respond emotively much like the lynch mob hysteria.

A decade ago I would not have agreed with what I am about to write.

My hypothesis is that our society has been so busy removing bounderies, that children raised without bounderies have failed to learn what acceptable and unacceptable behaviour is and subsequently as restrictions have been removed we start to get the 'Lord of the Flies' situation.

Oh Romany,

To my knowledge there has not been a single death in Australia attributed to the 'bird flu'.

No I am not saying that eating disorders are not a problem, because they are. However having listened and read there is an element missing which does not lend itself to being used as a political tool.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 8 March 2007 6:55:58 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
Frank... that little barb at the end of your post mentioning the list and then the 'CHURCH' is the problem.. mate.. c'mon.. that was below the belt and was also not correct.

The Biblical view of women is one of 'complementary' not inferior in the sense you mean. Is there a structure in family ? Yes indeedy there is. Christ, the man, the woman, the Children.

Can women in the Biblical picture achieve high social positions ? Yep you betta believe it. Deborah was a Judge and leader of Israel in the midst of the Patriarchal period.

Can women be leaders in the Church ? yes and no. They have many roles which involve leadership, but probably more connected with women than men. Do we need to apologize for this? No. Take it up with the Almighty when you meet.

Relative positions of males and females in society should reflect our complementary natures. Anyone doubting this should consult my favorite anthropological article 'Steel Axes for Stone Age Australians' to see just how bad things get when male/female roles/identities are stuffed up by quaint ideas of a 'progressive' nature. For the Tribe concerned it meant decimation and virtual extinction. But hey.. how can this be ? afterall.. it was "just" a steel axe.......

COMBATIVE.. notice how most of the list of things to do is 'combative'- "fight" this.."dont" do that. "Stop" doing such and such. It seems to me that its all 'symptom dancing' and not getting to the heart of the problem.
A fractured relationship with God, is the starting point. If thats wrong, everything is wrong. Specially our view, and treatment of, the opposite sex.

FRANK.. when ur ready to join me in a protest at some service station peddling woman objectifying pornography as though it was nothing, we will be on the same page, and we can stand together against this.
Imagine.. 100 men at a servo, signs, banners, "NO TO PORN" current affair there.. wow.. that would be a rush.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Thursday, 8 March 2007 7:09:02 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
The author wants girls to enjoy the same civil liberties as their male counterparts. So who says the lot of the boys is enviable?

What planet does she come from that she is so unaware that the same problems confront boys and girls. Is she really sure that girls are the only victims and if not, why the sin of omission?

The article compartmentalises and allocates victim status to one gender.

All this article 'proves' is that the Jesuits are as hung up on sex as feminists. But most people were already aware of that. People are also aware that fear and sex are used by priests to gain control over people.

Would the Jesuits like a return to the fifties where young women wore veils and carried beads to church only to be denounced as archetypal Eves?

It lowers the credibility of authors and respondents alike who cannot discuss social issues, in this case child development, without making it an issue of gender
Posted by Cornflower, Thursday, 8 March 2007 10:04:51 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
Mary wrote "we can work together to talk about how to make parties safe for young women; how to oppose work practices that discriminate against women and how to ensure that women enjoy the same civil liberties as their male counterparts."

I think as men the first step we need to take on such one sided female interests only article is to accept the obvious. It is written by a women for women. Time and again its seen that what is wanted, which usually a favourable bias towards women against men policy, is not supported by verifiable facts in balanced context. The result an unfair outcome and the results are all around us in government, court and work. This article just another general call out to women to focus on the stated areas, while the areas where they have unfair advantage is protected and kept out of public discussion.

There is nothing stopping women working together in creating and managing a money making commercial product enterprise and sharing out that money among themselves as they see fit. Higher superannuation%, wage higher than market rates ect. Problem arises when they attack the public/industry purse.

I think we should ensure that these imbalanced views have no influence in politics, government and court. These entities must see the whole dynamic problem in its entirety and to treat all of us the same, ie genderless humans. Violence, sure but men get the same protection. Right to have a meaningful parentchild relationship after parent separation, sure just the same. And a system where any such bias have strong statue laws to counter it including easy public process to address judges, politicians and police etc.

So that leaves us men as a group. Yep, like women there is no reason why we cannot act as a group work ourselves to make a society that helps us be happier under the same above context.

Sam
Ps~ take for examply wa overhauling 'child sexual abuse' services which is male dominant. http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Child-protection-overhauled-in-WA/2007/03/07/1173166790335.html
First question is why not just 'child abuse' which will include psychological abuse which is female dominant...
Posted by Sam said, Thursday, 8 March 2007 10:41:22 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
"Jesuite Social Justice Centre" now there's an oxymoron if ever I heard one. While the author is concerned about the horrible western values that are influencing her daughter she works for an organisation, the Catholic Church, that is directly causing the deaths if millions of women in developing countries because of it's policy on condom use. Gimme a break.

But to the article. It strikes me that many of the indicators used are applicable to both girls and boys. Some of the stats the author quotes are alarming until we remember that, for example with respect to assault for example, there has been a concerted push to bring these crimes into the public by reporting those that, in the past, may have been unreported. Still a lot more work needs to be done to reduce all assaults and voilence; levels of reporting notwithstanding.

We need income equity but isn't the lower super payout reflecting the time that women leave the workforce to raise children too? Perhaps instead of (or as well as) a baby bonus the government could make a direct contribution to a mother's superannuation account.

It's easy to scare ourselves silly by highlighting the negatives in the current culture. Sure there has always been a Twiggy/Paris around and probably a Peyton Place/Desperate Housewives but I think that mose girls (even if they are watching thse shows) have the ability to discriminate between them and real life. YouTube is probably more incidious. By the way, Rainbow parties, to the extent that they exist, were first mentioned in a work of fiction.

I'm aware that I'm playing down the author's shrill message. There is a lot to be done in society so that both sexes can live less potentially damaged lives; and girls and women still get the short straw.
Posted by PeterJH, Thursday, 8 March 2007 10:48:44 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
Yes, look what it's become.

The chance to prove yourselves flushed down the dunny.

And only yourselves to blame in the end.

It's very sad and I see the results everyday at my workplace which caters mainly for women.

Why not see for yourself your own degradation in attempt to become 'empowered'.

Go to 'youtube' and search for 'vagina monologues'.

Moving images of america's finest reducing themselves to a bodypart, obsessed with the 'c' word.

Watch them, ordinary women and a few celebrities degrade themselves, think that they're a minority well follow the money...

Search on Wikipedia....

Some of the artists involved in the play.
Kate Winslet, Cate Blanchette, Jane Fonda, Alanis Morrisette,

Am I supposed to respect these women?

Apparently presidential hopeful Hilary regards the original author of these plays, Eve Ensler as a friend. Look out america!

Watch these videos, is it any wonder that young girls behave the way they do, is this what feminism offers?

Is this the best it can do?
Posted by CARNIFEX, Thursday, 8 March 2007 1:40:41 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
David,

I'm not the least concerned with the Biblical view of women or the names of a couple of women in high status positions in that period. I'm talking about 2007 and beyond.

Nice choice of word, though - 'complementary'. Sounds like a euphemism for inferior to me.

As for the inferior but proper role you ascribe to women in the contemporary Church - and the suggestion that I 'take it up with the Almighty when you meet' - that sounds like a cosy position for men to take. (What if she turns out to be a woman?) And it's the sort of rationale that has been trotted out to keep women and other underlings in their proper inferior position through the centuries.
Posted by FrankGol, Thursday, 8 March 2007 1:42:39 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
I am compelled to respond to the post concerning Vagina Monologues and contribute a different opinion to that above.

As an actor I was honoured to have been cast in this production and, as a playwright, respected the opportunity to add my own biographical monologue to the show. My involvement with the show was a literal life-changing experience.

I was mobbed at the stage door after performances by hundreds of people, many in tears, who wanted to thank not only me, but the entire production cast for this show.

I followed up with some of these people afterwards and found that I was not the only one whose life was changed because of the show.

Even my own strictly calvinist Scottish godmother of 84 had tears in her eyes the night she came to the show. She told me I had won her respect and admiration as never before for being a part of it. (More important, to me, than losing the respect of the anonymous person above.)

If it is degenerate in actors to have brought hope to many who had lost it, to give respect back to those who had thought it gone, to inspire and empathise, and to show and share courage then yep, I'm a pretty degenerate person. But proud to be ranked alongside Fonda, Morrisette, Blanchett and Winslet - brave, strong women all.

To have watched the show and have no better critical comment than outrage at the use of the coyly termed "c word" suggests to me an unpleasantly prurient motivation . It also aptly illustrates the fact that the whole point of the "c word" segment was obviously lost on the above poster.

(And talking about not getting the point?

Oh James,

the fact that, despite the fear, hysteria and publicity no deaths from bird flu have ever been recorded in Australia while deaths from eating disorders are common WAS the point of that particular sentance.)
Posted by Romany, Thursday, 8 March 2007 7:54:42 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 most many guys (myself included) accept as axiomatic the concept of equal opportunity. At the same time our experiences have led us to the conclusion that the institutional reality is one of "us vs. them".

In any battle of that kind, I stand of the side of guys. If you give me a gender inclusive cause that I can vote for however - be it equal opportunity or a "fair go model" I'll support that. If a local mixed school is to become a girls school... well sorry, no way.

So my suggestions are

- We need a gender inclusive model/concept/ideology

- Marketing images (for both men and women) need to be
examined. There is no harm in regulating these
more tightly, ie it's revenue neutral to the advertisers

(and... no advertising during childrens TV. Definitely)

- The web... s##t. Dunno on that one. Lets improve our
cultural and philosophical education.. and see if that
helps indirectly.
Posted by WhiteWombat, Thursday, 8 March 2007 9:13:52 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
So Romany you post under two separate idenities?

As for the mortality rate for anorexia as near as I can figure this equates to about 10 females per year (AIHW). This pandemic equals the total number of suicides for 2 days.

So I guess this makes deaths from anorexia common. Even though you are more likely to get killed by lightening or a snake bite than die from anorexia.

For further criticism of Vagina Monologues see;
http://www.canadiancrc.com/articles/Vagina_Monologues_Rape_Scene_Fox_12FEB02.htm
http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2002/0212.html
http://www.ifeminists.com/introduction/editorials/2000/0803.html
http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2004/0127.html
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 8 March 2007 10:58:27 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
"Two seperate identities"?? Hey, mate, I'm bi-polar - not schitzophrenic.
Posted by Romany, Thursday, 8 March 2007 11:32:28 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 world is going to end!"

Remember those predictions, what about the Y2K bug, it was predicted to cause a whole host of problems which never eventuated.

I think 'Doom Sayers' have been around for a very long time, predicting the end of the world, the end of society, the end of the human race etc.

There is a common tendency in some women's magazines and feminist activists where they continue to predict doom and gloom.

It wasn't that long ago 'Rock and Roll' was blamed for corrupting the youth of that day.

For the first time in recent anglo saxon history the social stigma about being a unmarried mother has been removed. Women can control their fertility.

So the social constraints have been removed, where fear of unwanted pregnancy certainly restricted human behaviour in the past, this is nolonger applicable today. There is more information and knowledge available today than was ever previously available.

Consuming alcohol and getting drunk was once seen as being unlady like behaviour.

The social barriers that feminist fought so hard to destroy are now gone and now they have the hide to ask 'What is happening to women?
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 9 March 2007 9:37:28 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 article "What is happening to women?" by Mary Bryant is a standard/typical feminist tract seeking to portray females as victims and men as perpetrators.

Feminism is not about equality. On the contrary, the aim of feminism, and this article, is to gain advantage (power, control, children, property, income, protection, etc) for females at the expense of men (who are viewed as useful idiot servants, as long as they do as they're told). Feminism is just a rebadged matriarchy.

No matter how much feminists take they will always want more. And playing the victim (card) is one of the chief strategies and tactics used by women to take advantage of the good nature of men, with regard to men's willingness and readiness to provide for and protect women.

We should not be surprised to find feminists in the Jesuits (and other organisations). Feminism is, and feminists are, by nature parasites who seek to infect, invade, affect and seek to control ... because feminism is essentially about female power and control (not equality).

---

Wow 'Mercy' is a true misandrist (man-hating) feminist/matriarch: "As usual the women here talk more and say less. Men are fundamentally different to woman. This difference causes them to hate women. It is this hatred of women that women have to fear. Protect yourself with a gun because he hates you." - Posted by Mercy, Wednesday, 7 March 2007 3:33:43 PM

---

Nice choice of word, though - 'FrankGol'. Sounds like a euphemism for feminism to me.

As for the feminist role you ascribe to men - as servant/slave providers and protectors for women - that sounds like a cosy position for women to take. And it's the sort of rationale that has been trotted out to keep men and other underlings in their proper inferior position through the centuries.
Posted by iwantmydad, Friday, 9 March 2007 1:25:55 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
Bravo Romany you're now associated with this....

From Wikipedia, re the VM...
'In "The Little Coochie Snorcher that Could", a lesbian encounter between a very young woman (13 originally, 16 in revised versions) and a mature woman uses the line: "If it was rape, it was good rape."'

'But proud to be ranked alongside Fonda, Morrisette, Blanchett and inslet - brave, strong women all....'

I did respect them, once upon a time, Alanis impressed me and my fellow security guards (all with penises) when we escorted her to a radio interview. She was charming, down-to-earth but then I saw this....

Alanis re: c**ts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNmkxXxmAX8

So glad you're ranked along side her Romany? Have you ever watched any of your heroines perform this play?

A workmate of mine attends a christian mens group that meets in the Blue Mountains. Up to 2500 men attend and they talk about the need to be good fathers, good providers, good role models and the challenges involved in doing so but without the victimhood. It never makes the papers because it's not sensational enough, it's just white heterosexual men doing what they do best, or worst according to your lot. Perhaps if they talked endlessly about their c**ks or minced lewdly through the city streets then they'd be taken seriously. Another thing that would get them noticed would be to criticize women but they never do.

This is what I imagined feminism to be about, quietly achieving results, earning respect due to meritous actions but no, it's now a victimhood cult, no-one forces women to behave the way Mary describes.

If you ever wonder why young women are becoming what they are then consider this...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W6a8MtoePdk

Garbage like this is performed in 'places of higher learning' throughout the western world. What sort of role models are they? This play is meant to be, among other things about stopping violence against women. Seeing this would anyone take it seriously?

Well you, Mary, Frank and few others may,

Tell us more about your recital Romany, I'd love to hear about it.

Good to see you posting JamesH
Posted by CARNIFEX, Friday, 9 March 2007 3:43:22 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, Carnifex, you would “love to hear” about my, uh "little recital", huh?

Well, I did speak about childhood sexual abuse experiences. And getting expelled from my exclusive boarding school when I reported the priest for doing the same. I also spoke about getting raped at 17. And being sodomised and having cigarettes stomped out on my body.

I mentioned having my children woken up in the night so they could witness their father beating me against walls and telling them that all women are sluts. And other marital anecdotes which would probably offend your sensibilites.

I also spoke about being thrown into an African jail; about trying to escape from a war zone with two dependant children; about hiding and starving and changing our names and running for two years - and being betrayed every step of the way.

But mostly I described life on the bones of our backsides when we got here while providing sanctuary for street boys: - and standing up to their “fences”; and colluding with the police to uncover rackets involving these kids. I spoke about being evicted because of this and being homeless; - but still sitting my first semester exams in Uni, working pro-bono for Mental Health and lecturing at night about male suicide.

I talked of the doco I made about the old men and women Australia casts aside to live in the streets. And living on $160 a week while studying and coping with my sons problems: - but constantly writing articles and plays and being asked for advisory papers by Government on the homeless and the poor. Of being a suicide interventionist; and getting called out in the middle of the night to rescue abandoned kids on urine soaked mattresses.

And much, much more.

I also talked about bringing up my boys to be strong, compassionate and proud to be men. And to believe the world is full of good people.

So tell me, what do you do apart from being judgemental about people you don’t even know? I’d love to hear.
Posted by Romany, Friday, 9 March 2007 8:38:34 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
Romany wrote "So tell me, what do you do apart from being judgemental about people you don’t even know?"

Dont mean to respond for Carnifex, but you life strikes me as amazingly exceptional. I would like to know more and perhaps talk to people whom shared these moments with you. Why, perhaps its because your average Australian is unlikely to experience such.

Not that I dont believe you, its that I have heard such terrible stories from women but on seeking factual verification leads nowhere... and you speaking on male suicide has got me intrigued ("...and lecturing at night about male suicide.") I would like to listen to your them, just a place and date... thanks

Sam
Posted by Sam said, Friday, 9 March 2007 10:02:26 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
Romany also wrote: “…bringing up my boys to be strong, compassionate and proud to be men.”

We sincerely hope they are compassionate enough to forgive you and strong enough to help you control the hypomania they had no choice in enduring. As for being proud to be men, this will take much more than deluded mentoring from their vaginal monologuing mother.
Posted by Seeker, Saturday, 10 March 2007 7:53:27 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
Ty CARNIFEX,

Romany you said that you lectured about male suicide.

I am interested to know what you say and what do you think is the major factor/s contriuiting to suicide.
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 10 March 2007 11:31:42 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
Uh, before we leave the subject of strong, brave, compassionate men: - Hey Seeker - re your post: Nice one, buddy, real nice.
Posted by Romany, Saturday, 10 March 2007 4:41:50 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
Uhmmm, I seek to please; thanks.

But “strong, brave, compassionate men”, have been getting in the way of true equality … we’ll be just fine without them – trust me. We need the compassionate meek to step forward and reassert themselves, before they consider one of your pro bono lectures as their last means of salvation.
Posted by Seeker, Saturday, 10 March 2007 6:43:49 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
What a mess!

If I may make a second shot at contributing - does anybody think that what we are getting today is essentially a "free market" anything-goes, sell-what-you-can model of ethical, moral and sexual behaviour?

Would things be different at all if we didn't have a 'trust the market' view in other aspects of life? Or is this more a problem of 'you want it, you deserve it, you can have it' advertising?
Posted by WhiteWombat, Saturday, 10 March 2007 7:07:59 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
Complacency certainly is the order of the day.

Its the backbone of political correctness.

It makes a great substitute for doing... all this doomy, gloomy talking.

With its incessant infusion of vitriole, insults and angst ridden malaise. Thats the entertaining part. At least there's some levity amongst that end of it.

Thank you internet, for facilitating this yelling into the void.

Anyway, in the spirit of modernist complacency...

... why bother.

Above all, lets keep up this nice little facade that humans arent part of the animal world, we're 'above' that, we are civilised, that we can forget the limitations of our physical selves and can somehow live in some idealised image of our imaginations.

Keep them feet firmly planted in the mud.
Posted by trade215, Saturday, 10 March 2007 8:45:38 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
It has been shown that girls are socially more advanced than boys of a similar age. Not only are girls more socially advanced than boys but they also enter puberty at an earlier age than boys.

"In the 1860s the age of consent was twelve years old. Some people such as Josephine Butler and Barbara Bodichon were concerned that young girls were being sold to brothels. They became involved in the campaign against the white slave trade and in 1875 the House of Commons agreed to raise the age of consent to thirteen."

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

"The age-of-consent campaign relied upon a narrative of seduction in which an older, middle- or upper-class man seduced a young, working-class girl for its appeal to women activists, who viewed low legal ages of consent as evidence of male privilege and female victimization. According to historian Mary Odem, this narrative was not based on reality. Rather, although working-class girls were beginning to form intimate and sometimes sexual relationships with men, their boyfriends were usually young, unmarried, working-class youth, not older men or their employers.[8]"

http://womhist.binghamton.edu/aoc/doc4.htm

I think it was St Augustine who started the "book of sins" and top of the list was to do with sexual behaviour and then we had the famous 'Elizabethen era' of sexual repression.

I am not sure whether societies struggle with human sexuality could be descibed as Bi-polar or Schiziod?
Posted by JamesH, Sunday, 11 March 2007 8:18:50 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
Romany.... if ever there was a perfect description of 'humanity alienated from its Creator' your posts are it. (the events you describe)

The 'pious' woman at the supermarket who's daughter you referred to, is clearly living out of touch, but I would hesitate before using that example to tar all 'Christians' with the same brush.

Your posts tend to strip away all the 'niceness' which we want to believe we are a part of, and you provide a pedal to the metal expose` of a reality that many have not and will never see.

It reminds me of the Vietnam Vet situation. You return to Australia, and people just don't have a clue about what you went through, but it can be just hours away by plane, or minutes away by bus.

Humanity without God, apart from Christ.. is as Paul described.

[As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins, in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world...
3All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our sinful nature and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature objects of wrath.]

Sounds like those people you met on your long journey to freedom.
Paul includes himself in that passage "we".. then he proposes a solution.

[But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions]

You described the Ways of this world to a T... everyone for himself, using others, taking advantage.. Frank would have us believe that he is not like this, but his view fails to recognize that "situations don't change people, they just show them as they really are" and placed in the same unenviable dire straits, Frank might meet another version of himself which he did neither expected nor likes.

The violence against women will not be fixed by legislation, protest, yelling, screaming, marches, tantrums or education. It will be fixed by changed hearts and renewed minds...in Christ.
Posted by BOAZ_David, Sunday, 11 March 2007 4:18:16 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
Wow, Mercy, cheer up a bit! I can assure you there are plenty of men out there who don't hate women, or other races, religions or any category of person. It sounds like you have had a hard time... If so I'm truly sorry about that.

But it is also true that there are a lot of macho men and boys out there, who really do see sex as conquest, the world as a competition and women as somehow inferior. I for one am dismayed so much of this sterile and ultimately dysfunctional way of thinking survives and has been transmitted to Gen Y. Boys' computer games seem to be bastions of it, but are they result or cause?

The original article bemoans the loss of hope since the sixties 'revolution'. So do I but not only regarding gender issues. It's right across the board, with a 'War on everything' not even questioned in the mass media. I live in hope that the pendulum is swinging.

Re young girls having sex -- It's bad if this is happening in a macho context but most of them still seem to grow up and fall in love. Drugs and alcohol would be part and parcel of this trend which is why I support controlled availability as a means of restricting access to drugs by young teenagers who are the most at-risk group.

And Romany -- you rock!
Posted by Michael G., Monday, 12 March 2007 4:20:59 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 thought some of you maybe interested in the attached link;

http://drhelen.blogspot.com/2007/03/harmless-habit-that-turns-men-off-to.html

[The "Harmless" Habit that Turns Men off to You
What is this harmless habit that Cosmo magazine is dishing about this month? Male bashing. Imagine my surprise when I saw that a cover story in Cosmo was very much pro-male. The tagline reads "Verbally bashing the male species is now a reflex for a lot of chicks. Problem is, the real thing getting trashed could be your relationship." Okay, so they phrase the problem with male bashing as one that is detrimental to females, but hey, at least there is a realization that it is wrong. The article has several good sections in it entitled, "How We Beat Up on Boys," "Why it Weakens Love," "Break your Bashing Habit," and "Start Male Boasting."]Dr Helen
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 12 March 2007 9:14:51 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
[Woozles in the Name of Protecting Women?

By Carey Roberts
The Gender Warriors have discovered the perfect wedge issue, one that carries raw, visceral appeal with liberals and conservatives alike, and to a large swath of the American electorate.

But there’s a catch: For this issue to work, the truth must purged from general awareness. Researchers have to be re-educated, or if need be, cowed into silence. And the media must be goaded to cooperate.

The issue is domestic violence.

This area has become so strewn with Urban Legends that researchers have dubbed them the “woozle effect.” Remember when Winnie-the-Pooh and Piglet went hunting and almost caught a woozle?]

{“The Centers for Disease Control reports that domestic violence is the leading cause of injury to women ages 15 to 44.” Interesting, but the CDC never said anything like that.}

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/03/13/woozles-in-the-name-of-protecting-women/

Please note Romany I do not claim to be the author of the above!

However the Access Economics report is highly questionable, for the following reason.

Access Economics did not exclude from their calculations on the impact on businesses the number of women who are not employed. for example if 40% of women who experience DV are on welfare and not employed and Access Economics assumed the all DV victims were employed then the impact on the cost to business would been much less.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 7:22:00 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
There was an interesting piece in the Courier Mail yesterday which I've not been able to locate on their website.

I think it is based on a book.

It started off with a discussion of the dangers of overuse of messaging for women and how the ease of messaging can impact negatively on relationships. Some really good points about sending a message then letting the imagination kick into overdrive while you wonder why your love interest has not responded immediately or with the appropriate words. A suggestion that the first use of the "L" word might be better said in person rather than via SMS and of the dangers of expecting a particulr response, etc.

The latter part of the article touched on some advice to women seeking relationships which I found bothersome. It suggested use of playing hard to get, not showing interest, letting him make the moves etc. The old tactics.

Is it that a lot of guys are still intimidated by women who are up front and honest or a preference by the authors for deceptive behaviour?

Playing hard to get seems like training to ignore anothers wishes, teaching that "No" means "Yes" you just have not pushed hard enough. Insisting that guys be the ones who take all the risks starts things off on an unequal footing. The guys most likely to meet the criteria would seem to be those with the least respect for the womans wishes.

What do other male posters think, do you prefer game players and tacticians or would you prefer women to be honest about their interest (or lack thereof)? Are we moving forward with equality or trying to cling to the stuff that holds us back? Are the kind of views in the article a result of men not coping with honest women or nostalga for the romance of pursuit?

Is it the experience of female posters that men don't cope with honest expressions of interest?

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 12:50:33 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
Some people complain about a laissez faire approach to everything from the economy to advertising standards, but the problem is that once you move away from a laissez faire approach, then you have to define (and enforce) morality, and that's going to get someone's (maybe even a lot of people's) hackles up.

One of the ironies of a liberal society is that freedom may have unintended consequences and may not actually make people happier. I'm not not knocking freedom, but I think the Sexual Revolution and Feminism were seen by many as a societal panacea, when in reality, they were often driven by an ideology and power battle (and I'm not taking a side here) that didn't sit well with broader human biology.

Call me what you like, but I don't believe there's much more than biology. Biology says women will be regarded for their ability to reproduce and men will be regarded for their ability to provide for a mate and offspring. Personality, interests, etc. are just window dressing. Women get called sluts. Men get called deadbeats. Two sides of the same coin.

JamesH: There does seem to be an irony in the fact that to many men, Feminism has made women less desirable as anything other than sex objects (because it's actually worsened a lot of gender relations and made people more hostile to one another) whilst making sex from them a lot easier.
Posted by shorbe, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 4:47:23 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
Good question R0bert. Initially I played along but different women = different expectations. Sometimes yes meant 'yes', or 'not yet', or simply 'no'.

So I don't play the game like that. I love a bit of flirting, double entendre & wordplay but when the serious stuff gets asked and answered, the only option now is to take it literally.
Posted by bennie, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 4:55:56 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
Very interesting reading, and that's all I'm going to say.
I'm off outa here.
Posted by Is Mise, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 5:33:41 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
shorbe,

Interesting point. I would agree that it has made relationships more difficult and tenuous.

In some ways society is more liberal especially towards female behaviour and in other ways it is more restrictive towards male behaviour. Daphne Patai in Heterophobia wrote men are walking on the edge of political correctness.

One only needs to look at the expansion in the definitions of sexual harrassement, domestic violence, sexual assault (where an attempt at seduction can very quickly become sexual assault.)

As to sexual harrasement, two blokes can say the exact same thing and the one that the woman is not attracted too, will be the one who is charged or accused of SH. I think that the sexual harrasement industry was more about driving a wedge between men and women especially considering that in the vast majority of courtships it is the bloke who makes the overt moves.

You are probably right in that there is not much more than biology, phermones and the hard wiring of genetic behaviour.

Society with varying degrees of success has tried to control the animalistic behaviour of human beings or perhaps more correctly what society at the time regards as animalistic behaviour.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 9:29:03 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
James there are area's of male behaviour which are being freed up as well. It's much easier now for a male to be prime carerer of children than it was, it's easier to go out with a woman and not find yourself obliged to pay the whole bill (sometimes we even get taken out).

Many women have picked up the responsibilities which come with additional freedoms, rejoice in it when you find it. Others are still trying to have their cake and eat it as well, avoid them when you find them.

Your comments regarding harasment are similar to some of what is on my mind when I read of women still being advised to play "hard to get" and other games of manipulation.

If they play that game how do men know if someone is being hard to get or is genuinely disinterested? What might start out as misreading signs could easily become a very destructive episode if the guy is deemed to be harrasing rather than demonstrating his interest.

It also increases the risks to women when No means try a bit harder, a loose, loose situation.

R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 14 March 2007 9:48:55 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
shorbe,

I dont think that it is feminism that has made women less desirable to men, but more to blame is female behaviour.

I am often attacked for hating feminism per se, whilst in reality it is the distorted and untruths that some feminists promote that I dislike. However other less radical feminists then often quote these untruths or exaggerations.

The following is hot off the press.

Study shows need for unbiased domestic violence services.

http://mensnewsdaily.com/2007/03/14/study-shows-need-for-unbiased-domestic-violence-services/

http://www.springerlink.com/content/a7q0032j88817218/fulltext.pdf

I am tempted to copy and paste but then Romany would accuse me of plagarism.

However another article I think says it all has to do with ex wives having to pay husbands alimony.

"I've seen thousands of clients," she says, "and almost every time I've seen a stay-at-home dad seek alimony, the wife--she's usually a software executive--goes ballistic."

"Right or not, as women's earnings grow, so will their financial responsibility during divorce. That's equality for you."
Forbes Magazine.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 15 March 2007 12:54:53 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: Of course, in theory, one should distinguish between the ideals of a political or social movement and the behaviour of some, many or all of its followers, but the reality is not so clear.
Posted by shorbe, Thursday, 15 March 2007 2:04:54 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
Yeah. Pretty good article Mary Bryant. Thanks. JamesH. "MensDaily" so you object to women's interest lobby groups and such on the grounds that it is feminist and yet you subscribe to an American men's interest group propaganda paper that is clearly one-sided, biased material complaining about suppposed, biased one-sided material. What happened to the non-gender idea? Fizzle.

What happened to this thread or any thread in relation to women's issues? Hail! Hail! The anti-feminists are all here.

By the way the Australian system generally doesn't consider the gender just the role played prior to the breakup. It will be interesting in the future when divorce happens in situations when the the prime carer is a paid employee. But then again that two people have to work to survive or get ahead is how little that men's group (Government)that runs this country thinks of parenting. You just have to see the cruel game they play with single mums.

Girls, if you've noticed how the media are stirring up resentment against single mums, well a Baptist priest told an audience about 20 years ago that it would be good to make them work as maids in the homes of busy people. No choice - force them. Old England, South Africa, Deep South and now good ol' Australia. Watch those right-wing lobby groups or young girls will be back looking after the lord of the manor's wants.

What about those forced to send the kids off-home. What about he women who love the idea of being "barefoot and pregnant" and what about couples who choose to have one stay at home and forgo income to nurture their children. Being there is the only way for some cultures?

I say no woman should have to be "barefoot" if she chooses or becomes pregnant.

And instead of paying people to ride around on trains all day looking for someone to sign their Centrelink forms - pay the parents to stay and work from home. Make way for the Southside kids and give 'em a job. What's happening indeed? This country needs a good shake up.
Posted by ronnie peters, Monday, 19 March 2007 4:28:24 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
Ronnie you wrote that Mensnewsdaily is a propaganda paper.

As far as I know it only exist on the internet so technically it is not a paper.

Secondly Mensnewsdaily posts links to newspaper and magazine articles world wide.

NO! I do not have a subscription to Mensnewsdaily.

For me it is just a shortcut to articles which are of interest to me, I also visit Ifeminist, AngryHarry, Cooltools4men, and a large number of other websites too numerous to list here.

Melaine Phillips.com , I think she is a darling.

I don't really see how trying to nut out the facts and the truth of the matter is anti-feminist or anything else in that matter.
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 19 March 2007 9:30:17 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
"There's a lot of big money invested by womens groups to keep women angry and distrustful." This was a comment I overheard between the wife and a couple of her girlfriends on my way to the 'fridge fer a beer. "Womans magazines promoting deficiencies and inadequacy through their ... articles." Was another half heard comment before I escaped into the flora of the 'back yard'.
Just goes to show ya not all women are blind to the machinations of the feminist seeking power over women and female identity.
Never mind the guilt trip they're trying to impose on men.
And before you get on me about sneak'n a couple a beer. I'm not allowed to sit with the women on these occasions. There girls only talks.
Posted by aqvarivs, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 10:45:22 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
aqvarivs,

I thoroughly recommend reading 'Spin Sister' by Myrna Blythe.

Her book talks exactly talks about as you wrote, "Womans magazines promoting deficiencies and inadequacy through their ... articles."

Her book although not necessarily an eye opener for me, it did help to explain and clarify a few things for me.

I do not necessarily agree with people like Mike LaSalles or Glenn Sacks to name a few, but just because I don't agree with them does not mean I am anti-male.

It is strange then that if a person like myself disagrees with some exaggerated feminist claim that I am somehow anti-feminists or anti woman.

Let give an example;

Lenore Weitzman published the "Divorce Revolution" and in her book, her researched showed that after divorce a man's standard of living rose by 45% and a woman's fell by 75%.

It took about a decade before researchers got access to her data and when they did, they found her research to be wrong.
http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm

The results of her (faulty) research were published in newspapers world wide, including here in Australia. The public, politicans accepted her findings as fact, when in reality they were a myth. There were subsequent reforms to property settelments here in Australia and elsewhere.

About a decade ago I theorized what I was later to learn is known as "Maternal Gatekeeping". Rather disappointingly very little research has been conducted in this area.

Perhaps because researching Maternal Gatekeeping does not show men in a bad light.

At some point in time people have to take responsibility for their own behaviour and the effects that behaviour has on others.

I learnt that if it sounds sensational, looks at the facts before making a decision, otherwise it is 'Sophistry'.
Posted by JamesH, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 4:13:00 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
JameH. “Subscribe to” as in “express ones adhesion to an opinion or resolution”. “ Propaganda” is mind-madeup stuff. “Paper” a figure of speech I’m an old fella still have a font rule around here somewhere.

You can try and deflect attention from your failure by going on about these “mistakes” but you’re hilariously unconvincing.

“Men’s Daily” is clearly a conservative male-interest magazine that speaks from a position. You may claim to be trying to “nut out the facts” but I think given your attitudes and that every time you put pen to paper (figure of speech) you write against feminism and even I think express opinions damaging to women in the long run. I think, considering your posts, you surf these sites looking for more propaganda to undermine feminists.

Nothing wrong with challenging feminism or even having an anti-feminist agenda ,however, I think that the consequences of anti-feminism will be harmful to women and families in the long term. Anti-feminism is pushed by conservative forces. Moreover, there is plenty wrong with being pretentious about your position.

The articles I read in Men’s Daily were positioned. You can’t sustain your non-gender argument in the light of this JameH. Nor I think your claim that your position is not mostly anti-feminist
Posted by ronnie peters, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:33:23 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
“ Hail! Hail! The anti-feminists are all here. “ These threads usually trail off with the usual anti-feminist crew patting each other on the back and making rather silly chit chat. For instance: “Just goes to show ya not all women are blind to the machinations of the feminist seeking power over women and female identity. Never mind the guilt trip they're trying to impose on men.”

This is plain unsubstantiated nonsense and an insult to the intelligence and intuition of men.

Clearly an anti-feminists sentiment which you JamesH rush to enhance.

aqvarivs family has girl’s only talks where the male is excluded. Hmm - a gender-biased household. Don’t let JamesH get wind of that. It seems a little contradictory to be wailing on feminists in light of such harsh treatment.

JamesH says: “It is strange then that if a person like myself disagrees with some exaggerated feminist claim that I am somehow anti-feminists or anti woman.”

Ahh. But that is all you ever do and with such enthusiasm and fervour. What got you started on this hippie quest to create a rosy world where men and women can live in peace and harmony and all are all are considered equal; where being male or female is no longer recognised as a difference. Where individualism, which is in part couched in our genderised and sexual brains and bodies, is given over to the greater good of our non-gender world. I reckon there is a hidden agenda in there somewhere. No thanks I’ll keep my individuality.
Posted by ronnie peters, Tuesday, 20 March 2007 11:34:57 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
Poor ronnie peters a totally embedded feminist struggling to maintain his individuality. How ya going to do that ronnie? Ya have chosen a side and give blind defense to woman as victim. Your perpetuating a false reality given the social changes in the last forty years. As the women in my life well know. I keep up the same mantra. Individual responsibility. Individual responsibility. Individual responsibility. You may not agree with James. I may not always agree with James, but his post show a willingness to explore a subject and a power base that directly impacts his world. I say kudos to any man or woman willing to step out of the confinements of social sexual "norms" to explore their world. You on the other hand have simply chosen victim as the highest moral argument. You haven't thought beyond the initial starting point for womans rights(for which I separate from feminism). Before you start your personal attacks perhaps it would be best if you took a hard look at your personal bias and gender issues.
There is nothing wrong with being a feminist but, there is much to discuss about the direction and intent of todays feminism. Even women think so. Your blindfolded cheer leading aside.

Ps. It may well be considered anti-feminist sentiment but it comes from several females. Or don't females have a right to express anti-feminist thoughts. Says a lot about you don't it.
Your only statement is anything anti-feminist is harmful. Give feminist carte blanche, no questions asked or we'll do irrevocable harm. What a load of crap.
Posted by aqvarivs, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 4:21:11 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
I have read obviously much more extensively than you Roonie Peters.
You seem to ignore the fact that I also quote Daphne Patai, Melaine Phillips, Christine Hoff Sommers.

The above women are much more articulate than I could ever be and reading their books have given me a greater understanding.

Unlike some, I try not to take things on face value and ask myself what is going on here?

I asked myself the question "Would all the changes for women in society have occured if feminism did not exist?" and I think that many of the changes would have occured regardless, without feminism.

Daphne Patai in her book 'Heterophobia' writes about how claim makers firstly define a claim and the media then runs with the most sensational aspects of the claim and then after it gets acepted as fact then there is a process of where the domain of the claim gets expanded.

The book really does make for some interesting and challanging reading for those who are game and would like to think abit more deeply. As does Melaine Phillips book "The Sex Change Society."

But then I guess there are people who will only
believe what the feminist cult leader tell them.

This is what is really dangerous.
Posted by JamesH, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 3:40:29 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
Aqvarivs, you say my "only statement" is that anti-feminism is harmful (untrue I said it can be), I “give feminists carte blanche” (rubbish), you suggested that I claimed that women “don’t have the right to anti-feminists thought” (that is untrue, quiet the opppisite, I said that there was nothing wrong with anti-feminst thought so long as it was seen for what it truly is - in this case gendered conservative propaganda); “what a load of crap” (If I was on your side with your untrained eye you'd probably say the opposite; you say that I claimed that women don’t have the right to antifeminsts thought and you claim I claim “victim as the highest moral ground” (no I don’t this is misleading propaganda).

You can’t offer a sensible argument can you?

Why do you go on with this nonsense? Who do think you’re fooling? Do you think posters are stupid? You go on in relation to my posts with nonsense like the following: “Embedded feminist”, “poor Ronnie Peters”, “ blind defense of woman as victim”; JamesH is willing to explore a subject implying others don’t (so why all the anti-feminist conclusions); I’ve” chosen victim”; “my blindfolded cheerleading”; you imply that I don’t think women have a “right to anti-feminist thought...and it says a lot about you doesn’t it” (It didn't say anything (invalid) because it is a baseless opinion).

Now all these personal slights take up roughly half your post and you’ve apparently just cut pasted the usual anti-feminst clichés; added a few verbs and presented them. Actually the other half was more from Aqvarivs’ catalogue of anti-feminist slights. It’s hilarious. How passé. And you go on about “my personal bias”. You’ve just proven your own bias Aqvarivs. If you are truly consistent in your reasoning then you must be seeking victimhood with your claim that I have launched “personal attacks” at you.

Of course, you’ve convinced yourself that you’re totally committed to an even-handed appraisal of the situation. You fail quality control.
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 22 March 2007 8:14:11 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 says: “ I have read obviously much more extensively than you Roonie Peters.”

So what? I can bench press a car. That doesn’t make me a good mechanic.

I cook the world’s best Duck Flambe So f ‘ ’en what? Doesn’t mean I know how a duck feels.

I’m an ex-speedway star (doesn’t make me a good taxi driver- I even get lost on OLO).

It doesn’t matter JamesH if you quote Daphne Pata, et al, or if you have degrees from both Harvard and Yale or I’m thick because if you had any knowledge of the processes involved you wouldn’t have this mistaken idea for an opinion to carry weight you just post a bunch of positioned links, articles and quotes. Dissect the text at hand and by all means use quotes to back up your position. Quotes only confirm your position they don’t necessarily destroy others’ arguments.

JamesH you clearly have a modernism attitude.

(Aside: Roonie to right-winger. “Why do you say the left is trendy.” Right-winger: “You’re all modernists aren’t you?” Puzzled Roonie: “ Huh?” Indignant right-winger: “You know, trying to be modern.”)

A modernist work invests authority in the author. It’s an elitist author/ thick reader relationship. For instance: While recognising the instability of genre, T.S. Eliot is regarded in literature circles as a modernist. His works “dovetailed” for readers widely read and trained in Classical literature (or “The Golden Bough”). For T.S. Eliot the reader was slave to his footnotes and reminded of their lower understanding. Of course, the likes of Wolfgang Iser, Roland Barthes came along and killed off the author. The addressee of a text became empowered.

Thus when women read :
“Morning stirs in feet and hands
(Nausicaa and Polypheme)
Gesture of orang-outtang
Rises from the sheets of steam.”

The reader of “Sweeney Erect” may note the crudity, condescending tone and the subservient t role of Eliot’s women - heightened by the Nausicaa myth in which Nausiaa pursues a married man and Polypheme who hangs herself. Thus woman is portrayed as weak and promiscuous.

The feminist reader puts pen to paper.
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 22 March 2007 2:26:08 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
"A modernist work invests authority in the author. It’s an elitist author/ thick reader relationship." Roonie

The works of many feminist authors are or have been given such authority such as Lenore Weitzman, Germaine Greer, Naomi Wolf and Susan Faludi et al.

Susan Faduli "Backlash" has 80 pages of footnotes.

Is accepting research results unquestioningly without critical analysis also a modernist attitude? or just lazy?

First time I've been accused of having a modernist attitude. I have however been accused of reading and relying on books too much. But then how does one find out information if they don't read?

I find authors like Daphne Patai or Melaine Phillips to be much more articulate than my poor attempts at articulation. I do not profess to be a great liturature author.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 22 March 2007 11:29:23 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 asks: "Is accepting research results unquestioningly without critical analysis also a modernist attitude? or just lazy?"

Huh? I didn’t mention research results. Eliot’s internal references to Classical Greek characters and the Golden Bough are hardly comparable to the explanatory footnotes of a feminist author.

One of my points JameH is that mere mortals like you and I can question the authors feminist or otherwise. I don’t think you question works, just look around until you find something that coincides with your established schema and then post it. Call others lazy?

Also, most sensible analysis doesn’t mean haranguing or investing power to the author - but it’s about dissecting the text.

If you were so expert in analyses, you’d know that. That you use positioned works of feminist or anti-feminist authors to show us how you can critically analyse is hardly convincing.

Indeed, your research has apparently found that Greer et al are poor researchers and Phillips et al good researchers? Who’d a thought it?

Funny how your analysis always brings you to the same conclusion as the works of positioned conservative authors that you posit as evidence of your supremacy.

Read Dilthey, Derrida, Levinas, Aristotle, Rawls et el or less ideological works and maybe you’ll get a real understanding of words like analysis and research. And when someone uses literature text to show posters something it doesn’t follow that one is suggesting you are a great literature author.

You say: “I do not profess to be a great liturature author”.

You give the impression that you are the only one on OLO who can analyse anything. It is ironic but had you had an inkling of an idea of analysis you’d have understood it was about analysis - not literature.

Nevertheless, I used a few references that only DM fans would pick up on. My point was to show that we live a post-modernist world. It is not just the elite who can see more in a text than you or I. Everyone understands a text differently depending on what knowledge they bring to the text.
Posted by ronnie peters, Friday, 23 March 2007 3:43:20 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
Roonie, you are a much more skilled debater than I, and thanks for the criticism both fair and unfair.

You seem to imply that like TS Elliot that I am dependent on footnotes and I merely pointed out that Susan Faduli had 80 pages of footnotes in her book and that modernists invest in the authority of the author.

If that is true than most, if not all the feminist literature could be called modernists.

“A modernist work invests authority in the author. It’s an elitist author/ thick reader relationship.”

Christine Stolba wrote ‘Lying in a room of one’s one; How Women's Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students", in her book she also points out how misinformation has been used in the “Womens studies classroom. She said that in reviewing the textbooks in Women’s studies courses that what she found was propaganda not scholarship. A view which is supported by Patai and Hoff Sommers.

Myrna Blythe “Spin Sisters” her book is about how the editors of womens magazines sell unhappiness to the women of America and keep women in a state of anxiety.. Again another example of the elitist author syndrome.

Germany’s Top News Anchorwoman Leads “Anti-Feminist” Revolution
Admitted to regretting her three divorces, and condemned abortion By Gudrun Schultz
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2007/mar/07032009.html

“Everyone understands a text differently depending on what knowledge they bring to the text.”

I agree. There is also their own values, resolved and unresolved life experiences etc.

I am sure that in another 10-15 years there will a new generation of authors offering a different perspective. Hopefully by then I would have weaned myself off this stuff and headed in a new direction.
Posted by JamesH, Saturday, 24 March 2007 7:42:41 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
yes it would definitely depend on ones education as to what one would bring to any conversation on any subject. Especially those who would toss around concepts like postmodernist and modernist as if they were "world" movements. We do not live in a postmodernist world. The concept of postmodern thinking is highly contentious. That a minority of pseudo-intellectuals advance their work as postmodernist hardly denotes the passing of an historical era. One good look at the world would show that in many cases we are still fighting WW2.

"It’s the combination of narcissism and nihilism that really defines postmodernism," Al Gore

The "God is dead" types don't rule the world. Nor do they define it.

I learned this as a child, "Haters never prosper." It's still true today. Haters just try to make everyone as miserable as themselves
Posted by aqvarivs, Saturday, 24 March 2007 11:46:52 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
No James wrong again. You compared a poem to an academic work. Also, there was no notes to ‘Sweeney Erect’. However, you may be thinking of his copious notes to “Wasteland”. According to Southam, the notes were added to the first book edition to oblige the publisher Liverright. Moreover, Eliot is well known for his elitist attitude and works which have, according to Virginia Woolf , ” little respect for the weak and consideration for the dull”. I agree with this viewpoint. The para I posted above in this thread should show that. I happen to appreciate most of Eliot’s work although his politics are not my cup of tea.

It may also interest you that Eliot was great mates with Ezra Pound who was included in the inner circle of Mussolini’s’ gang of fascists.

I’d hardly compare the notes of a feminist work to those of Eliot. I find that most feminists are about enabling women or empowering women not lauding it over the supposed dull and ignorant masses (hence the explanatory notes in feminist academic work).

Your main concern was clearly to accuse a feminist author of elitism. Never miss an opportunity to smear a feminist do you?

My point is that we are wrong to invest total authority in the author. Apart from the obvious self depreciation, it also excludes the addressee who may have a different culture or viewpoint. I don’t care whether they are feminist or whatever readers bring meaning to a text by their history and interpretation of it.

Doesn’t mean I agree with you or all feminists’ works. If we do then maybe we are thinking in a modernist way. And there is nothing really wrong with that either except it may signal a blinkered view or some sort of ‘centricity.

Modernism/post-modernism are no world movements just concepts to explain interpretations of the history and the world.

That we are looking back on post-modernism in a kind of ironic way – if we agree that post-modernism looked back on modernism in an ironic way – then maybe we are past post-modernism
Posted by ronnie peters, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 1:53:17 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
Aqvarivs: "I learned this as a child, "Haters never prosper." It's still true today. Haters just try to make everyone as miserable as themselves."

Did they also show you how to call good folk "haters" to excuse your own vitriol and misleading nonsense?
Posted by ronnie peters, Wednesday, 4 April 2007 2:00:35 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
ronnie peter, No! Unlike you, I was never formally taught such a nonsensical approach. Good People rarely get got up in the tripe your trying to sell. And If by rare chance we do,(if your good, I must be equally good), we don't think every post is directed personally at us and launch a tirade of hatred and belittlement. If we are named and defamed then we defend ourselves.

We don't troll every post looking for excuses to vent our hatred and misconception and use misplaced contextual references learnt in some neo-cultural studies programme lauding post mod deconstruction-relativism overlaid with misconstrued and misquoted Nietzschean philosophy, and dotted with sporadic existentialism.

We would never say something as idiotic as "it also excludes the addressee who may have a different culture or viewpoint. I don’t care whether they are feminist or whatever readers bring meaning to a text by their history and interpretation of it."

We would never apply our own interpretation nor hold that above the authors intended work. We were taught the value of individual words and their relationship in sentence structure to convey what the author means. NOT what the reader would like for it to mean. That is what is so disturbing about you deconstruction argumentative eristics. You have no idea what a author might be trying to convey. It's only important to you to be seen to refute the work, or to have modified a work for “purposes of clarification” to show that you are equally clever.
The authors work takes precedence over what ever you may FEEL it should mean.

Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes.
And clever in their own sight.

That's a little something from the bible but, since God is dead and everything is relative (for how else could we understand anything) You will no doubt miss the authors intended caution.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 6 April 2007 7:11:10 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
One of the major complaints I have heard time and time again, is that men are not very good at communicating. It has been documented that as a gender, males are not as articulate as women and that women want men to improve their articulation abilities especially within relationships.

Before ‘Backlash’ appeared, there were a few of us who formed a men’s awareness group, trying to explore men’s issues in a rather amateurish fashion in the 80’s. It was interesting though; there were blokes who were househusbands.

My hypothesis is;

Susan Faludi recognised that, some men either individually or associated with a group will eventually start to discuss and examine what is going on in their lives and how it affects them.

I surmise that she recognised that these men and their groups may head in a direction that feminists did not want. That is examine and challenge feminist dogma, research etc.

Hence ‘Backlash’ ‘but the rising pressure to halt, and even reverse, women’s quest for that equality.” Faduli. (how do we define equality so that we know when it has been achieved?)

Now there is no doubt that men and women do think differently, use language differently and that human relationships are complex and multi-faceted.

Dissing Men
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4907

Basically I think that some people just want men to shut up, agree with them and to go along with whatever is that they want.

For example in Canada researchers asked mothers if fathers were happy with the current child contact arrangements, it concluded that fathers were happy with the contact arrangements. The fathers were not researched to find out their responses!

Faduli's Backlash was very quickly adopted into common usage.

I know what I am trying to say, but I don't think I did it very well.

Happy Easter Roonie.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 6 April 2007 7:59:31 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
JamesH, I have always thought the differences in thinking between men and women was a social plus. Never as a detraction or a liability for either sex. I wonder how many men marry women who think just like them. It isn't conclusive evidence or a reliable study but, I can say among my close knit clan of husbands and wives, friends, that if our conversations are anything to go by, none exist as a directly observable sameness.
When the moons up and the mosquitoes have gone for the night and the children are tucked in and the fire is dying down and there is only an inch or two left in the bottle, much is said quietly from a different perspective seeking to be understood. The saying of good nights, the kisses and hugs and handshakes, make up all the differences spoken under the sun. Where would we be with out our differences and what would there be to understand.
Posted by aqvarivs, Friday, 6 April 2007 9:17:28 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
JameH and Aqvarivs. I know hatred when I see it. You hate and you know two know it. But you can't even se it happening to yourselves. That is why I get up your nose so much because I point it out to you and it sends you into denial.
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 26 April 2007 11:14:00 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
Aqvarivs says: "We would never apply our own interpretation nor hold that above the authors intended work. We were taught the value of individual words and their relationship in sentence structure to convey what the author means. NOT what the reader would like for it to mean." But that is exactly what you have done with my posts (read into it what you'd like to believe)and for no sensible reason that I can make out. You hate so hard you can't even see your own prejudice -that's what, I think, has happened to you. I gather that from your words and attitude.

You make too many assumptions based on your entrenched and well learnt prejudices. For instance: Your thinking goes along the lines of "he disagrees with me and has this opinion here so he must be formally educated to the point that he is a naffette who can't think for self". Says more about your Catholic education than mine. A lot of Catholics, from my experience, seem to hate it when you argue against them or point out their flaws in reasoning.

It is also ironic that people like Aqvarvis usually blindly adhere to the thinking of other "academics" who claim to, or clearly imply that others who disgree with them, are somehow incapable of analysis because of their education. But when you look at their education and their attitude you have to wonder how they could be so wrapped up in themselves as to see that they may as well be talking about themselves.

My "formal" education started as a lad on the floor of a meat works. First leasson. "Ya' hands too cold to hold ya' bloody knife. Well stick 'em in the cattle guts for a while young fella." Why didn't I think of that?
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 26 April 2007 12:00:06 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
"JameH and Aqvarivs. I know hatred when I see it. You hate and you know two know it. But you can't even se it happening to yourselves. That is why I get up your nose so much because I point it out to you and it sends you into denial.
Posted by ronnie peters, Thursday, 26 April 2007 11:14:00 AM"

How do I feel about this accusation?

I feel a real sense of sadness.

No Ronnie you do not get up my nose, I can breathe very easliy through both nostrils TY, well I will once I get over my cold.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 27 April 2007 9:12:17 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. You feel sadness. And I feel sorry for you.

Why would you feel sad? Some sort of elitist religious thing based on those prejudices you've learnt from the propaganda machine? Or a genuine love of your own superiority?

You got personal with me once that was outside the bounds of normal behaviour. I even considered whether or not you were an aspergers sufferer. So I am going to get personal with you.

Any man who attacks anothers family and then hasn't the decency to apoligise like a real man must be so dysfunctional and bitter he doesn't even realise it. Now you go and spend the next few hours scrolling the net for another of your theories. While you're at it at it, grab a beer out the fridge and tell us about it so you can pretend you're normal. Can't you see what is happening to you JameH you're being radicalised - you're turning into a malebot? The ultra conservatives (and the ultra left) always enlist what Lennin called "useful idiots". So take care JamesH. Use your intellect wisely.

I did have a happy and very joyful Easter. My name is Ronnie (and I can bench press a car). I know that really gets on your goat.

Hope your cold gets better and your demeanour sweetens a bit next time we "discuss" things.

Aqvaravis. Agreed witha lot of your post. But not all. Note the difference between men and women on this thread. Male egos dominate.
Posted by ronnie peters, Friday, 27 April 2007 1:34:39 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
Maybe I do have a bit of aspergers, but who knows?

I've debating with myself about exposes some personal stuff, I wonder however if I am just providing you with more ammunition to hit below the belt.

When I was a teenager, I decided that I didn't want to be like the other blokes that the girls were always complaining about, later on I heard that men in marriage oppressed women. So I started out to discover what is that men do to oppress women, simple because I did not want to behave in that way. I took NO to mean NO long before it became a popular slogan.

I thought if I could just learn to divine what a woman wanted, then I could meet those expectations.

Stuff happens and I don't understand why (maybe aspergers)so I read alot, and obviously different material to what you read.

Ronnie without a doubt you are an antagonist. You once, perhaps more than once have accused me of using a low tactics.

Your above post is definitely resorting to low tactics.

Yes I guess I have to be a radical to suggest that it would be much better to deal with violence more holistically, rather than the current piecemeal fashion.

Yes I had a nice easter as well, took the kids fishing, they got bored then absolutely soaked and covered in sand.

PS I hope your demeanour sweetens as well Roonie.
Posted by JamesH, Friday, 27 April 2007 4:05:47 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
ronnie peters, you don't get up my nose. You get under foot. All man haters do. I can't understand people who turn on their own sex with such rabid disrespect just to appear "more" sensitive to the feminist woe. I do not support divisive club mentality of any stripe. That you can not understand that isn't my fault. That you deconstruct to form your arguments is evidence that your personal hatreds and biases are deeply entrenched and you will find the proof you need with a little modification here and there. After all it is your right to readjust any work to suit your specific "feelings" on any given subject.
You obviously have some issues around education and religion. What ever your dispute with these institutions I can not guess but, I can not see how my right to voice my opinion must be superseded by yours and that I must take it and like it with out recourse. I may not always say what is right but, I do say what I think. That is as honest as I can be. I'm not going to try to be someone I am not. I'd rather have a clear conscience even if my thoughts aren't expressed just so.
Posted by aqvarivs, Monday, 30 April 2007 2:41:45 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
aqvarivs says: "...I can not see how my right to voice my opinion must be superseded by yours and that I must take it and like it with out recourse. I may not always say what is right but, I do say what I think. That is as honest as I can be. I'm not going to try to be someone I am not. I'd rather have a clear conscience even if my thoughts aren't expressed just so." Me too!
Posted by ronnie peters, Tuesday, 8 May 2007 9:29:11 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. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

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