yvonne, if your going to say men condone, consume and demand the negative aspects of overt commercial sexualism, then we must ask why women rush to fill that need. And please no aguments that it's because women are victims.
Your "men condone" is language of the victim not the language of a citizen of equal rights AND RESPONSIBILITY. Women also "condone" or they wouldn't be in the business.
It's a very tired old saw that only MEN (those evil bastards) want SEX. Woman left alone would never utter such thoughts.
It's time to start talking about PEOPLE. Men and women, together having responsibility for their society and not still using antiquated verbiage like misogyny or misogynist attitude. Men and women that dislike feminism DO NOT hate women. Most, if you speak with them, you will find they are equally nonsupporting of a mens MOVEMENT.
You seem to be in favour of a fractured society split along the needs of sexual identity or why the, "or is it time for a Men's Movement?" statement?
It seems to me that more and more women are being charged with rape of young boys. Especially those in positions as guardians of our youth like teachers. I guess the little boy must have made the poor victim adult woman stoop to such behavior.

The Australian (not mensnewsdaily)
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21403291-7583,00.html

"Stephen Lunn: Most girls are crazy about algebra in a changing room

March 19, 2007

IT'S straight from the David Lee Roth school of sociology. The American Psychological Association created something of a to-do last month when it released a study linking the proliferation of images of sexualised girls with mental health problems such as eating disorders, low self-esteem and depression."

It is real shame that there is not some sort of decent quality control on research/studies.

But then that would misogynistic wouldn't it?

I was pleased to see another woman (Yvonne) contributing to this thread as it seems to have been taken over by men pushing their own agenda and making no effort at all to address the problems brought up in the article. It is interesting that this is the third? article printed on OLO over the last few months about women and the result (after a quick analysis) is the same. Why is that? From my point of view, contributing my opinions about the issues raised is just like hitting my head against a brick wall.

Aqvarivs 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).

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).

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.

aqvarivs, well said.

The tone of the post left me wondering if the daughters are chastised when males they display attitudes which value primarily as income providers? If the family laughs when the pregant woman assaults the guys with the bad manners in the "Which bank" add.

There are issues that need addressing all round, some fail to get the bit that we are to some extent all victims and creators of the society we live in.

It's not some simple landscape based on male privilige and oppression of women but rather the results of history. Technology is allowing us to make some fundamental changes to the roles men and women play in life.

We can embrace that whole heartedly and work to free men and women from historical boundaries which no longer need apply, we can say that only women deserve to be freed from historical boundaries or we can do as some do and say that women have a god ordained role. I'm not aware of any serious calls for this but I guess we could also propose that men be freed from historical responsibility and women keep the old roles.

I'll go with the first option where both women and men are given all the opportunity that we can provide to (the biological aspects of pregnancy still eludes us).

I won't accept the approach some seem to advocate that the womens movement is about women so don't expect it to help men and we should not divert attention from it with a mens movement.

I liked the point I quoted a while ago from William Farrell that it's time for a gender transformation movement.

R0bert

Ooops sorry Aqvarivs I mistakenly posted in the wrong thread.

JamesH The American Psychological Association is pretty well unbiased. However, I don’t believe that there is any such thing as absolute objectivity. It is a matter of degrees of objectivity and this often depends on the amount of discipline the researcher has and their integrity. Guidelines for academic research of this kind are fairly thorough.

There are no guideline on sites like OLO, mainstream papers and clearly biased papers like Men’s Daily on how they conduct or use research. I notice when properly monitored research is presented to support and argument it is often countered with anecdotal “evidence” from positioned papers like MensDaily. Anecdotal evidence is a good starting point for further research. But to rely on it is wrong.

JameH, I agree with the research and the Australian article but it is, I think, a good example of misuse of information. While I agree that Roth’s film clip may objectify women, it pales into insignificance compared to the proliferation of today's sexualised clips. Moreover,Roth’s is a one-off, fun-type clip where the girls are not engaged in root-me posturing. Roth never claimed to be a sociologist; so singling him out for criticism is unfair. But that’s how the media operates. It's a red herring.

Feminists especially the far left feminists as well as conservative women on right have been very vocal against pornography that objectifies women.. So has it ever occurred to you that it is the producers, the male-controlled music industry, the programmers (mainstream) that is pushing this objectifying material? Once again we see the blame deflected from male dominated/sexist system to women and a bit player.

Punk rocker's told us that in 1976.

Lizzie4 I agree.and disagree. My perspective is that of a married male(34 years) with wife, daughters, women friends an so on. How do you further your knowledge if you exclude us from discussion? Yes I object to the way lobbyists hijack women’s issue threads to push their own agenda. Solution? Good manners (myself excluded), fair play and encourage them write their own articles.