Erin Pizzey said;

“Well you can't make actually your own unique human experience - you cannot extrapolate that to then include everybody else. If your father, like mine, was a violent bully, it doesn't mean that every man I know is going to be a violent bully.”

Professor Daphne Patai in Heterophobia explores the predictable process where claim makers firstly bring a problem to public awareness and then expand the claims beyond its initial boundaries.

This Phd author firstly establishes two horrendous and emotive unrelated events. One in Werribe and the other in Aurukun.

She then expands these events to be evidence of Gynocide.

“The idea of gynocide has been in feminist thinking for more than 30 years now, and could be described as a core idea. It refers to men creating a social system where women live entirely as instruments of men’s interests.”

If women in our society were really just an instrument of men’s interests, then women would not have many of the legal protections that they have today. Rape has been against the law for perhaps a thousand years.

The social system we have (however imperfect) evolved to serve the interests of the community, not just the interests of one gender. What feminists tend to forget is that women themselves played a big role in the evolution of our society, overtly and covertly.
Feminist do not see that (some) women also exploit men. So the social system served women as well.

She has one thing right in that feminist ideas, sometimes do come from outerspace and misandry and antagonism towards heterosexuality and men is still alive and well.

There are a number of studies on mating rituals such as "Women are natural born flirts" and even alpha males do not approach women until they are invited by the first glance.

It is women who control the mating ritual, not men. So this does not support the arguement that society is 'gynocide'.

JamesH as I understand it "gynocide" is the disappearance of female identity.

In the last 100 years women have
1. got the vote
2. had their employment in underground mines curtailed - good thing
3. achieved equal pay for equal work
4. stepped into men's jobs in the work force in World War 1 and WW2
5. pushed out of the workforce in 1932 and 1945 to free up jobs for male breadwinners
6. encouraged into the workforce, now most mothers work from the time their baby is 1.
7. forced to pay for expensive child care with restrictive hours in inaccessible locations
8. expected to spend money and effort on appearance. Hairdressers charge women 6 times as much for the same haircut as men and women earn less money

The above is all about women being subservient to men's needs

Australian Marie Claire used to have an article an issue about transgender issues. It should be a women's mag - not a drag queen self help manual

HRS,

an·ec·do·tal, –adjective
"based on personal observation, case study reports, or random investigations rather than systematic scientific evaluation: anecdotal evidence."

The author has made errors of generalising majority cases to a universal cases. You are making the error of suggesting your personal experience is equally universal. You are correct to accuse this particular feminist of discrimination, but by expressing your personal experiences in this particular context neglects aggregate empirical evidence ie.,

a) domestict violence is a serious issue, beyond being isolated [1]
b) women than men are victims [2]

I would humbly suggest that your claim "The core part of the cult of feminism is to stereotype and vilify the male gender, and to portray men as being abusers of 'women and their children'" is incorrect. Whilst this is certainly the case among a certain type of feminists who do extreme discredit to the name (cf., Christina Hoff Sommers, Who Stole Feminism?, 1994) the principle objective of feminism has been civil and legal equality with men. I presume you support civil and legal equality for all adults of adult reasoning, but perhaps I'm being presumptuous.

1] According to the Centers for Disease Control, domestic violence is a serious, preventable public health problem affecting more than 32 million Americans, or more than 10% of the U.S. population (Tjaden and Thoennes 2000).
2] In the United States, 20 percent of all violent crime experienced by women are cases of intimate partner violence, compared to 3 percent of violent crime experienced by men (although by the same token men comprised 24% of domestic violence homicide victims.)

(No, I don't have Australian statistics. I am reasonably sure they are similar however)

If the "real" feminist view actually did get a wider airing in the media, it might be forced to deal with some of the outer-space elements which are so evident here.

It's a great shame it doesn't, because as this article so clearly demonstrates, there are plenty of noxious elements being brewed up by university intellectuals well out of the critical eyes of wider society (including the wider female society).

Based on this article I'd have to agree with HRS's claim that "the core part of the cult of feminism is to stereotype and vilify the male gender, and to portray men as being abusers of 'women ..."

I'm not so widely read in feminism to know whether this author's views are indicative of the whole field, but the author has put herself out there as a representative of it, so you can hardly blame HRS for making this assumption (ie Lev).

This author is saying there is no such thing as a consenting woman, which makes all men, by default, rapists. "Women always "consent", in other words, because no view different to that held by men is permitted or recognised"

This is a terrible point of view to hold and if the author is heterosexual, I wonder how this meshes with her personal experience. It is one thing to preach from your academic pulpit and it is another thing to extend those principles to everyday life.

This article unfortunatley confirms broader society's fears that modern feminism has become a man-hating, anti-heterosexual extreme agenda.

The author has ignored the fact that a significant proportion of public office holders (the "Social institutions and individuals" who "simply believe that women want whatever men do to them.") are in fact women. Like the judge who handed down the sentence!

Doing a PhD unfortunately doesn't give you access to better knowledge than the (wo)man in the street. It seems to cocoon you in an academic bubble which is so far out of touch with the real world, its opinions are never actually aired in the media because they'd get laughed down in ten seconds.

While I might quibble with the use of the term ‘gynocide’ here, the author makes a fair enough point that, in a patriarchal society, crimes committed against women by men are routinely stripped of their gender political context.

Underlying judgements such as Arukun and Werribee, is the belief that women’s rights – sexual or otherwise – can be, and often are, traded off against other rights deemed more worthy or more immediate by the wider society. With each trade-off, women’s long road to equality becomes even longer and more treacherous.

And BTW, I Googled the word 'gynocide' to get an idea of how others were using it. The very first entry was a link to a porn site. I rest my case.

Lev

Just a point or two about this comment you made …

‘Mary Daly made the claim that up to nine million people, mostly women, were killed as a result of the witchhunts’'

Daly was far from alone in citing this figure. She was working from figures that had been around – and for the most part, accepted – for two centuries. The ‘9 million’ figure dates back to the 18th-century and often appeared in 19th and early 20th century texts, essays and songs. The scholarly research that has since refuted the ‘9 million’ figure had not yet been made at the time Daly wrote Gyno/Ecology in 1978.

Daly has been much vilified for her use of the figure (as with just about everything else she’s written) – and is often mistakenly portrayed as having first cited it. By contrast, I don’t see the same levels of vilification or misinterpretation directed at, for example, Benjamin Christensen, who used it in his celebrated 1922 film ‘Witchcraft through the Ages’, or Charles Murphy who used it in his song ‘The Burning Times’.

I'm not quite in agreeance with the hysteria over this article. HRS in particular has as usual completely taken the female point of view entirely out of context. After the little snippet he took from the article, he should have read:
"This doesn’t mean that every single woman works to serve men’s interests in every single situation. It just means that major social institutions, and the way most people (men and women) think, don’t consider women as having a viewpoint different to men."

This quote is relevant in defining the viewpoint that the author is coming from. That said, the author clearly identifies herself as a capital F Feminist, whereas I relate more as a little f feminist (as I think most women do). What's the difference? Mainly not seeing conspiricies around every corner, and simply wanting to be given equal opportunity (my opinion is no less valuable than my husbands, and if he disagree's, I'll withdraw his allowance!).

I dont agree with the author's stance on gynocide. But I do agree that there is a worrying implication if the men in these situations are seen as less guilty than if they had assaulted a screaming middle-class mother of 2. I dont see what the difference is. Of course there is cultural problems ingrained in many indigenous communities that has an effect on both the men and women of these communities and drives the standards of what is acceptable (and before anyone cries racist, I've lived in one of these communities, and KNOW that 5 yo's are considered fair game). It still shouldnt stop the rest of society working to change those standards.