What is ZOO magazine.

Never heard of it before, or seen it in any newsagency.

But about 50% of the women’s magazines I have seen have numerous pictures of women's cleavage, and if someone wants to look at pictures of women’s cleavage, then buy a women’s magazine.

Normally there is also an article on cosmetic surgery and boob jobs somewhere in a women's magazine, although cosmetic surgery and boob jobs would have to be the pinnacle of self-centeredness in a rather self-centered society.

Germaine (look-at-me) Greer would know all about seeking attention.

I have to say I agree with HRS here. I'd never heard of Zoo magazine until I read this opinion piece and by all accounts I was better off for it.

Although in the interests in supporting Audrey's just cause I promise never to buy it.

Articles like this make me understand why some people have such contempt for the "Left".

"What really gets me here is the predictable and tired joke that’s being had at the expense of feminism..."

Unfortunately some proponents of feminism make a joke of themselves by misreading a situation and demonstrating an almost complete lack of understanding of the attitudes and ideals of not only significant proportion of men, but also a significant proportion of women.

"Zoo would have you believe that these women are compliant...sexually adventurous...and sexually explicit when it comes to their personal tastes."

Many women are like that (in general, not specifically the women in Zoo). Men enjoy sex; women enjoy sex; females are typically biologically wired to be submissive more so than males; hence the common theme in many sexually orientated publications.

"...it so vehemently seeks to desexualise any woman that expresses opposition to their practices..."

They seek to get 'feminists' to pose in lingerie. Isn't it doing the exact opposite?

"Zoo demonstrates complete and abject disdain for the rights of women to coexist outside of this fantasy world."

I disagree. They're asserting that it's their magazine, their fantasy world; that you're free to have your opinion of it and play along but no-one's forcing you into it. Is what they're doing childish? Yes. Having a bit of fun? Yes. Over exaggerated stereotypes? Yes. But that's the ethos of the magazine. It's not meant to be taken a serious discussion of gender roles in society.

"Feminist", in it's negative sense, is a label given to women who deny that some women enjoy sex and being sexy. It's given to women that criticize a woman's sexuality because in their twisted logic sexiness implies a lack of all other values.

I happen to agree with the final view on sexiness, however I also acknowledge that others a free to find sexiness where they choose. Feminism should be about freedom; the freedom to have a professional career; to be treated as an equal; to be stay at home mom; or to pose for pictures in a men's magazine.

I've got to agree with Desipis on this one - this is the sort of (over)reaction that give feminists a bad name.

Yes, this is in poor taste - there is little question about that. But from a magazine like Zoo, or Ralph or any of the other smutty magazines, what do you expect - they pitch the content of their magazine at their target audience.

Feminism is about women having the same choices as men. So, exercise that choice - if you don't want to be photographed in your underwear, don't pose. If you don't want to see those photos, then don't buy the magazine. But equally, if there are others who want to be photographed (and I've come across plenty who are willing to prance around in front of the camera if far more lewd settings than these magazines show), then let them exercise their choice.

Desipis

'... females are typically biologically wired to be submissive more so than males; hence the common theme in many sexually orientated publications.'

Says who?? Sexist biologians, pulp romance editors and four thousand years of patriarchy, no doubt. I suggest you read up on 'internalised sexism', which is far more insidious in our society than sexism itself.

BN

'Feminism is about women having the same choices as men.'

Which includes the CHOICE of feminists to speak out against the way in which news articles of this kind, as well as their amplification by mainstream media outlets such as News Ltd, degrade women and subvert their struggle for equality. In passionately reacting against this article, Ms Apple is exercising her CHOICE to question the messages our society is sending women and girls about what constitutes female sexuality.

Audrey

Brilliant writing. Keep up the passion.

SJF,
I wonder what is “female sexuality”

Is it this?

“Hhmm – not bad, huh?! Think you know someone hotter? Then why not dob them in to dobinabachelor@acpmagazines.com.au and you too could be in the running to
score a prize pack filled with loads of goodies from Clinique, valued at $584!!”

http://cleo.ninemsn.com.au/cleo/advertorial/advertorial273.asp

Or this?
Bitch, ditch or delight him by putting him on display in Cosmo's man shop! Upload E-Male.
http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/index.php/cat/9307

Or this?

“Enter to win the ultimate handbag and shoe collection worth $250,000 .”

http://www.marieclaire.com/

I don’t think Zoo magazine is widely read, but Cleo, Cosmopolitan and Marie Clare certainly are.

Shame on Audrey for picking on such a nondescript magazine such as Zoo, when women's magazines are much more widely read, and in such bad taste.

Save the males and females.

BN, I agree with where SJF took the discussion; choice is never as clear as it may seem.

Is it really a "choice" for women to be photographed in these magazines; or the socially constucted roles and expectations for women to be seen as attractive, sexy, hot, submissive, porn- star- like, etc.?
I have no doubt that these girls consent to being published and more than likely feel honoured and exclusive at being offered the 'opportunity'. But was it their "choice" to feel that it is some sort of an accomplishment? I don't think so.

"What is Zoo Magazine"? Now there speaks somebody who really has a finger on the pulse of our society.

"I have never...seen it in any newsagency." Ah, that'll be because it is protected by a mandate which only allows it to be sold by women with a black eye and their ilk.

From what I understand is that Greer was very, very sexually active. Now she is writing about desiring young boys/men. So I doubt that she can be held up as a model example.

Male monkeys pay for sex
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23001290-5005961,00.html

HRS/Timkins: "I don’t think Zoo magazine is widely read, but Cleo, Cosmopolitan and Marie Clare certainly are"

Perhaps it's because HRS/Timkins and others of his ilk read so many women's magazines that they are apparently so insecure about their gender identity.

Why would anyone be surprised that "Audrey Apple" is a typical example of the humourless feminist?. Although I have never been a great fan of magazines like "Zoo" I do appreciate that it is in no sense a "serious" magazine it exists purely to entertain and amuse, as it's rather cheeky TV ads suggest.
What both men and women find attractive or even abhorrent about each other has been the wellspring that has fed humour and satire since they were invented and it is only those with significant chips on their shoulders who lack the ability to laugh at them selves or their own political groups who take offence at some good humoured mockery.

Oh, and for the record I personally find that the sexist thing about any woman is the twinkle in their eye rather than the sort of shoes that they wear.
Cheers Comrades

HRS,

Whilst it is perfectly correct to target Cleo, Cosmo and Marie Claire for their attention to trivial matters like handbags, e-male and goodies from Clinique, that does not mean that Audrey's criticisms of Zoo are any the less wrong - it's just the target she appropriately chose in this instance.

Kathryn,

Yes it is a choice. We may not think it's a good one and it's quite probable than many engage in it without sufficient relection. But even a bad choice is better than a lack of choice.

As for Zoo, I'm still glad I had no inkling of it. Trash culture is trash no matter how popular it is.

If the pay rate for models in men's magazines was the same rate as for, oh, supermarket check-out or aged-care worker, well, it hardly needs to be said; the smut rags would be rather empty (if they're not that already).

HRS, I'm left wondering where you live. You've mentioned on a number of occasions previously that you've never seen a woman with a black eye and now you tell us that you have not ever seen a copy of Zoo magazine. Check the magazine rack in most large service stations and newsagents.

I do agree that the contents of "Womens" magazines are likely to be a much more serious contributer to issues about womens self image and the treatment of people as objects than porn wannabe mags such as Zoo. Zoo is not mainstream, not the sort of stuff that generally sits around doctors waiting rooms or is read openly on public transport.

Cosmopolitan http://cosmo.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=44776

"Cosmopolitan has a readership of over 978,000 and a circulation of over 222,323 in Australia.

Frequency: Monthly
Core target: 18 to 34
Content: Women's Lifestyle
Editor-in-chief: Mia Freedman
Editor: Sarah Wilson

In the UK, women who read Cosmopolitan spend over 1 Billion pounds a year on fashion. "

I've not managed to find similar for Zoo yet - does anybody have access to their readership/distribution info?

Maybe the efforts of feminist writers would be better directed at Cosmopolitan (and it's ilk) than at Zoo but maybe like the rest of us some things bug authors more than others regardless of the overall importance.

Any objections to what was actually written rather than what you think should have been written?

R0bert

HRS

I’m not sure what point you are making about ‘female sexuality’ in posting those links to Cleo etc. The pictures I saw there of male objects of desire were just head-and-shoulders shots of hunky young men, with confident, assertive facial expressions – one was even wearing a suit and tie.

Are you trying to say that women’s brains are ‘wired’ to mix desire with respect, while men’s aren’t?

Or are you saying that because men and women both do awful things, women deserve whatever awful things men do to them. If so, please find me something a lot more ‘awful’ than Cleo and Marie Claire pics of smiling men with naked shoulders.

R0bert

'Maybe the efforts of feminist writers would be better directed at Cosmopolitan (and it's ilk) than at Zoo ...'

True. Except that feminists are, and always have been, proactively critical of the messages conveyed by women's magazines. However, women's publications are part of much larger, powerful publishing corporations worldwide - who place fashion advertising revenue much higher than women's struggle for equality. Ironically, because of their wide reach, women's magazines can also provide feminists with a wider platform to convey their messages on women's equality, health, relationships etc. Life is full of compromises.

SJF,

I read up on "internalised sexism" and it seems to be a rather negative name for what is key aspect of western culture. A culture that like all others was influenced by the distinct biological roles of each gender, and thus developed distinct cultural roles as well. It is a criticism of the identify of so many individuals within our society. Zoo is not forcing this culture upon anyone, just as you should not try to force your "idealized gender role" culture onto the readers or publishes of Zoo.

"Are you trying to say that women’s brains are ‘wired’ to mix desire with respect, while men’s aren’t?"

That's the general trend as I understand it. There's certainly nothing wrong with not fitting to the trend, however complaining about biological traits is not really going to achieve much.

Some women identify as a "house wife" and are happy about it, some women identify as "model" and are happy about it. Don't attack or criticize someone for who they are just because you would not be happy in their shoes or they don't fit some poorly constructed ideal.

"Brilliant writing. Keep up the passion."

Well written and passionate? Yes. Unfortunately assumptive, biased and self righteous too.

Kathryn,

Did a women chose to become a doctor, or was she pressured to want to make use of her intelligence? Did the mother chose to have a child or was she pressured to want to start a family? People form their identities from the experiences and interactions they have with others, so there's no such thing as a pure identity. If a woman is happy with choosing to pose for a magazine, where is the problem?

Iain,

A quick read of Audrey's blog gives the impression she's more humourless than feminist. A quote about New Year's:

"NYE will never be different. It will never be fun, and it will always, always disappoint. FACT."

It appears Audrey is driven more towards projecting her views and experiences onto others and criticizing cultures she neither understands nor appreciates rather than achieving equality and freedom for women.

Lev,
It becomes very difficult to believe the feminist premise that women are being oppressed when a women’s magazine has a $250,000 prize in handbags and shoes.

SJf
I think women’s magazines are now showing more than a head and shoulder shot of men.

http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/index.php/landing/9069
http://cleo.ninemsn.com.au/cleo/hotmen/hotbabe/profile155.asp

You can “rate” these centrefolds if you wish, by registering and then casting a vote.

But if feminists are so concerned with equality and respect, then I am puzzled as to why feminists have not complained about the widely read women’s magazine that recently described men as being the latest “fashion accessory”.

Obviously this did not affect feminist sensibilities or notions of sexuality, morality, respect, equality and all that.

I have read "How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness --- and Liberalism --- to the Women of America" by Myrna Blyth.

One thing which stands out from the book is that the women of the media think that all women should think exactly like them.

The other thing was that the message to the women readers was that they were never good enough, and that all the advances of feminism was under constant threat and that women had still had a long way to go before they achieve 'equality'.

Magazines would run stories like how to have the greatest sex ever then in the same mag have a story on sexual abuse.

Plus there were always these relationship quizzs that helped to create a sense of anxiety.

You could be a victim and not know it! Take our wizbang quiz to find out.

Outstanding that a freelance journo for one of Murdoch's least readable tabloids (The Sunday Mail) should worry about lads mags. For all we know Murdoch could own The Zoo. I reckon seize the day Ms Apple, storm editorial and tell News Ltd to lift it's game and have a shot at reporting the news.

JamesH: "One thing which stands out from the book is that the women of the media think that all women should think exactly like them."

Ironically, it appears feminists think this way too. After all, the feminists would never want a breast implant therefore any woman 'wanting' a breast implant has clearly been brainwashed.

HRS: "But if feminists are so concerned with equality and respect, then I am puzzled as to why feminists have not complained about the widely read women’s magazine that recently described men as being the latest “fashion accessory”."

Oh they do complain about women's magazines too. I used to think that the magazines were partly to blame. However looking at the never ending stream of email forwards, facebook/myspace/etc applets, on-line quizzes, and all manner of independently generated content that becomes popular, it is clear that people will seek out this trashy magazine type material whether its in magazines or not.

HRS - "I think women’s magazines are now showing more than a head and shoulder shot of men.

http://www.cosmopolitan.co.uk/index.php/landing/9069
http://cleo.ninemsn.com.au/cleo/hotmen/hotbabe/profile155.asp

You can “rate” these centrefolds if you wish, by registering and then casting a vote."

Hmmmmm ... Too many muscles for my taste (and you'd never see them because they'd always be at the gym). I'd give them about a 6 out of 10. If they can cook - 7 and and a half.

PS, Waddya mean 'now showing'? Cleo has been doing male centrefolds since the early seventies. Just ask Jack Thompson.

Desipis,
Perhaps Zoo magazine is trying to cash in on the lucrative “inane” market. It doesn’t require much journalism or even thought, with articles such as

“In bed try imagining you're the man & he's the woman: this secret head trip will make you behave in a sexy new way & he'll never know why...”

Or

“We believe in Britney Spears!”

Or
“10 resolutions to make… then break by February”

Or
“Eat more and actually get skinnier”

Or
“Want to big up your boy? This is the place to share your slushy stories”

Next women’s magazines will be telling women that they are oppressed and abused, or perhaps they have done that already.

SJF,
I cast a vote of 1 out of 5 for the centrefold, but then I’m not female, so I really can’t form much of an opinion about “big boys”.

However over 36,000 readers did cast a vote, which is about the size of a medium town in Australia, or possibly the entire readership of Zoo magazine.

It is pleasing to see that feminists have their priorities right once again.

HRS,

They are indeed cashing in on it, but why does entertainment have to be thoughtful or have journalistic integrity? If you were commenting on the sorry state of the news media then you'd have a point.

I guess my point is that the magazine's aren't dragging down the level of society. They are merely reflecting the level that society has always been at. I'm guessing the feminists are frustrated that such a significant portion of society are gossip-hungry, sex-driven simpletons. It's such as shame that we can't all shrug off our humanity and become a homogeneous society of intellectual idealists.

Judging by the readership numbers of magazines such as Cleo or Marie Claire (with its $250,000 prize of handbags and shoes), then I would think that there is definitely a demand for inane and highly commercialised trash journalism.

However I agree with JH, that women’s magazines are at the forefront of creating this demand.

Save the males and females (from themselves and from feminists).

FEMINIST -frustrated, envious, male-hating, insipid, non-sensical, sad, twerp.
Ok, Ok, hold it right there.don't jump off the rails just yet. many moons ago when Germaine first kicked off on her mission we had a lot of laughs making this up over (quite) a few beers.
So please, do not take this serious, it was just for fun...... It only applies to Germaine.

Individual

"FEMINIST -frustrated, envious, male-hating, insipid, non-sensical, sad, twerp.

So please, do not take this serious, it was just for fun...... It only applies to Germaine."

No way. This sick, childish piece of provocation does not qualify for absolution by resorting to the ‘humour’ defence. Grow up.

Taking a wild guess, The buyers of Zoo mag are not women.

Audrey has given them exactly the response they are looking for. You can't buy publicity like this.

If you want the stunt to fail you need to ignore it. The more reaction they get the better the result.

Freedom of expression protecting our right to say things others might disagree with almost certainly means that someone will be able to say things we disagree with.

Women are only as subjugated as they let themselves be.

SJF
Telling someone to “grow up” is a form of verbal abuse, which is ironic because feminists keep saying that they don’t believe in abuse.

Democritus
Whenever I listen to the radio, I normally hear love songs, and the vast majority of these songs are written and sung by males.

Nearly every love story or love poem has also been written by a male, but I have never once heard feminists mention this.

Instead there is now a feminist who tries to imply that a nondescript magazine such as Zoo magazine is indicative of how males regard females

The central core of feminism is the vilification and discrimination of the male gender, but perhaps feminist regard this as being “sexy”.

HRS

"Telling someone to “grow up” is a form of verbal abuse, which is ironic because feminists keep saying that they don’t believe in abuse."

Excuse me?!? And Individual's comment: "FEMINIST -frustrated, envious, male-hating, insipid, non-sensical, sad, twerp" is not??

Also, telling a blog audience that:

"The central core of feminism is the vilification and discrimination of the male gender" [HRS, 6 January 2008 2:37:43 PM]

and that we all need to:

"Save the males and females (from themselves and from feminists)" [HRS, 5 January 2008 2:20:57]

... knowing full-well that many women who participate in a blog topic of this sort are feminists, is definitely abuse. And as a feminist, I for one, am not only offended by such abuse, but also deeply disgusted.

Also, I've never heard feminists say 'they don't believe in abuse'. How could they? They receive far more than their fair share of it from MRA blog bullies such as yourself, stuck on your one-track-minded hobby horse of convincing the world that feminism is a plague on humanity.

Your totally overblown and unrealistic fear of the cause these women represent would be pathetic if it weren't so destructive.

SJF
You certainly know a lot of verbally abusive terms, and also know how to use them.

It really doesn’t take much before a feminist becomes abusive, which is ironic really considering that feminists don’t believe in abuse.

The author of the article finds a nondescript magazine and tries to imply that this is how males regard females. That is discrimination and vilification of the male gender, which is universal throughout feminism.

Find me an article written by a feminist that says something positive about the male gender. Many have tried to find such an article, and nearly all have failed.

HRS does speak for this bloke and I dare say, many others.

Why don't you go & burn your Y fronts somewhere else in protest?

OLO opinion pieces are generally loaded with latent irony. This one's bursting at the seams with self refuting irony of the highest order.

Please, do keep up the passsssionate feeeeling. It clouds rational judgement and logical contemplation, both critical to the 'shoot yourself in the the foot' accidental irony exemplified by the author.

Quibbling over semantics like 'what is sexy' in a piece deriding sexist objectification, on the basis of the physical (biology), by one who champions a redefinition of, er, sexual biology based psychological constructs like 'female' psyche is very funny.

Redefining/reclaiming 'sexy-ness' by a proponent of an ideology seeking to transcend the inherently illusory nature and self constraining force of gender based ego identity, sounds like a 3rd rate existential crisis, screaming out for self awarness.

Funniest though, is all this gender psyche nonsense, projected as it is, with generally mutually inclusive derision and ressentiment, reeks of the same stuff... INSECURITY.

An insecure response to an insecure projection. Around and around in redundant circles we go.

You're playing into their hands with an article like this one. You dis-empower yourself with such emotive, egocentric frustration.

A previous post aludes to the fact that there's no (free) choice and its all constructed. Indeed it is. Works both ways and can only exist as a reflection of each other. No duality here. Which is the inherent nature of gender psychology and behaviour. Self validating (sexist) projection of delusion.

There is no such thing as 'sexiness' or 'sexy'. This is an example of a constructed illusion thats pinning everyone down and another example of the brilliant accidental irony with which the author self flagelates. Greer as a pinnup for 'sexiness'... hahahahaha, such brilliantly passionate irony. Viagra? Anyone? Unless ya kick with the other foot, of course. "Sexy' is a vague ego trip attached to the psychology of sexual intercourse.

There's only sex. The rest is in yer mind.

ps. dem apples are great. keep up the brilliantly passionate writing, lest the emotionless clarity destroy your capacity for wounderful irony.

Awhile back R0bert aked about the circulation/readership numbers for Zoo. The latest official ABC numbers I could find go back to June 2007:

http://edsites2.itechne.com/Acp3Images/edDesk/c9572133-3a37-4929-a421-ecf9cdd107a6/ready_reckoner_weeklies.pdf

Surprisingly - to me anyway - Zoo readership stood at 470,000 with a circulation of 116,405.

That's a lot of blokes.

The article suggests that the magazine should be... what? Banned? Boycotted? Perhaps its editors taken out and shot at dawn?

Actually, it isn't entirely clear what the objective of the piece is, except to let off steam and claim that Germaine Greer is sexy.

Many years ago I was shown the work of an advertising agency.

"These are our most successful campaigns", I was told.

I pointed out that none of them actually appealed to me at all.

"They are not supposed to, dear boy, you're totally the wrong demographic."

Which leads me to wonder what the point of someone - who is most clearly not within the Zoo demographic - making so much fuss? It is unlikely to deter the Zoo readership, who tend to make up their own minds whether upsetting feminists weighs heavily with them.

The only purpose visible is that the author wishes to tar all males with the same brush - generalizing from the particular, which is a particularly transparent and unconvincing tactic.

As for Germaine Greer being sexy, I can only assume this is a woman's viewpoint, highly appropriate to the pages of a woman's magazine - "Germaine - still sexy and germane at sixtyeight."

I doubt if you will find a man condemning the frivolous and demeaning rubbish in Cleo and Cosmo.

You see, it's not our demographic.

Find me an article written by a feminist that says something positive about the male gender.
Posted by HRS, Sunday, 6 January 2008 5:12:40 PM

HRS is correct on this, I have read an enormous amount of feminist material and about the only thing positive said about men is "a dead man".

Both Hoff-Sommers and Patai in their books give clear examples of how students in gender study classes are given exercises on stoking their anger and this is achieved by concentrating on the worst things that a small number of women experience and then extrapolating this to apply to all men.

Feminist, Rad feminists or women who call themselves feminist use feminism as a cover for male bashing, sometimes this is direct but more often indirect by painting a picture of all women being victims.

If feminism was truly about equality then it be accepted for men to express and talk about their bad experiences with women, but this is not acceptable, whilst on the other hand, bitterly talking or writing about women's bad experiences with men is.

Another example is how the figures for feminist claims get highly exaggerated.

HRS

“It really doesn’t take much before a feminist becomes abusive, which is ironic really considering that feminists don’t believe in abuse.”

Nice try, HRS. But you want to have your cake and eat it too. While professing that the majority of men as a group are innocent of the claims feminists make about the dark side of men's patriarchal ways, you do a very good job of proving these claims right.

The technique of the anti-feminist bully is mathematical in its consistency (as opposed to people who engage with genuine feminist debate). The technique is to abuse, villify, misrepresent, slander, demonise, degrade and oversimplify feminists on a sustained and repetitive basis, and then smugly cry ‘abuse’, ‘angry feminist’, ‘man-hater’ yada yada, when one of them decides to take the gloves off.

It’s also very revealing that you keep repeating this supposed 'irony' that feminists ‘don’t believe in abuse’. This is also the hallmark of a bully – the over-reliance on the tendency for most people (especially women) to walk away from abusive treatment in order to keep the peace, or because engagement is getting them nowhere.

Which is exactly how these OLO gender topics evolve. Or haven’t you noticed that, apart from me, all the feminists have left this discussion, and the usual anti-feminist bombasts have now captured the space?

SJF, it's a waste of effort trying to engage HRS in any kind of sensible debate about gender and/or feminism. HRS is a sock puppet for the former OLO user "Timkins", who was banned for serially abusive comments to anybody who differed from his obsessive views about women.

Arguing with him just encourages him.

I'm with CJ. HRS has his own issues and it's important to him to claim victim status in almost every post. He doesn't tell the truth, either. As you point out, it's not debate.

Feminists discussions on OLO always end up with no women left and some very angry men talking to each other.

SJF, CJ, Botheration,

"Or haven’t you noticed that, apart from me, all the feminists have left this discussion, and the usual anti-feminist bombasts have now captured the space?" See, I think that they genuinely DONT notice. Or, if they do, they stand there rubbing their hands like the schoolyard bullies and saying "There. That put them in their place". as, metaphorically, everyone else slinks off cowering into the middle distance.

However, I also came to the conclusion that their agenda is this: Locked into schools of thought which conclude that anyone who seeks professional help for their problems is a "pussy", and convinced that the female-dominated professions of psychiatry and psychology are tools of the evil nazi-fems, they use these threads as cathartic platforms . Either that, or they are too darned cheap to pay for help like everyone else does. In fact, I have often thought of asking if anyone was interested in a quick whip-round to help?(Similarly I have often toyed with the idea of us all donating a few books to swell the ranks of Pizzy and Patai which seem to constitute the sum total of the "feminist" library of this group).

CJ, HRS was Timkins? AAAh. That explains everything.

Maybe a subscription to Zoo magazine for HRS? This isn't the first time he's claimed never to have heard of men's mags while displaying a frightening familiarity with womens's mags. (See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6604#98530 )

You know, for research purposes.

SJF
I haven’t used the words ‘angry feminist’ or ‘man-hater’ anywhere, but you have used words such as “men's patriarchal ways”.

That now classifies ALL men as being somehow evil.

That is vilification and discrimination of the entire male gender, and I have yet to find a feminist who does not carry this out. It is universal within feminism.

The author of the article carries this out with lines such as “Men can fantasise about women crawling all over the floor waiting to service them all they like” and “playing by the men’s rules “ .

The author also writes of “respect and dignity”, then has lines such as “which basically amount to not putting up a fuss about being considered “f---”. and “how much men want to f---- them”.

Some arguement or debate the author puts forward, but maybe she has been reading too much Germaine Greer, who once wrote in a UK newspaper that men were "surplus to requirements", and then hired 5 men to carry out work on her recently purchased property outside of Brisbane.

Some arguement or debate Germaine Greer put forward also.

Ho hum, Iain (Hall, I presume) and Desipis trotting out the same tired argument that feminists are all humourless old spinsters who've undergone permanent removal of their funny bone. Yawn.

It's so frustrating when people with genuine reservations or complaints are sidelined as having 'no sense of humour'. I have a great sense of humour - I just don't happen to find lampooning women who question the appropriateness of free breast jobs in a lad's mag particularly hilarious.

Given the intellectual range of some of these comments, I'm unsurprised that a large number of people have deliberately distorted the point of the article. For a start, I have never in anything I've ever written grouped men as collectively offensive, sexist or ignorant. Rather, I have clarified on more than one occasion that I know a great many men who are intelligent, funny, supportive, sensitive and generally all round ace human beings. Feminist bashers love to claim that feminists hate ALL men - namely because it's easier than actually mounting a considered argument.

The only good men are dead men eh James H? What absolute rot - I've never read or a heard a real feminist say that anywhere. You naysayers love to rail against the supposed one eyed demonisation of men by feminists, yet it is apparently perfectly acceptable for you to stereotype feminists yourselves. Perhaps if any of you actually bothered to read modern feminist texts or bloggers, you'd see that your arguments are as weak as dishwater.

If you read widely, you would realise that there is a huge backlash from feminists against women's magazines. I find it highly amusing that because I have, in this one instance, chosen to write about Zoo magazine it is somehow indicative of a general antipathy to the negative impact of women's mags. It IS possible that I may hold opinions on a number of different things you know.

As for SJF, well done for holding your own against the majority of people here - but as CJ Morgan says, engaging with them repeatedly is an insult to your superior intelligence.

JamesH,

“HRS is correct on this, I have read an enormous amount of feminist material and about the only thing positive said about men is "a dead man".”

Unfortunately, you hoisted yourself on your own petard. Anyone who has read ‘an enormous amount of feminist material’ would know that feminists don’t stoop to this kind of rubbish ... unless, of course, you are reading from one of those fake purple 'feminist' sites set up by MRA, right-wing and libertarian organisations to camouflage a profoundly anti-feminist agenda.

CJ, Botheration, Romany

I fully agree on all points. I posted those 'huffies' for the sake of principle, not debate. Sometimes, someone just has declare: ‘THAT’S IT! Enough already!’

Actually, Romany … I’d liken HRS, JamesH and Co. more to a bunch of old drunks at closing time, too bleary-eyed to notice everyone’s left.

HRS, if you're going to quote me at least try and do it in context.

"The author of the article carries this out with lines such as “Men can fantasise about women crawling all over the floor waiting to service them all they like” and “playing by the men’s rules “."

Actually, what I wrote was:

"There’s nothing wrong with having sexual fantasies that involve the complete submission of your partner. Men can fantasise about women crawling all over the floor waiting to service them all they like - <b>I don’t think it’s any less valid a fantasy than any other.</b> The difference is how <b>some</b> men respond to women who don’t behave in a coquettish and submissive manner in real life - that’s where Zoo irrefutably falls down."

The author also writes of “respect and dignity”, then has lines such as “which basically amount to not putting up a fuss about being considered “f---”. and “how much men want to f---- them”."

Again, what I actually wrote was:

"...Zoo demonstrates complete and abject disdain for the rights of women to coexist outside of this fantasy world.

The message is simple - women are OK as long as they’re playing by the men’s rules (which basically amount to not putting up a fuss about being considered “f*ckable”)."

If you had any skills at disseminating information, you'd realise that this is directly targeting the attitude of Zoo magazine, NOT men in general.

Do try and keep up.

I was going to pop into this thread earlier, but quite frankly, I've argued these points with HRS before and there's a distinct feeling of deja-vu and going around in spirals.

1) He pops up to say all feminists are evil, thus grouping a massive number of people with a vast range of opinions, only into the fringe category. It's the same tactic used by those who demonise liberal/left or conservative/right thinking by grouping the entire complex political spectrum into the fringe category. It's far easier to attack loonies than sensible people, but first you have to construct a view for them.

2) When provided with contrary information, the ball is shifted, and/or requests for other information are trotted out in an effort to evade the obvious.

3) Then assume the mantle of victimhood, and say how hard done by men are, by the militant masses of feminism, who are no doubt hatching their next evil scheme against males.

It's all been said and done here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6633#100974

SJF,
Your comment “a bunch of old drunks at closing time, too bleary-eyed to notice everyone’s left” is once again more verbal abuse.

Doesn’t say much for the feminist premise that it is men that are abusive.

Dear Audrey Apple,
I must say you were very frank in your article, and very dignified and respectful as well.

So by writing “playing by the men’s rules “, you actually meant “men”, but not “men”.

Very difficult to disseminate that, because you didn’t say which men. Perhaps you could be more specific next time, and show more respect.

Zoo is obviously a trashy type magazine, but if you are aghast at trash media, there is unfortunately a rather large selection to choose from.

The fact that so much is printed on paper may become more of an issue in the future, with too many valuable trees being cut down to fuel trash media, just when we need those trees the most.

Perhaps next time you swoon over Germaine, you should also consider her comment that men were now “surplus to requirements”.

She didn’t say which men either, (which was rather discriminatory of her) so I don’t think too many men should somehow consider her to be a “sexy” feminist.

OLO persistently makes these fairly vain and thinly veiled attempts to dissect gender politics, which descends into little more than gender bigoted vitriole, often cleverly 'argued' and all spectactularly redundant. Which is hardly surprising given the generally ironic tone of the articles.

There are a couple intelligent writers but they never delve below the surface, which l guess is about right for an internet opinion website.

Essentially, when it comes to this sort of stuff its much easier to stand in a circle and point the finger, starting with the tact universally taken by the authors. Which, dare l say it, is almost always one sided and never accepts any accountability nor responsibility for the parts played by both genders.

In the end the whole thing is little more than another stab at the Projection Medley in the Insecurity Olympics. Attack, defense, attack, defense, its your fault nonsense. It obviously strikes a chord and gets alot of views and posts, which is prolly the intent. Rabble rousing.

Which is bound to keep this battle of the sexes gender war raging into infinity, unresolvable as it is in the midst of such insecurity.

Society and the illusory costructs it fosters, like gender, is the sum total of OUR insecurities. Claims of hatred being the most insipid form of denial driving the projection in this place.

Oh yeh, MRA is a front for right wingers and liberatians (right wingers in denial) and of course, feminism is a front for lefties and social(ist) progressives (communists in denial). Funny huh. This is the closest anyone in these blogs has actually come to scratching below the surface of gender politics, namely... its a front. And thankfully for the silver tongued snakes in politics, there are many 'useful idiots' on both sides to do their bidding.

audrey apple: "...Desipis trotting out the same tired argument that feminists are all humourless old spinsters..."

"Old", "spinsters", that's two words put in my mouth. As for humourless that's misquoted because that was more in reference to your post on NYE and not feminism. I know it's rather presumptuous to say things based on a few blog posts, but there was a rather strong disdain for "common culture". I'm sure there's plenty of things you find amusing and entertaining, and they're just as valid as what the readership of Zoo find amusing and entertaining.

"It's so frustrating when people with genuine reservations or complaints are sidelined as having 'no sense of humour'."

It's so frustrating when people who have genuine reservations with a feminist's article get labeled as feminist hating misogynists.

“I just don't happen to find ... particularly hilarious.”

You don’t have to. Some people do, and that’s ok. Some people may find your humour dull or offensive, but there’s nothing wrong with it if they do.

"The message is simple - women are OK as long as they’re playing by the men’s rules"

That's not the message at all. The message is 'we like this kind of woman'. Where's the harm done? How is glorifying the female physical form derogatory towards women? If anything, it's the men who should be offended because it's saying that women are sexy and men aren't.

TurnLeftTurnRight: "Then assume the mantle of victimhood, and say how hard done by men are, by the militant masses of feminism..."

There are quite a few cases whether one of the genders are hard done by and hence could be considered 'victims'. However, I'm struggling to find a victim from the publication of Zoo magazine.

audrey apple: “...engaging with them repeatedly is an insult to your superior intelligence.” and “Do try and keep up.”

Considering you chose a few cheap quips instead of addressing my points, perhaps ‘superiority complex’ might be another label one could attach. You're writing indicates you're quite intelligent, perhaps you could try applying it to reading as well.

Oh Dear SFJ and Audrey Apple, cant I exaggerated just a little abit?

I do however know more than a few females who really do wish that their ex-husbands, de-factos, boyfriends were really dead.

Now SFJ, if someone recorded your conversations with your friends about men without you knowing, I wonder you would really be saying.

To be honest, I do not, unlike you spend my time with with drunks at closing time. In fact I'd be lucky to have visited a pub 10 times in the last year and unlike you, I never stay until closing.

It wasn't really that long ago that it was claimed the breast implants caused all these health problems in women. After the hysteria settled down and a company bankrupted, thousands of women receiving compensation which they didn't deserve. Now women are perking up and getting implants once again.

James H,
I don’t think you are exaggerating all that much.

The author seems to have minimal regard for anything, including boys. This article on OLO comes from the author’s blogsite, and is included under the banner of “Boys are made of slime and snails”.

http://audreyapple.blogspot.com/search/label/boys%20are%20made%20of%20slime%20and%20snails

That title given by the author is abusive and discriminatory of boys, written by a freelance journalist who (theoretically) should know better about the way they portray children in the media. It doesn’t say much for any university training she has received.

The author’s blogsite is also filled with profanity and semiliterate articles, with titles such as ”Riot Grrl”, ”F__k the world” , ”F__ked”, “People are Sh_t” etc. “

I give the author’s blogsite a vote of 0 out of 10, because of her discrimination of children, her profanity and her general standard of semiliterate articles.

Congratulations Audrey. You are a credit to feminism, to journalism and to trash media.

That is just too, too funny. Perhaps you're not familiar with blogs HRS, but I don't write mine as part of the MSM. It's a personal blog which has nothing to do with my freelance writing but which I like to think explores a range of different things that interest me and my readers. How I should then somehow feel responsible for its content as a journalist is beyond me. I have certainly never labelled the blog as being for anything specifically media related, or journalism related and can quite happily post on issues from the burqa to federal politics to how much i like to sit on my couch and watch tv in my knickers. That's the whole point of it being a PERSONAL blog.

The 'titles' you speak of aren't titles at all, but labels. As my regular readers know, my labels have always been tongue in cheek on purpose. To steal a line from an old children's rhyme as a tag for feminist posting is something that even my male readers 'get'. I think you're grasping at straws by trying to make out that I'm somehow discriminatory towards little boys.

As for your accusations of profanity, yes I have often been known to use swears and 'vulgar' language. Unlike you, I don't think the use of such language prohibits a person from being intelligent.

Frankly, I'm glad you rank my blog 0 out of 10. If anything I wrote in any way appealed to anything that's going on up in the one eyed mind of yours*, I'd be slightly worried. As Jessica Valenti has had it recently, thank you for affirming my personal faith in my politics and general beliefs.

By the way, how on earth are you offended by the label 'riot grrl'? It's a legitimate and recognised term for feminist activists. But what would I know...I hate children after all.

* oh noes! I'm abusing you by calling you one eyed! what a hypocrite, the feminists should throw me out, wait that's what we all do because we hate men and want them dead etc.

HRS, I just took a look at the same site. I'm afraid after your last post it's going to be very, very difficult to take you seriously.

You just performed the equivalent of watching a roadrunner cartoon, then screeched about animal cruelty.

Honestly man, get a sense of humour, ditch your anti-feminist anger for just a while and ease up a little. Sheesh.

Scroll down and read about poetry boy. Is the site still a man-hating source of evil?

The snips and snails mention is just a lighthearted heading.

Next you'll be accusing the dastardly writers behind 'Bewitched' or 'Buffy the Vampire Slayer' of being some kind of man-hating feminist subversives out to destroy all that is good in the world.

To be honest, I don't see all that much of value in this article. It seems pretty obvious to me, that the makers of Zoo are entitled to write this crap, and writers such as Ms Apple are entitled to point out how vacuous it is.
There's profit to be had, so Zoo will keep doing it, and I'd be more worried if they were being censored than if they continued to produce stupid material.

Though the hardline responses to this pretty harmless article really do take the cake.

Ya gotta wounder.

Is Timkins and alter ego of Audrey.

Or, is Audtrey, Timkins in drag.

Juxtapose the gender identity hangups and they sound much alike.

Sincerely,

Clarke Carrot.

TLTR, Nicely summarised. You even managed to cover Audrey's "Blogging 101 in 350 words or less" post.

"To be honest, I don't see all that much of value in this article."

The only thing I can see in this article is someone being "furious" that men are being men, while simultaneously complaining that people say she has a dislike of men.

(Using a definition of men that is the stereotypical likes-to-oogle-at-women one)

What I find truly ironic is that someone who associates themselves with a liberation movement can be so "furious" about other people enjoying the freedoms that they have.

HRS as a child I did not like that nursery ryhme. One day my daughter wanted to read that nursery ryhme and my son said that he didn't like it.

Having children of different genders it is really apparent that boys and girls think very differently.

Rather curiously audrey also rates blokes on her site, maybe it is little more polite than rating by f*ckability, but it is still a rating system.

But then I guess it is Ok for chicks to do this, but not blokes.

Does anyone else think that James and HRS share a suspiciously similar syntax? C'mon guys, related?

botheration: "Does anyone else think that James and HRS share a suspiciously similar syntax?"

Nah. Timkins isn't bright enough to operate two sock puppets simultaneously :)

However, for identical syntax to HRS's interminable misogynist bleating, have a look here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6333

It's a troll, folks. Like somebody said above, these guys use forums like these to feel better about their clearly inadequate selves, rather than getting the help they clearly need. Feeding them only ultimately extends their suffering, poor things.

Audrey
Parts of what you have written in your article could not be fully quoted or repeated in the comments section of OLO, because a software checking system would not allow the words to be posted, because of profanity restrictions.

There is far to much trash in the mainstream media and on the internet, and I accept those profanity restrictions.

A simple test can be applied to any feminist literature.

Take out the word “men”, and insert the word “blacks” or “jews”. If it seems discriminatory, then it is also discriminatory with the word “men”, or “boys”

Very few pieces of literature written by any feminist anywhere in the world have ever passed that test, and your literature doesn’t pass that test either.

Your are 26, single, semi-employable, a feminist, a male discriminator, and a person who writes profanity in a blog site. Maybe you should take stock.

If you were a young male, then most likely another male would have told you to get your act together a long time ago.

Hey, CJ (Btw, Love your work),

I dunno. I actually did skim down some of those listed intros of Timkins and I have my doubts. The Timkins character used words like puerile, disingenuous, spurious etc. Also claimed knowledge of Voltaire, referred to certain scholarly associations and papers, was au fait with current social mores and, most strangely, seemed to be familiar with the Encyclopedia Brit. Nary a reference to that bastion of OLO scholarship, Wikipedia. Unless he is being very disingenuous indeed this doesn't sound like anyone currently propping up the bar on this thread.

The fact that no rebuttal has appeared I took at first as the old "silence gives assent" trope, but now I have remembered that none of the bar-proppers ever read more than the first few lines of any post. A reprehensible habit because they seem to assume we all do the same and that we never realise that the vast majority of what they say is merely a repetition of what they have said - at interminable length, over and over and over....( I have never seen a woman with a black eye...As Patai says...black eye..Patai says...black....yawn)

"Very few pieces of literature written by any feminist anywhere in the world have ever passed that test, and your literature doesn’t pass that test either."

Anywhere in the WHOLE WORLD hey? Good grief, you have been a busy little beaver. HRS, how fortunate for you that you have seemingly had the time to read all the literature produced by ALL the feminists in ALL the world (let alone the pages and pages of posts on my blog) so that you may construct such an opinion. I only wish I had similar vast empty spaces of time to fill that I may enjoy such diversity of thought and words.

Secretly though, I suspect your consumption of feminist literature is conveniently limited to snippets out of radical feminists texts from the seventies. It's probably because your general understanding of modern feminist thought seems to be so...well...absent.

BTW, I bet I can exactly guess how you'd react if I wrote a sentence like "very few pieces of literature written by men anywhere in the world have contained any depth of insight or indeed understanding of women." The difference between us is that I haven't and wouldn't write such a thing.

You have tried (very unsuccessfully) to paint me as being a hardline, one eyed manhater when in fact it is YOU who is hellbent on willfully stereotyping any woman determined enough to express an idea that differs from your world view.

"Your [sic] are 26, single, semi-employable, a feminist, a male discriminator, and a person who writes profanity in a blog site. Maybe you should take stock."

Yeah...or going by your evaluation of my life, kill myself I guess.

*cries over the waste of time that her life is according to HRS*

Does anyone else think that James and HRS share a suspiciously similar syntax? C'mon guys, related?
Posted by botheration

Sorry to dissappoint but I wouldn't know HRS if I fell over him/her.

"Secretly though, I suspect your consumption of feminist literature is conveniently limited to snippets out of radical feminists texts from the seventies."
audrey apple

I find it interesting that feminists will use the past to make their point, such as for example women have always been oppressed. Yet will criticize the use of rad 70's feminists. However Hoff Summers, Patai (Yawn), Stobla, Phillips, Young, McElroy all write more recent articles.

I hypothesise that perhaps the majority of the current gender studies lecturers were heavily influenced by the rad feminists and that much of that thinking still influences us today. For example Greer is still lecturing and putting her foot in her mouth, which is a shame that it doesn't stay in her mouth all the time.

Audrey Apple defends her blog as a way of exploring different things that interest her and her readers.

Now there is nothing wrong with exploring different ideas and concepts, although sometimes nobody to is prepared to play the devils advocate.

There was quite a noise made over "The Secret" which basically said that if you think negatively then that is the way you will veiw the world and your experiences.

I like the work of Psychologist Toby Green and she wrote that some people take the view that if someone doesn't agree with their opinion, that that person does not respect them. So they take it personally.

I think HRS that your debating technique has improved and Audrey is trying to use emotional hooks to prove herself right.

Audrey
You can laugh or chuckle or do whatever you want, although I am quite certain that you will be having a serious think about things in a few years time, but by then it is usually too late.

Nature rules, and not Germaine Greer (as many women have eventually discovered)

I see from your blogsite that you must be a very happy camper, and a true believer in equality, with articles such as ”People are Sh_t” and “Boys are made of slime and snails”.

I would attribute this to your hard work and enthusiasm over so many years, that now returns so many rewards. So once again, well done Audrey on your profane and gossipy blogsite (0 out of 10).

James H,
How can someone lecture at a university, but believe in an “ism”, and call themselves an “ist”. It means that they haven’t learnt anything.

So is anyone not even slightly offended the competition in Zoo (you know the one that the article was about by Audrey)? How can you seriously compare a handbag competition to one that promotes surgically changing someone?
How about to make it equal Cosmo can have a comp "Help make my boyfriends penis larger!" Then you can complain that we're treating men like objects and we feminist-nazi-whatsits can say "get a sense of humour!"

oh such pompous words from Audrey Apple (is that a real name?)

I particularly enjoyed “the continued insistence of Zoo to disregard women’s outrage at the sexist and degrading way they both treat and promote femininity.”

And

“joke that’s being had at the expense of feminism, “

Of course, when Zoo used the “great icon” (Germ Greer), they had the temerity to

“deftly reduces the concept of feminism to anti-femininity and the wilfully misuderstood writings”

Audrey you have a Freudian typo there - 'uder' is normally spelt with 2 "Ds"

(in "Zoo" terms, i guess, double "D"s mmmm luverly!)

Well Audrey, it is like this, freedom of speech ensures you get to complain about what you dislike and

Those who dislike what you write can only complain.

I am sure whilst Audrey and her hockey stick swinging friends in feminism privately demand that publications of “the greasy Neanderthals” be banned, they would soon complain if “the greasy neanderthals” could equally ban the writings and publications of the feminists.

Actually “the slap-on-the-back encouragement that you know is coming from the greasy neanderthals that staff these kinds of offices.

Sounds decidedly “sexist” to me.

A whole office of men stereotyped as “greasy Neanderthals”.

It is neither nice nor “lady like” to mock the persperatorily effusive “greasy” ones.

Oh Audrey, I see you have decided to post too, get over it, feminism is not so important as to warrant censoring what you see as Zoo’s bad taste.

The great thing with poor and bad taste, it is only through the existence of the banal that true art can be appreciated.

In that regard, I think Audrey represents the banal and Zoo the true art, but that is my own view.

Whilst I do not expect anyone else to agree with my view I will defend your right to disagree with it because the right to disagree is more important than finding consensus on anything.


Footnote, a quote from Margaret Thatcher (a more iconic female than Germ Greer),

“I owe nothing to Women's Lib.”

Oh boy, how I just love Maggie.

Kee_ana
The woman isn’t actually being forced to have a boob job.

I myself am not a great admirer of artificial boobs (look ridiculous and unnatural as far as I am concerned). I often think that most men don’t like artificial boobs either, and it’s the women who want artificial boobs, not the men.

I have found that probably 50% of the women in women’s magazines would have had a boob job or cosmetic surgery. There are also lots of pictures of women with low cut dresses, showing off their often artificial boobs

So why is it that women like to look at pictures of other women with low cut dresses and artificial boobs?

Also why should a loving and wonderful feminist such as Audrey be allowed to say that “Boys are made of slime and snails”., when feminism believes so much in equality of gender.

Is there something wrong for a loving, caring, nurturing and equality believing member of feminism like Audrey to say that “Boys and girls are made of slime and snails”

Col, wow, I mean, I know this topic required intellectual rigour, but you've gone one step further and brought to it the wit of someone who really enjoys his late night TeleCafe ads. I'm sure I'm not the only lady swooning at your rakish, cor blimey, "tits oot for the lads!" charm. But to be fair, you kindly reigned in your intellectual reach, so at least Audrey can feel secure in the knowledge that you had to invent a position for her (as a censor and book banner, no less!) in order to find something you could argue against. I'm assuming her actual arguments were too tricky for you.

HRS: "I have found that probably 50% of the women in women’s magazines would have had a boob job or cosmetic surgery."

So, you have no idea what Zoo or Maxim are, but you are very au fait with the articles in women's magazines, plus, assuming your percentage rating comes from a statistically valid sample, you have made special study of the models' breasts, trying to work out if they're real or fake. (And those surgeons are clever these days - it requires serious study.) Tell me, do you buy the magazines yourself, or look at the pictures of the models online? Or, even more charmingly, borrow a younger relative's?

I notice your nastiness towards the women on this thread is increasing. Please be careful - this may diminish your ability to cry victim and claim that we are all abusing you with our words, even though - ironically - feminists don't believe in abuse! Also, if you do respond to this, could you be sarcastic? Cause that really works for you.

There's nothing like a feminist article to bring some very bitter men out of the woodwork. Pity. If you could only demount your high horses and wipe those chips off your shoulders you'd find plenty of brainy feminists willing to talk about gender responsibilities.

PS. Don't forget HRS, sarcasm please!

Oh get over it Audrey!

Face it. Feminism isn't sexy. I'm sure feminist forums take the same amount of fun in how un-sexy many uncouthed men who dare to scratch their own balls are.

Magazines like this only have a voice because of the need for a counterpoint to all the feminist PC drivel a whole generation of guys were brought up with while constantly apologising for being a man.

Oh botheration, it is a racing certainty that, by deliberately opposing the monocular views of feminists, one will find someone who thinks they are “smart” and tries to apply sarcasm to we detractors.

My original comment was from the heart and is essentially an eternal and steadfast defence of free expression, regardless that both minorities and majorities might sometimes be “offended”.

I see you have risen to the bait.

Your footnote comment “you'd find plenty of brainy feminists willing to talk about gender responsibilities.”

leaves me with only one problem,

It is my experience that, those who expect discourse on the matter of the “responsibilities” of others are, invariably, ignorant to the “rights” of others.

Therefore, in all fairness, when a “feminist” is prepared to discuss “male rights” (as well as “gender responsibilities”), I will be prepared to engage, with view to maybe, just maybe, generating some meaningful philosophy on the topic, despite “meaningful philosophy” most often, being the refuge of oxymorons.

Until then I will treat the whole issue of “feminism” with the same disregard as dearest Margaret (Thatcher) who, uttered another quotable gem back in he 1980’s viz

“The battle for women's rights has been largely won.”

Oh and back to the subject matter “Zoo Magazine” and Audrey’s veneer of feminist moral outrage, I will depart this post with a small offering from dear Oscar (liberally extending the definition of “books” to include “magazines”)

“There is no such thing as a moral or an immoral book. Books are well written or badly written.”

So Audrey, the truly “moral” (feminist) would simply ignore the bad and thank God for being blessed with better taste.

Until another opportunity presents itself (not long to wait, no doubt).

Col: "My original comment was from the heart and is essentially an eternal and steadfast defence of free expression, regardless that both minorities and majorities might sometimes be “offended”."

Who do you imagine disagrees with this?

Are you suggesting that Audrey's fun-making of Zoo magazine should not be allowed because it could indicate that she was "offended" by Zoo? If so, why do the rules of free expression that apply to Zoo not apply to Audrey?

I'm not suggesting you are anything other that a heroic warrior of free speech, I just want to know who you believe is attacking it?

"It is my experience that, those who expect discourse on the matter of the “responsibilities” of others are, invariably, ignorant to the “rights” of others."

May I suggest new friends? Yours sound dumb.

I like your Oscar Wilde quote. But, although you may think this should inspire Audrey to ignore Zoo's bad taste, free expression cuts all ways, even if you don't like what they say.

From someone who "thinks" they are smart.

xxx

Botheration,
Its easy to tell which women in a women’s magazine have had a boob job. Just ask a woman, as they seem to know.

I did once, and the conversation went like this:-

HRS - How many of these women have had boob job’s.
Her :- Probably all.

HRS:- It can’t be all.
Her (flicking through pages): - She’s had one, she’s had one, and her, they look normal, they aren’t, she’s had one etc.

I’ve never heard of a woman being forced to have a boob job, and I don’t think most men really like them.

So feminists have got it wrong yet again. It’s the women who want boob jobs, and also like looking at photos of women in low cut dresses who have had boob jobs..

So that clears that up, but there still remains the question of why the adorable, kind, considerate, generous and caring Audrey Apple has put this article under the title of “Boys are made of slime and snails” in her blogsite, and why she didn’t say “Boys and girls are made of slime and snails”.

I would think it is because she is a bigoted, prejudiced and discriminatory individual who wants to call herself a feminist, and also wants to state that boys are made of slime and snails.

However I could be wrong, as I don’t believe in an “ism”, or like to call myself an “ist”.

HRS, I'm endlessly amused that you keep banging on about one of my blog labels. Anyone in their right mind can see that I didn't sit there thinking, hmmmm....now how can I best describe boys? What do I *really* think of them! I know! I'll make something up ALL BY MYSELF!

Seriously, get over the fact that it is a nod to an old nursery rhyme. I have a lot of male readers, and I'd wager 99.99% of them 'get it'.

But think what you want. You're statistical reasoning has been ace thus far. There was that whole bit about hardly any feminist across the WHOLE WORLD writing anything positive about men. And then that bit just recently where you went on the word of your female friend flicking through one magazine to come up with the hard fact that more than 50% of women in women's mags have boob jobs. Great detective work Sherlock.

As for Whitty, women who believe in gender equality and not being valued primarily for their looks are 'unsexy'....so, we shouldn't care about those things for fear that the boys won't like us? Battling for gender equality and trying to ensure that young girls grow into strong, independent women is the equivalent of a man sitting in his jocks scratching his balls? Thank you for so perfectly reinforcing my position.

Audrey Apple,

What is gender equality?
How do we define it?
How do we measure it? So that we know when it has been achieved.

I often hear about how men do not respect women, yet at the same time I find women do not respect men.

Frankly I do not believe that gender equality is possible until women allow men to be equal.

Here you are criticising HRS for criticising one of your blog labels, yet on the other hand you are criticising Zoo magazine over it's choice of promotion, which was more than like deliberately run to get under the skin of feminists like yourself!

And it truly succeeded.

There is an interesting book availble on the internet titled "If men have all the power; How come women make the rules?" (Google it). Another book I think truly worth reading is "The rantings of a single male" by Thomas Ellis. If you are game enough to read it, may I suggest that you take some blood pressure pills and a tranquiliser, otherwise you are more than likely to burst a blood vessel.

Dear Audrey Apple, sweetness and light.

It is pleasing to see that you have cleaned up your blogsite, and removed all trash, profanity and discriminatory material.

For a while there I thought that you may be aiming for the dizzy heights of such noble feminists as Maureen Dowd with her “Men have no more value than ice cream”, or queen Germaine with her “Men are surplus to requirements”

It would be even more pleasing to see on your blogsite statements by feminists that say something positive about the male gender, as it was males that invented computers and the internet, and also blogsites.

But perhaps that would be going too far, and you may lose too many of your readers.

As a hairy mediterranean descendant, l take deep offense at the terms 'greasy' and 'neanderthal.'

Putting them together has deeepwy offwendeded my feeeewings.

Ban rancid apples.

And as a gender progressive who has a deeply abiding respect for equality, l am deepwy offwended by the sir lancelot wannabees perpetuating their benevolent sexism in the form of chvillary, in defense of the damsels in self induced emotional distress.

Gawd, l just lurve OLO. lm gonna have to recalibrate the irony metre and save up for a bigger one that can measure to a much higher level. How about an article on 'how to get an irony metre enlargement.'

Oh botheration “free expression cuts all ways, even if you don't like what they say.”

Oh I know that.

Hence, I pre-empted your predictable cudgel of the obvious by saying, in my original post

“Whilst I do not expect anyone else to agree with my view I will defend your right to disagree with it because the right to disagree is more important than finding consensus on anything.”

I guess proclaiming yourself “someone who "thinks" they are smart.”

Could become the next debate.

Since I am here and have about another 250 words to consume before the post allocation is consume, I might as well render a few more quotes on the subject of “gender”

“Nobody will ever win the Battle of the Sexes. There's just too much fraternizing with the enemy.” H Kissinger

Good one Henry.

and this is one for all the feminists

“You don't have to be anti-man to be pro-woman.” Jane Galvin Lewis

now that’s “gender equal” quoting thus far,

But there can only ever be one best quote (in this case from a man)

"Women do not find it difficult nowadays to behave like men, but they often find it extremely difficult to behave like gentlemen." Sir Compton Mackenzie

Col. Hmm. Interesting. I notice you employ the tactic of *telling* people you are smarter than them rather than demonstrating it. A devastating argument. And yet, not.

Your insults aide, I'd still like answer my question. Who were defending free speech against?

The truth is I want to hear you go on about how feminists have secret meetings where they 'privately demand that publications of “the greasy Neanderthals” be banned'. Seriously, you sounded really cool and like you knew heaps about women and the world and stuff when you're were talking about that. Talk about that more.

I haven't 'cleaned up' my blogsite at all HRS. I have changed nothing. I would hate for other readers to think I'd acquiesced because you can find nothing more to criticise me for than a posting label.

So, just to clarify, nothing has been taken down or 'cleaned up'. And I never claimed to be sweetness and light - it's you that's ascribing that to the most desirable traits a woman can have.

Botheration “I notice you employ the tactic of *telling* people you are smarter than them . . ”

Not at all, I was quoting from your post viz

Posted by botheration, Thursday, 10 January 2008 12:57:30 PM

“From someone who "thinks" they are smart. “

I notice you only “think you are smart”.

If I were to make such a comment, I would be much more certain than simply “thinking” it.

When you are more certain of yourself, please come back and tell.

Then we might actually test what you seem to be presently so unsure of.

“Your insults aide, I'd still like answer my question. Who were defending free speech against?”

For one so “smart”, may I observe, absence of grammar demotes your post to that of “unintelligible”.

“The truth is I want to hear you go on about how feminists have secret meetings”

Most radical “feminists” are insufficiently organised to muster up to a secret meeting, probably something to do with PMS (perennial male subservience).

Actually, I often used to comment of my ex-wife, “it is like this, she gets PMS and I end up suffering it”

(fyi I have since traded her in for a younger model)

as for “Seriously, you sounded really cool and like you knew heaps about women and the world and stuff when you're were talking about that.”

Oh I could write a lot about the women I know and have known (in both the philosophical as well as the biblical sense).

Then, had you made a more diligent study of other people, you would know, none of us are obliged to leap to your pleadings or commands.

So more quotes

“Human gullibility is a vast resource, which the Feminist Media tap into constantly.”

and

“Feminism is a valiant fight, a fight against nature , reality and common sense”

Then there is

“Feminism: the most organised form of nagging”

and finally (for now)

“Feminism: The State Ideology whereby women have rights, men have responsibilities, and children have their lives ruined”

Col wrote: “...none of us are obliged to leap to your pleadings or commands.”
He he! I win!*

Hey Col, can I just point out that mentioning the fact you’ve traded in your haggard, bossy old wife in for a younger model made you seem really sexy and masculine. Seriously, you didn’t seem in the least bit like you were sexually insecure or had something to prove. Boy, I bet you never stay on the marketplace for long! Tiger.

HRS: “So feminists have got it wrong yet again. It’s the women who want boob jobs, and also like looking at photos of women in low cut dresses who have had boob jobs.”

Sorry, HRS, lost me a little here. Are you saying that:
- Men’s magazines do not use models who have had boob jobs?
- Men do not like looking at women in low cut dresses or who’ve had boob jobs? (If so, let’s ask that steaming pile of hormones Col what he thinks. Because, I tell you what, he is one sexed-up love machine. He’s had TWO wives, doncha know?)
- There are no such thing as men’s magazines, as evidenced by the fact that you have never seen Zoo or Maxim in a newsagency? They are in fact a feminist conspiracy. OR
- Women look at other women in magazines not for gossip or fashion but for sexual reasons? (If so, are you sure this isn’t in your secret fantasy world, a world you enjoy with the help of your secret stash of women’s magazines?)

PS. Col, you can go on about the “think I’m smart” thing, and I hope you do, because I feel it’s really working for you, but you do realise I was just playing on what you said in the preceding post, don’t you?

PPS: By the way, Audrey, I never said how much I enjoyed your blog & article. Top work, you.

*Childish, yes. But, c’mon, he ran away like a big girl!** He was reduced to correcting my grammar!

** Um-ah! Anti-feminist!

Oh Audrey. pat pat pat...

'As for Whitty, women who believe in gender equality and not being valued primarily for their looks are 'unsexy'....so, we shouldn't care about those things for fear that the boys won't like us? '

I didn't say that at all. But I would say that it's a woman's stupid fault if she is so easily influenced by trashy magazines.

My point was that it's as stupid for a woman to get worked up about the content of a forum aimed at titillating men, as it is to get worked up about the content of a feminist forum aimed at encouraging hatred of all things masculine.

In a world where men's space has been invaded by the PC brigade of feminists, and traditional male past times like sport have had all the nasty male violence and complexity taken out to attract a women audience to increase advertising revenue, let us poor guys have some HARMLESS fun. It's all part of the feminisation of men. Men like looking at women's bodies and it has been so since the dawn of time and wont and shouldn't change.

Women can be adult and take responsibility for themselves and stop playing the victim, and choose to accept men as they are and have the courage to be themselves.

Oh Audrey. pat pat pat...

'As for Whitty, women who believe in gender equality and not being valued primarily for their looks are 'unsexy'....so, we shouldn't care about those things for fear that the boys won't like us? '

I didn't say that at all. But I would say that it's a woman's stupid fault if she is so easily influenced by trashy magazines.

My point was that it's as stupid for a woman to get worked up about the content of a forum aimed at titillating men, as it is to get worked up about the content of a feminist forum aimed at encouraging hatred of all things masculine. You're obviously not the target audience, so stop imposing your beliefs on others. It's pointless and egotistical.

In a world where men's space has been invaded by the PC brigade of feminists, and traditional male past times like sport have had all the nasty male violence and complexity taken out to attract a women audience to increase advertising revenue, let us poor guys have some HARMLESS fun.

It's all part of the feminisation of men. Men like looking at women's bodies and it has been so since the dawn of time and wont and shouldn't change.

Women have it in them to be adult and take responsibility for themselves and stop playing the victim, and choose to accept men as they are and have the courage to be themselves.

Dear Audrey Apple, seeker of eternal wisdom and believer in an “ism”.

I must have mistaken your blogsite for some other.

It is true that you have not cleaned up your profane, gossipy, discriminatory and feminist blogsite.

So I apologise, and hope that you have not lost any of your valued readers by this mistake.

The truth is I want to hear you go on about how feminists have secret meetings where they 'privately demand that publications of “the greasy Neanderthals” be banned'. Seriously, you sounded really cool and like you knew heaps about women and the world and stuff when you're were talking about that. Talk about that more.
Posted by botheration, Friday, 11 January 2008 12:02:39 PM

To tell upi the truth Botheration, is that I have noticed a trend thanks to the internet where for example someone or group in Australia tries to introduce changes similar to those already attempted in other countries, whether they have secret meetings I do not know.

a recent example is that in the UK a drunk woman is deemed in capable of giving sexual consent, the next thing to occur is that this is becoming a subject in Australia.

Now in reference to banning men's publications, for example we have gone from have covered magazine covers, to uncovered covers back to covered covers of some mens magazines.

Earlier this century the Office for the Status of Women in Canada published a paper recommending the monitoring of men's groups and the introduction of a law to make it an offense to basically criticise women.

In France it is now illegal to criticise women. If memory serves me correctly this was also tried in Australia and I suspect that sometime in the future it will eventually become law.

Under gender equality to law should by rights also apply to criticism of men, but the way it will written the law will exempt criticism of men from being illegal.

Besides if they made it illegal to criticise men, there would not be enough gaols for all the women.

James wrote: "In France it is now illegal to criticise women... this was also tried in Australia and I suspect that sometime in the future it will eventually become law."

Sorry? Do you have a skerrick of proof, or did you simply invent this? Can you at least give us some references?

Whitty,

Of course men like looking at chicks, and so they should, we're deadset spunks. But that doesn't mean we can't have a conversation about the nature of looking. I don't mind men discreetly checking me out, but I dislike leery drunk guys oggling. I'm not suggesting I control said drunk guys, but I absolutely reserve the right to suggest they sod off. In the same vein, women can be pro-porn (I am - mainly cause I wouldn't deny men's right to it), and still have the right to say exactly what they think of the competitions in Zoo magazine. Including the women who appear in its pages.

I don't think women who publicly discuss porn are motivated by woswerism or fear or victimhood. I think we're reminding men that, while we're sexy creatures, we're also regular human beings, with all strengths and frailties that implies. That's how I think of men - they're gorgeous, but there's more to them than that. And anyone who's ever had a girlfriend who's gone down the porn / sex work route knows that behind the "but it's empowering! I'm choosing to get naked for money!" rhetoric, sadness and dysfunction often lie. Not always, but often.

Audrey strikes me as completely unafraid to be exactly who she is. She's non-compliant. That's why she annoys y'all.

You say: "In a world where men's space has been invaded by the PC brigade of feminists..." & etc

I agree we've made some men feel guilty about liking looking at chicks. We need to fix that, while making sure women aren't exploited by it. (Because, whatever you say, some are.) But your speech here could easily be construed as victim-speak. If I were patronising, I'd say "Oh Whitty, pat, pat, pat..."

http://www.angryharry.com/esOnlyWomenAreToBeProtected.htm

http://www.angryharry.com/eshatespeechagainstwomen.htm

(Sorry? Do you have a skerrick of proof, or did you simply invent this? Can you at least give us some references?)
botheration

"Feminist's in Canada proposed that internet men's groups to be monitored.

"School Success by Gender, A Catalyst for the Masculinist Discourse," by Pierrette Bouchard, Isabelle Boily, and Marie-Claude Proulx.

They stress the urgency for women to "take ownership" of the Internet and demand federal funding and legislative changes that would bring anti-feminist views into the category of criminal hate crime."

As you can see botheration I did not invent this.

Hey, Botheration.

I see you wrote somewhere that you had a little crush on CJ? (I thought it was on this thread). Well...snap!

* Thought: maybe we could mud-wrestle over CJ dressed in g.strings and nipple caps and send that in to Zoo. Waddya reckon?

Seriously: I find CJ's posts insightful, intelligent, calm, funny, ironic, fair and the style altogether enviable. Seems a very together sort of human being.

Why thank you Romany (and botheration). I find myself blushing a little - and it takes a fair bit for that to happen!

Seriously, one of the nice things about participating in this forum is encountering people such as yourselves, who can always be relied upon to provide reason and light, often in the face of extreme prejudice, ignorance and downright idiocy.

Re your mud-wrestling proposal: can my partner and I take part too? Sounds like too much fun for me not to want to get 'down and dirty' too, and she'd undoubtedly pout if she's not allowed to play.

Cheers, and have a great day :)

botheration,

'and still have the right to say exactly what they think of the competitions in Zoo magazine.'

But nobody has taken away that right. They just haven't done what the feminists wanted, and made fun of their suggestion. That's what has pissed her off really I think.

My point is I would be unsurprised if the same sort of thing happened when a man tried to critique a feminist publication.

I think the best response was from BN.

Posted by BN, Thursday, 3 January 2008 2:21:46 PM

C J Morgan.
You could read Audrey Apple’s blogsite,

There is lots of profanity, gossip, feminism and derogatory remarks made about males, (including derogatory remarks of both men and boys), so it is something you may enjoy.

And she also describes Germaine Greer as being “sexy”, but I don't know too many men who think that way.

C.J.,

Hell yeah. We could make it a tag team event. And maybe Audrey, with her talent for "profanity" could talk dirty to the judges about it. We'd be a shoo-in for the coveted prize!

Romany,

I can imagine the appeals process.

Judge, I can’t be accused of gossip, profanity or the maligning of men and boys.

I'm a feminist, and I write a blogsite, and my readers appreciate that type of literature.

Run along now Timmy. There's adults talking about, you know - big people's stuff here.

Don't you have a Wiggles DVD you can watch or something?

Don't you just looove these gender 'debate' sites? Lots and lots of blokes with serious women issues. Lots of baggage there!

For most of us women it gets enormously tiresome to be repeatedly beaten over the head with the same bleatings, and I mean exactly the same, by characters like HRS. You have discovered the copy and paste buttons on your tool-bar haven't you? And may I respectfully suggest you stop fanatically reading all those magazines? Take a good book with you next time you are at the doctor's.

You can tell some men that you regard yourself a feminist and adore men, but that will be vehemently refuted. Alas, some of us are only female and cannot really understand the finer points of what it means to be a human being, let alone understand what we feel or experience as a woman.

Romany, will you and Botheration have little tassles on the nipple caps? I would so love to know how to swing those in opposite directions. Sorry, fellows, don't get jealous I know you can't participate being a boy and all, this is strictly womens business.

Boy aren't these most recent posts are dripping with sarcastic comments.

Yvonne, I guess some little girls just never do not grow up.

This was interesting HRS: in a sarcastic manner you said "Judge, I can’t be accused of gossip, profanity or the maligning of men and boys."

The issue here is, that none of these things are a crime. In fact, sometimes they can be quite amusing.

But only when thin-skinned people take them seriously.

I finally pinned down why your posts seem childish HRS - it's because most men don't give a damn about these minor things. There are far more important things to worry about.

No doubt you're envisioning some society where men are hard done by, and feminist indoctrination is absolute.

Truth is, men occupy most of the senior positions in society. Many may have been subject to the fringe feminist agendas of which you speak.

Most have the good sense to realise that this is only a fringe phenomenon.

Quite frankly, most guys just deal with it and move on. It makes them stronger people, and they can realise that this is a mindset that affects a small portion of the female population.

Just as things like violence or misogyny affect a small portion of males.

But like I said. Most of us realise that life's too short to nitpick ridiculous things, like lighthearted JOKE! headings such as boys are made of snips and snails etc.

As for the rest of us, we'll give a lighthearted chuckle and move on.

I rue the day where a majority of men take stupid things like that seriously or behave like wailing victims at the slightest slur.

Yvonne, Turnrightthenleft.
In my posts there has been no profanity, no gossip, and no maligning of men or boys.

Perhaps you think this is unusual or abnormal in some way, and would much prefer to read more feminist literature, such as in Audrey Apple’s blogsite.

Actually, yes, HRS, I would.

Not because I'm seeking profanity, but you just provided another example of the humourless victimhood that takes these matters far too seriously.

Yvonne

'For most of us women it gets enormously tiresome to be repeatedly beaten over the head with the same bleatings'

I see pot and kettle and....

That is hilarious coming from a feminist:-)))

Whitty, you are running in circles. I was referring to some men insisting on taking on the mantle of victimhood at the hand of feminists and repeating the same unsubstantiated accusations. HRS for instance will categorically insist that female teachers hate boys, that feminists hate men, that any woman who has anything to say at all about her experiences as a woman has the demise of all men as her agenda.

Feminism is not about destroying men. A feminist is not a woman who needs to physically, psychologically and emotionally destroy all man in order to feel good about herself.

It seems impossible to get across to some men, that it is quite possible not to want to condemn and destroy the male gender just because we have issues with some attitudes within society. It is quite legitimate to raise an issue that is experienced as offensive and query the benefits to the members of that society, as in assisting free speech or broadening a concept of morality.

Any man will tell you that they have met a man hating woman. I'm here to tell you I've met and had to work for women hating men. You can believe that or not.

The men in my life, I live in a male dominated household, are all extremely capable men. They can do lots of manly things-ride bulls, lay floors, cook a fine meal, do the laundry, build a shed and build great big biceps. The list is quite exhaustive, but you get the picture. Though they live with me, a feminist, and my daughter, a budding feminist, none of them feel victimised by us. They do not need to engage in silly power games over any woman to feel good, powerful and confident about themselves. They certainly are not victims.

That is why the 'bleatings' of some of the men on this site is really quite sad.

Whether a hetrosexual man finds feminists sexy depends on whether he wants a puppet for his starving ravenous ego or a person to share their life with.

How nice of News Corp to confirm my opinion of them, its like a bore at a party outing themselves before you get comfortable. I haven't spent 5 minutes reading anything from them in years, think i'll cut that back to 30 seconds.

HRS, "and no maligning of men or boys." - maybe not but there has been an enormous amount of maligning of feminists by yourself. A refusal to acknowledge that some feminists do say good things about men and boys and speak out against the extremists.

Your approach does much more harm to the cause of men seeking a fair go in family law and acknowledgement of the places where men and boys are maligned than any feminist could ever hope to achieve in this place. You cry wolf with such regularity that people are less inclined to listen or take claims seriously.

Feminists as a group or in most cases individually are not the enemy and your continued attacks on feminists divert attention from the issues we should be focussed on.

Time to move on.

R0bert

Robert,
It is probably difficult to class Audrey “Boys are made of slime and snails” Apple as being a radical feminist (as would normally occur is such circumstances), as her blogsite has been regarded as being one of the best Australian blogsite for 2007.

The concept that there are feminists who do not malign men or boys is based on very minimal evidence. While there may be men and women who do not malign men or boys, it is extremely rare that they would call themselves a feminist.

But you can find the literature written by a feminist that does not malign men or boys, and actually says something positive about men and boys.

That has been offered to a number of people on OLO (including Audrey Apple) and only one person has taken up the offer, and all they could find was some literature that was written by someone who called themselves a “dissident” feminist, (which I don’t think really counts), and they also chose Dorothy Lessing, who actually rejected feminism years ago, due to the discrimination and vilification of the male gender by so many feminists (and I think Dorothy Lessing is very experienced and well read)

If you are prepared to believe a feminist when they say that they believe in equality, then you would have to be prepared to believe anything said by anyone

I believe you Timmy.

Now do run along - I think Nurse Ratchett's just down the hall with a lolly for you :)

C. J Morgan,
You appear to present yourself as being a highly ethical, moral and knowledgeable ex-teacher, so would you like to reference some articles written by a feminist that say something positive about the male gender.

There has been everything from men are “cavemen” through to “boys are made of slime and snails”, and these articles seem to be held in high regard by others who also call themselves feminists.

So don’t be shy about coming forward, and please do reference some feminist articles that say something positive about the male gender.

We've been here before HRS. It's about defining who is and isn't feminists and what a positive comment about men is.

Here Leslie Cannold, one of Australia's more prominent feminists, speaks warmly of Steve Irwin - a male.

"It is perhaps testament to the complexity of the Australian character that while Irwin's energy and passion made us anxious, we also admired it. Many, including me, couldn't help but feel terribly fond of Irwin."

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4889

No doubt you're about to come forward with some reason why it doesn't fit your predefined box.

Or, you could just accept the views of posters on this very thread, that appear before your eyes. Botheration's called herself a feminist plenty of times, and has warm things to say about men.

These people are practically shouting the fact that they're a) feminists and b) don't hate men, at your face, but you refuse to listen. Apparently because you say they're not feminists, they're not.

But no doubt those aren't fitting in your box either.

Heck, even though I'm male I'm perhaps a feminist as well, and I don't subscribe to any of that fringe male bashing. I like men and think the vast majority are decent people.

Of course, t'won't fit into your box either, unless I start hating males.

Or there's this one, from a self described feminist activist: http://www.xyonline.net/Canmenbeallies.shtml

"Gender does not just denote the female gender. Men are also gendered beings, and are affected in negative ways through the social construction of masculinity. Not all men are naturally hypermasculine, aggressive, competitive, and emotionally distant. Men should be bothered about ending women's oppression because it might also be a way of ushering in an alternative masculinity, and for blurring gender boundaries"

No doubt there's some reason why this article doesn't fit either, unless the direct language is along the lines of "men are awesome, don't ever criticism them" it doesn't fit.

This is a tiresome game HRS. People here are telling you they're feminists and they don't subscribe to the man-hating aspects, and that should be enough. Stop ignoring them in your obsessive pursuit.

Turnrightthenleft,

Sorry, 0 out of 2

The first comment by Leslie Cannold only says something positive about one man, and not about the male gender.

The second reference does not say anything positive about the male gender either, and comes from a website with slogans such as “Boys will do boys”, and “Remind Me AGAIN Why I Need A Boyfriend?”

Keep searching, and you may find someone who describes themselves as being a feminist, and has said something positive about the male gender (heterosexual males included).

But back to the topic.

The self-proclaimed feminist Audrey thinks Germaine Greer is “sexy”, but even the male on the cover of Germaine Greer’s book did not find Germaine Greer “sexy”, and wanted his photograph removed.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/10/17/1066364482598.html

Of course Greer never did oblige, and never did remove his photograph from the cover of her filthy book, because she is a very concerned feminist, and believes so much in human rights.

Rather like Audrey Apple, with her articles under the banner of “Boys are made of slime and snails”, a banner that she has yet to remove.

She probably keeps the banner there, because she is a self-proclaimed feminist and believes so much in human rights also.

HRS,

Looks like you've found a quote yourself. From your link:

"He is disturbed by the nature of Greer's book, which the author says is a celebration of the "evanescent loveliness of boys"."

I do think you have somewhat of a point regarding the feminist attitude towards men, in that they rarely mention positive things about men, or issue that men face. This is primarily because feminism is a movement centered around women's liberation and not stroking men's egos. Of course this leaves their views towards men as a somewhat undefined (or more specifically up to the individual within the movement) and unfortunately can result in people like yourself projecting your misconceived stereotypes onto them.

Thank you R0bert, TLTL and depisis. Feminists when looking at gender issues focus on the feminine (feminine > feminist) of the two genders. As a woman it would be quite presumptuous to speak on the aspect of how masculinity is experienced. We don't know what it is feels like to be a bloke, not even Germaine Greer.

It is very debatable whether men are all well served by how society describes 'masculinity'. It might not only be women who grapple with some issues that confront them because they happen to be that half of the human race that have boobs and a uterus. But then again, maybe it is not confronting or uncomfortable enough for men because so far very little is done by men for men or masculinity.

HRS, stop complaining that feminists are not speaking up for men and boys. Aren't you man enough to speak on behalf of men and boys? Do women have to do everything? Including speaking on your behalf? Let go off your mother's hand, stand on your own two feet.

Jordan I. Kosberg wrote in an article titled "Heterosexual Males: A Group Forgotten by the Profession of Social Work."

Of the studies Mr. Kosberg found about men, half were about homosexuals and most of the rest were about men categorized as abusers, absent fathers, AIDS victims, prisoners or homeless.

"Most males are not delinquent, neglectful, abusers, AIDS victims or gay," Mr. Kosberg wrote. Yet in the last 10 years, "just a handful of studies at best" addressed "normative issues" of males.

This creates an "unfair and untrue" stereotype of heterosexual males, Mr. Kosberg concluded. It also handicaps social workers, leaving them ill-prepared to handle the needs of men related to adolescence, fatherhood, employment, marriage, divorce and aging.

From what I understand is that the vast majority of social workers are women.

So Deepis and Yvonne it would appear that by your recent posts that you support gender discrimination, as long as it is men who are discriminated against.

If sociologists, psychologists, only ever based their research on one gender only, then of course their work will be biased and an inaccurate picture of the complexity of human interaction will occur.

Advocacy research is an example of this.

Yvonne you said that perhaps it is not uncomfortable or confronting enough for men.

I would suggest that most men just keep their heads down, because the flack you guys throw at HRS and myself, most guys are not prepared to face.

"Men like Steve Austin would probably never speak as openly as I do here. I think that - in terms of self-preservation - they are the smart ones. Even as I dumbly write this, I find myself fighting a natural desire to be Mr. Nice Guy and only say pleasing things about the so many lovely ladies in our society.

So why do I risk being inundated with scornful invective from women everywhere?"
http://forum.dadsontheair.com/viewtopic.php?p=16625&sid=2c48af2a5388b76b5284da2d3419dd98

Neil Lyndon's case
http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/suppression/nl.htm

HRS, you find reasons to discard commentary which doesn't fit your preconceptions.

Why am I not the least bit surprised.

Desipis,
The male requested that Germaine Greer remove his photo from the front cover of her book, and she did not do it, being so concerned about human rights.

Germaine Greer is also a woman of taste, because she says so.

“I think so. And I think any woman of taste would prefer the 18-year-old Russell Crowe.”

http://sunday.ninemsn.com.au/sunday/political_transcripts/article_1374.asp

I wonder what would happen to a male professor of a university if they said that a man of taste would prefer an 18 year old girl.

Instant dismissal I would presume. But instead, Germaine Greer was awarded an honorary doctorate from the University of Sydney. It now means that honorary doctorates are now worth nothing. Think about it.

Yvoone,
It is true that feminists rarely have anything positive to say about males, but I have never known a feminist to refuse to take money from a male. Maybe feminists should only take money from women, if men are so objectionable.

It is interesting that you are so negative of me, but you have said nothing about Audrey Apple and her “Boys are made of slime and snails”. Perhaps you find Audrey Apple sexy, with her profanity, gossip and discrimination of children.

I would say bring on gender vilification legislation, and we will see how many feminists are left in the country afterwards.

Turnrightthenleft.
It is very difficult to accept anything from Leslie Cannold who believes so much in abortion and also IVF.

And it is also very difficult to accept something from a website that has slogans such as “I’m a boy on the weekend”, and “I’m not cheap, but I’m on special this week”.

Keep searching.

HRS.

You've flogged the "snips and snails" on Audrey's website quote no less than eight times in directly, and again by indirect references.

It appears nobody else cares about this quote, because everybody else realises it's a joke heading.

You've blown this up to some hyped up slur, just like you blew up 'ilk' to be a slur in another thread.

Again, few thought it was insulting and your repeated attempts to portray yourself or men in general as the victims of a feminist driven society fall on deaf ears - largely because these infantile attempts are transparent.

You say she hasn't cleaned up the website. It's quite clear that this is a passive aggressive way of saying she should censor herself.

This is one of many tactics you've employed, but few are based on reasoning.

Firstly, you keep insisting that others provide evidence to back their case.

This is forcing the onus onto others. Instead of proving your case, you make others prove theirs.

Then you ignore results. In other threads, I presented you with domestic violence statistics.

You ignored them, and demanded figures within a narrow band that you predefined.

In the same way, you insist others find articles from feminists saying positive things about men.

When provided, you again redefine the band. You repeatedly ignore the other evidence.

When articles that say positive things about one man are shown, they don't fit. When articles are shown that criticise feminist articles that are harsh on men, it doesn't fit. When articles are shown that are positive toward men, they're from a 'dissident feminist' and don't fit.

Never mind that all but the fringe accept men have a positive role, so an article pointing out this alone, would be worthless- akin to one that finds women have been known to wear lipstick, or men are capable of driving automobiles.

You also didn't acknowledge that posters on this website identify themselves as feminist, but don't hate men.

Too inconvenient.

Back your own theories instead of wasting other people's time by asking them to provide facts you find ways to ignore.

There's nothing the sock puppet formerly known as Timkins likes better than having his intellectual and emotional betters run around trying to satisfy his puerile demands.

TRTL's patience is admirable, but ultimately he's just feeding a silly little misogynist troll.

James, how in the big wide world could you come to the conclusion that I, or any feminist for that matter, would support discrimination AGAINST men?

You'd be monumentally surprised to know that many feminists have sons and male partners, not to mention fathers. You'll find that many women who call themselves feminist became so because of their father's encouragement and belief that as a female expectations and choices are the same as for their sons.

Your pointer to research done by Kosberg supports my suggestion that men THEMSELVES, all men, not just particular small groups, do not write or research from a man's point of view. It also answers feminists doubts that men are well served. Kosberg came up with very important reasons why the dearth of views from a wider male perspective is detrimental to men.

Kosberg hit the nail fair and square on the head. Men should examine for themselves what it means to be a man. Would you want to have women tell you what it is to be a man? What choices you should have? How you should behave? That is the very basis of feminism-the male gender proscribing what a woman is and what her status should be. Do you really want to swap to how it was for women and now have women do that for men??

Your suggestion that 'men just put their head downs' to escape 'the flack' from women is an insult to men in general. What are you implying here? You leave yourself wide open to cheap shots from which I will refrain.

I have two wonderful young men as sons. One has just spent a hard year as a jackaroo in the Outback, the other has just enlisted as a Reservist in the Army (with quite a bit of spirited argument from his pro-peace mother). I hope this assures you that my men are independent and confident men. I do have to admit they have good male role models in their lives and for some boys that can be a real problem. Females cannot fulfill that role.

TurnRightThenLeft and others...

HRS is a bit nutty, and you rightly admonish him for tying the opinions of what you consider extreme or fringe feminist ideas to slur feminism. But what is the difference between what HRS is doing, and the many many femisinst texts that group all men as one, use violent men or the small percentage of men in positions of power, or stereotypical male traits to slur all men.

I believe HRS, and many other men have taken on these slurs, and been affected by them, and maybe a reason for the bitterness towards feminism.

I know I have felt like I've been asked to apologise for the sins of all men throughout history on many occasions through growing up in this feminist world. I blame my many feminist teachers and feminist mother.

I think that might be why HRS is so riled by the snips and snails.

Yvonne.

A few points...

'Do you really want to swap to how it was for women and now have women do that for men??'

I believe that is exactly what IS happening. It's called political correctness. Things like Agression, laricanism, stoicism are under attack. Men are told they must 'discuss their feelings' or they are 'emotional cripples'. Then if they do they are told to harden up and be a man. Agressive violent sport is being sanitised. Jokes between men about feminist jibes are the subject of this opinion piece. Little boys are more equipped to understand smacks than a verbal dressing down, but smacks are banned.

Then you have ads proporting that having a small penis is more shameful than endangering others behind the wheel of a car. That men are the sole perpetrators of domestic violence. Attempts to bring in laws that mean if a drunk male and a drunk female have sex, and the female decides it was a bad idea later on, the male is responsible for the female's level of intoxication and consent. We have women only gyms and male only clubs are illegal.

And there is no denying that the teaching profession is quite left of centre and has a massive over-proportion of women. Also a lot of young men are brought up by single mothers, and women instigate most divorces, I believe because financial and costodially they have a lot less to lose.

A lot of these problems are either side effects of the feminist movement, or would not be acceptable if the shoe was on the other foot.

'Females cannot fulfill that role'.

Good on you. Such a comment would not be accepted from a male. It would be labelled mysoginist and offensive to all single mothers.

Turnrightthenleft,
Keep searching, and one day you might find something by a feminist that says something positive about the male gender (other than men are “cavemen”, or “men only think of work, sex and sport”, or men are “a danger to women and their children”, or “man are rapists”, or ”men are elephants”, or men are “perpetrators of domestic violence”, or “boys are made of slime and snails”..

But don’t go asking Germaine Greer for hints on what is sexy and what isn’t.

You might have contact with boys at some time in the future.

Whitty,
Feminism has nothing to do with equality, or so called “oppression by the patriarchy”. No tanks have ever rumbled down these streets, and most women in Australia would not know oppression if they fell over it.

There are women’s magazines giving a $250,000 1st prize in handbags and shoes. Some oppression.

Feminism is constant vilification of the male gender, to make it easier to get more and more money out of men.

I know a fellow who earns over $2,000 a week, but out of that $500 goes in rent and living expenses, $500 goes in tax and $500 goes in child support. He has no say in how the tax and child support is spent, so out of what he earns, he has no say in how %50 is spent.

To be able to continue that system, the man has to be constantly vilified and treated as being a criminal. The man has to be made to feel guilty at all times, with nothing that the man does is right.

As a quick example: - According to Germaine Greer, if a male is below 18 then he is “gorgeous”, but above 18, he is no longer gorgeous, because he is a man.

That is feminism, and it is all done to extract as much money as possible from men without actually killing them. The system was actually explained to me once by a solicitor, (of all people).

This is primarily because feminism is a movement centered around women's liberation and not stroking men's egos. Of course this leaves their views towards men as a somewhat undefined
Desipis, Wednesday, 16 Jan 2008

As a woman it would be quite presumptuous to speak on the aspect of how masculinity is experienced. We don't know what it is feels like to be a bloke,

It is very debatable whether men are all well served by how society describes 'masculinity'. It might not only be women who grapple with some issues that confront them..

HRS, stop complaining that feminists are not speaking up for men and boys. Aren't you man enough to speak on behalf of men and boys? Do women have to do everything? Including speaking on your behalf? Let go off your mother's hand, stand on your own two feet.
yvonne, Thursday, 17 Jan 2008

Psychologist Toby Green, wrote about how;

"Marilyn complained that Andrew wasn't affectionate. Andrew responded that she was right. He often felt put down, judged and that Marilyn didn't like him, let alone love him.

Marilyn hotly retorted 'what was she supposed to do, make him feel like God's gift to women!? She refused to pander to his ego and give him a swollen head. She wanted to know if I was suggesting she tell him the things she liked about him, out loud !

Over fifty per cent of my practice is male. In trying to sort out who they're supposed to be in order to please women, they're lost, utterly adrift. And many of their female partners seem intent on tossing them ballast instead of life jackets. Even if the cost is they both sink.

Men teetering on the eggshell of political correctness are clueless about how to get it right, how to win. The truth is some women aren't prepared to let them. Women are better at putting people and relationships back together again. If it were Humpty, they'd assist. It's not. It's men." Toby.

Yvonne just perhaps you might be more a humanist than a feminist.

HRS - still using the tactic of demanding others do the work.

Maybe someday you'll find something to back your case instead. As I said, I'm done with that futile task.

Whitty:

You say HRS is a bit nutty, but my accusations toward him should also be shot at the feminists who do attack men unjustly.

Look, I couldn't agree more. In fact in another OLO article, a feminist made the claim that one in three Australian women would be the victims of domestic violence.

In this thread, I was the first off the bat saying I didn't believe it was that bad, and that was an exaggeration. It was only when HRS chimed in to try and say that Australia didn't have a major domestic violence problem, because he doesn't see women with black eyes, that I took umbrage.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6633#99191

I wholeheartedly agree that the fringe feminists who believe men are evil should be criticised.

But I really don't think Audrey Apple fits that bill - I haven't seen evidence. The real proof, is the fact that she's stopped in, to personally say that she doesn't hate men.

But that doesn't matter to HRS. Because she's said comments that can be construed as being harsh on men (though I think the snips and snails comment takes quite a stretch, and interpreting it this way is actually childish) HRS has pigeonholed her as a man-hating feminist, and nothing can change his mind.

It doesn't matter what anybody says - all feminists are man haters. HRS has decided this and it's final, regardless of what's put forward.

This is the kicker which should end this debate: People who identify as feminists have popped their heads into these threads to say they don't hate men, and he's ignored it.

I don't see how any reasonable person can just ignore that.

But because he has created a perception where in order to be a feminist, you have to hate men, he won't listen. It's hypocrisy. He's doing exactly what he hates so much about the fringe feminists.

Turnightthenleft
So out comes the excuse that Audrey Apple is some type of fringe feminist.

Maybe Audrey Apple could state whether or not she is a “fringe feminist”, or a normal feminist.

If Audrey Apple did like males she could take the banner “Boys are made of slime and snails” off her website, but she hasn’t done that yet.

If Audrey Apple was concerned about” dignity”, then she could also clean up the profanity on her website, but she hasn’t done that yet.

Keep searching.

The sock puppet formerly known as Timkins: "Keep searching"

While others may be silly enough to play Timmy's little game, I think it's both pointless and boring. I propose one for him to fill in some of his miserable time: please provide an example of a comment where Timkins or his sock puppet HRS has said something positive about the female gender.

Have fun searching :)

Yes, funny how he keeps insisting over and over that others keep searching but refuses to do any legwork himself.

I suppose that's easier than backing his own wild claims. It's getting transparent though.

At the beginning of Audreys article, it said;

"'Zoo' magazine’s latest stunt is designed not to, as it argues, appease critics but to poke fun at women who disagree with their childish behaviour."

HRS discovered that on Audreys website that she has "the author’s blogsite, and is included under the banner of “Boys are made of slime and snails”.

Now it, may all be tongue in cheek, but I find it hypocritical that whilst Audrey finds ZOO magazines tongue in cheek, objectionable. That she cannot understand then why having a banner which states that "Boys are made of slime and snails" may then found to be objectionable to another person.

However I guess it would be a different story if for example HRS was female and found somelike, "Girls are nasty slimey and smelly things"

Now HRS has a point about find material or articles written by feminists that say something positive about men. During my time at Uni, I found it really depressing that there did not seem to be anything positive written about men in feminist material.

‘Dissing’ men: the new gender war http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4907

Other male students who spoke too, found this as well. Even one of my lecturers said that some of her male students had also raised this same question.

As much as most of you want to ridicule HRS or myself. There are other males who do raise this issue.

On another thread (the one about BraBoys): "I would put to you that you have no clue as to men behavior tough you can observe their effects , ergo you can pass judgment from on high .No woman can claim to speak for men in general , you are not qualified !"

Posted by randwick, Friday, 18 January 2008 6:39:54 PM

James on this one: "Yvonne just perhaps you might be more a humanist than a feminist." (Please search and read the entire post.)

This is so tricky. You know, all I want to see is to see 40 to 50% of parliamentarians women.

Vanilla
I’d like to see an Office for Men, to help provide balance to the Office for Women, and I’d like to see Audrey Apple take the banner “Boys are made of slime and snails” off her blogsite.

Why the latter? Well because Audrey Apple calls herself a feminist, and feminists are not supposed to believe in discrimination.

But perhaps Audrey Apple is not that type of feminist, but another type of feminist, that does believe in discrimination.

I wonder how many of them there are.

I also wonder if you would like to see Audrey Apple take the discriminatory banner off her blogsite?

Who, me? No, I'm all for discrimination. Men? They're all bad. Not a good one amongst them. Terrible folk. Hate them all. Should be burnt at the stake. World would be better off without them. Can't stand the lot of them, even the ones I love, like my dad, my brother, my friends, my lovers, my colleagues. Should get rid of the berloody lot of them because they are completely worthless even though so many of them have enriched my life in so many ways that are neither oppressive nor misogynistic. HORRIBLE, ALL.

The post count on this thread keeps rising like an empty shelled internet stock. And like an internet stock its got no substance, just spin and hot air.

Even so, l do like a good momentum play.

l especially enjoy the one's who, whilst advocating for ignorance of socket puppets, keep engaging said sock puppets with a bit of bait here and there.

Trade215 “And like an internet stock its got no substance, just spin and hot air.”

I agree with you.

I would note in her last post,

Adding to the “air” is Audrey’s last post where she seems to have exceeded her self to the point, her misandrist sarcasm could be described as plain old

“Master bating”

Although some might spell it with the a “u” instead of the “e” and no space between the “r” and “b”

Which would fit, the original article was a pretentious wank intended to draw a crowd for the narcissistic ego of the author

Audrey Apple, someone who thinks that men are “awful”, but actually likes men.

You can say that you like males, and you could also provide some tangible proof.

Taking the banner “Boys are made of slime and snails” off your blogsite would be some type of tangible proof.

Here is a medical encyclopaedia to help you in your decision making.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/encyclopedia.html

My theory is that you currently keep the banner there in the hope of attracting misandrists to your blogsite.

You could also clean out the profanity in your blogsite, but that may be asking for too much.

Could you also answer a question to help clear up an issue for the seemingly confused Turnrightthenleft.

Are you a “fringe feminist”, or just a normal and everyday feminist?

Well HRS, I have been doing a little browsing and found these;

It would appear that Warren Farrell has a new book.

Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate between Warren Farrell (with Steven Svoboda) and James P. Sterba.
http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=363&Itemid=81

An Embattled Champion Of Male Values
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=afa74692-d935-4240-8a37-5c325ddc62be

Media and Male Identity
http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=176&Itemid=81

Peter West reviewed the book ‘How the Media Portray Men’

I will quote him.

“In totalitarian societies people are told what to think!”

“It explains how we have accepted that we must be careful about what we say about women, how women are portrayed….. But the same benefit is not extended to men. There is very little positive material presented about men as a group.”

“Feminism is an ideology….”

“RW Connell observed ‘The man reading feminist writing is likely to encounter pictures of men as rapists, batterers..”

“Academics (as Robert Hughes observed) are like schools of fish; they all swim in the same direction. Until they notice something and, they go off in a new direction. Journalists whether educated at universities or not accept feminism as correct. Other ways of thinking are suspect.”

“Any disagreement with feminist doctrine is dismissed out of hand as backlash against women.”

“Out society has become a femocracy in which men and masculinity are marginalized. Men are edged out of the family, the workplace and society. The game of like is increasingly being played by women’s rules; success and failure is measured by women’s criteria”
http://www.boyslearning.com.au/articles/men/How%20the%20Media%20Portray%20Men.pdf

So for the rest of you take a chill pill, just maybe HRS is saying something very important.

HRS, you're the one who is confused.

In that post, I was very clearly making the point that I think Audrey's a normal feminist, and it's the hardline man-hating feminists that are on the fringe.

Yet in your next post, you totally got the wrong end of the stick, and said that I was saying Audrey was a fringe feminist, as some kind of excuse, which is the complete opposite of what I was saying.

Read more carefully.

In the thread for her more recent article, I've explained that in more detail. She tells a story about the simple love between men and women and the difficulties it present, making no mention of man hating or feminism, but because you're hardwired to hate feminists, it's the only response you can give.

JamesH: "...just maybe HRS is saying something very important"

Perhaps in the context of his own obsessive worldview and that of others of his misogynist ilk.

For the rest of us, most of what he writes amounts to little more than repetitive, pathetic bleating.

Turnrightthenleft,
It is well known that a feminist will malign males, and then say that they like males. This enables the feminist to malign males again.

It is interesting that so few feminist have objected to the banner, when they are so concerned about "women and their children". Maybe they don't think of boys as being children. Maybe they are like Audrey Apple, and think that boys are slime and snails.

Audrey is a big girl, and she can say if she is a fringe feminist, or just a normal feminist. You don't have to answer for her, like some feminist patronising male.

HRS: "It is well known that a feminist will malign males, and then say that they like males. This enables the feminist to malign males again."

So if a feminist talks positively about men she is lying. If she does not talk positively about men she hates them.

You put me in mind of that Churchill quote, HRS: "A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."

I genuinely feel sorry for you - you seem very troubled - but you cannot conduct a polite, intelligent conversation.

James, you raise some good points. So tell me, what do you think women can do to help? Do you want us to butt out or butt in? Why don't we talk about positive things women can do, rather than all the things you dislike about us as a gender?

Vanilla,
Feminists may not like to answer too many questions, but would you like to see the banner taken off the blogsite or not?

Yes or No.

If you do believe that boys are made of slime and snails, then here is a medical encylopedia to check.

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/encyclopedia.html

Personally I would like to see feminists get something right for once.

Actually HRS, I think it's more that Audrey appears to have the intelligence to realise that only the incredibly stupid would take such a comment seriously.

Tell me HRS - what percentage of people, ar going to believe that men, yes, men, are indeed made out of 'snips and snails?'

Gee, here I thought that most internet users would be well aware than men are in fact, made of flesh.

Apparently not.

Funnily enough, the content under this banner isn't man-hating at all.

So what we have, in effect, is a non-man-hating series of blog articles, grouped under a heading that no sane person could be dumb enough to believe.

I vote, no, don't take it down, because the moment we start kowtowing and getting overly sensitive and precious we lose one hell of a lot more.

If people are too dumb to understand satire, then we wind up cutting it back for fear of offense. We lose the right for any kind of style or humour that isn't approved by the PC brigade.

Learn to hack it HRS. There is always going to be comments out there that can be interpreted as insulting, though I'm amazed you can extrapolate this to being one.
Unless you learn to shrug it off, you're going to always be sulking - because that's precisely what this looks like.

Lets recap, for the sensible people reading this:

a) Audrey has made comments saying she doesn't hate men, and loves her brothers, close friends etc.

b) She's also made a banner heading - 'boys are made of snips and snails'

Right. Now, HRS is telling us that clearly, evil feminists who say things like boys are made of snips and snails must hate men, and when they say they don't, they really do.

(Vanilla's already pointed out the stupidity of this, so I'll let that slide).

I pity the fool that has hardwired themselves to only believe b) while refusing to believe a) given the childishness of this attitude.

HRS, perhaps the reason you find so little textual evidence for feminists writing positively about men is because you refuse to accept anything less than blanket praise for the entire gender. I don't offer blanket praise for the entirety of any group, because to do so would be to generalise. I don't even offer blanket praise to women believe it or not - I tend to think it best to apply praise and criticism to the people I find directly deserving of it. Just as you might not find a post on my blog talking about how much I love ALL men without any kind of reference to the many ways in which they are different, so you will never find a post indicating I HATE all men because they are all the same.

The self declared feminists in this thread have come out more than once to (it seems superfluously) defend their affection for men in general, yet you refuse to believe them. I think the real question here is not whether we like men or not: do you like women?

And I hate to disappoint you, but I feel no need to defend my feminism to you, fringe or otherwise. Believe whatever you want - you've proven yourself to be so single minded nothing I say can make a difference, and frankly your good opinion is of little interest to me.

Also, the banner stays. Deal.

HRS,

I just saw what Audrey wrote on the other thread about the death of her mother. She asked you to respect that grief, and you responded... strangely. It's here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6883#103868

I looked at your history. HRS, I don't think you are helping yourself by posting obsessively on these boards about feminists. You obviously feel very victimised, but I really urge you to talk a mate or a doctor (a male one!) about this stuff.

I'm sure this will annoy you, but nevertheless, I think you probably need an outlet for your anger other than Online Opinion.

I hope you find some peace and strength in the future. But I think you should stop with the nastiness now.

James, you raise some good points. So tell me, what do you think women can do to help? Do you want us to butt out or butt in? Why don't we talk about positive things women can do, rather than all the things you dislike about us as a gender?
Vanilla, Sunday, 20 January 2008 12:15:10 PM

Vanilla,

Yes women can help, there are many female authors who's work I have read and who provide useful insights, Daphne Patai, Melanie Phillips, Christine Stobla, Eeva Sodhi, etc.

Eeva Sodhi perhaps provide one of the most useful, which was something to do with the gems(truth) are usually restricted to a line or two, buried in the detail.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050310180627/www.nojustice.info/Media/WhyMenFail.htm

Recently Alan Howe of the Heraldsun wrote an article basically condemming fathers. It was however pointed out that what he did was take the best possible examples of women providing positive parenting and then compared that to the worst examples of where fathers have hurt children. So the technique is to take the best possible examples of the cause you support and then use the worst possible examples of eg male behaviour to support your cause. Even when the worst male behaviour is restricted to a very small number, it is easy to extropulate that to apply, if not to all men, the majority.

Have a browse around menshealthaustralia.net

Some women have been brave enough to challange many of the assumptions of perhaps the more radical feminists. Some of my female friends(surprise) admit that they feel sorry for us blokes and realise how difficult it is for some of us.

"Men teetering on the eggshell of political correctness are clueless about how to get it right, how to win. The truth is some women aren't prepared to let them. Women are better at putting people and relationships back together again. If it were Humpty, they'd assist. It's not. It's men." Toby.

Surprisingly men do need to shown that they are appreciated and feel valued.

Posted by CJ Morgan

'others of his misogynist ilk'

Just where has HRS expressed any hatred of women. I'm so sick of any critique of feminism being responded to like this. You all accuse HRS of blindly hating all feminists, but are you any better when you drag out the old faithful 'mysoginist' to anyone who dares to question feminism?

It's exactly this type of attitude that has created creatures such as HRS.

On the surface HRS's point about the 'snips and snails' seems trivial and childish and all that, but I can see a validity to it, maybe different than what HRS is trying to articulate.

That whole idea programmed into us from childhood that men are somehow dirty and girls are 'made of all things nice' is a prevailing attitude that is carried on in society. I can see a valid objection to the attitudes behind such a thing.

Especially when you read feminist critiques of bedtime stories such as snow white or little red riding hood.

How is HRS being petty, when all feminist arguments of the sort are treated so seriously.

I could even imagine a feminist twisting HRS's beefs about this title to say the very same title is actually a mysoginist tool of the patriachy, where women aren't being allowed to get their hands dirty, show aggression, some repression of female power or sexuality. I'm sure a feminist could work some angle for me to illistrate my point

Dear Audrey Apple,
I think you should calm down, do some yoga exercises, and don’t go getting yourself all upset.

So far as a deal is concerned: -

A link to a medical encyclopaedia has been provided previously, and there is no evidence that boys are made of slime and snails in that medical encyclopaedia, or in any other encyclopaedia that I am aware of. But you still want to state that boys are made of slime and snails on your blogsite.

So, I think that you should state quite clearly on every page of your blogsite, that you are a university trained journalist and a feminist, and you also have no regard for any science, accuracy or reliability in anything you write.

I think that deal would be justified.

PS. If you read Germaine Greer, I also think you should not go contacting any boys, or girls (and I am quite serious about that).

James. Thanks for the reading tips — exactly what I wanted. I appreciate the bother you went to. I’ve looked into some; some I knew, as my husband writes about men’s issues. (Sorry, I’m not going to tell you who he is.)

“Some women have been brave enough to challange many of the assumptions of perhaps the more radical feminists.”
It’s true that I have a particularly impressive and brave lot of mates, but I can’t think of one close friend I have — male or female — who isn’t brave enough to challenge radical feminists. Surely it would be impossible to have a creative and rigorous intellectual life without challenging all one’s beliefs?

“Surprisingly men do need to shown that they are appreciated and feel valued.” They have been, in this thread:

Yvonne: “I hope this assures you that my men are independent and confident men. I do have to admit they have good male role models in their lives and for some boys that can be a real problem. Females cannot fulfill that role.”

Botheration: “That's how I think of men - they're gorgeous, but there's more to them than that… I agree we've made some men feel guilty about liking looking at chicks. We need to fix that…”

Audrey: “I know a great many men who are intelligent, funny, supportive, sensitive and generally all round ace human beings.”

As for me, I have strong relationships with strong men, who challenge me all the time. My dad, my brothes and my wonderful husband, particularly — none of whom I’d have a rat’s chance of lording it over. I appreciate and value them, and if they don’t notice that then I’ll try harder.

But seriously, read over the thread. Notice:
* the positive things women post about men
* any positive thing a man has posted about a woman (excluding TRTL and CJ, of course — one of you guys)
* the amount of posts written by “feminists” compared to those written by “anti-feminists”
* HRS’s comments

CONT...

Vanilla,
I haven’t been negative of women. I’ve said “Save the males and females (from themselves and from feminists)”.

I could add capitalists, Marxist, socialists or any other group or cult that wants to call itself an “ist”.

I feel very luck to live in a country where I don’t have to call myself an “ist” , or say that I believe in an “ism”, because in some countries the people do.

However I am totally and completely convinced (like 100,000%) that if feminist took control of this country, then everyone in it would be required to call themselves an “ist”, and believe in an “ism”. And most likely they would be required to recite nursery rhymes to children that describe boys as being made of slime and snails.

Also read the interview of Dorris Lessing, who feminist thought of as being a feminist heroine, but not any more.

Find out why she rejected the “ism” of feminism.

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/stories/s390537.htm

In the case of Germaine (look-at-me) Greer, even the male she put on the front cover of her book did not think she was sexy. He wanted the photo removed., but she wouldn’t, probably because she was so concerned about the rights of boys.

Reminds me of a certain blog writer I know.

Unfortunately, were I to relate the old nursery rhyme 'girls are made of sugar and spice and all things nice, but boys are made of snips and snails of puppy dog tails' then of course, HRS would be adamant I've launched a nasty slur on males.

What's ironic is that it's a nursery rhyme that has been told to children for years.

They no more 'die a little inside' from a nursery rhyme like this, than they do when they hear about the wicked witch attempting to bake hansel and gretel, or the wolf in little red riding hood, or the evil stepmother in snow white.

Evidently, if HRS had his way, these tales would all be simply a collection of nursery rhyme characters sitting around saying: "gee, aren't men and boys fantastic!"

"They sure are! Oh boy! Lets have some sugar-free lollies and jump around the non-gender-aligned sandcastle, while we think of more positive things to say that won't risk offending anybody, because everything everywhere is just plain super! (except the evil feminists)"

Of course, they'd be boring, and parents who refused to allow their kids to hear nursery rhymes or fables under the banner of political correctness would be pampering them in the extreme.

Not to mention the fact that censoring these tales would be incredibly boring. No kids would want to listen to them, just like Audrey's site would be incredibly boring if every comment that could potentially cause offence so anybody (especially men) were to be taken down.

HRS, you say people die a little inside when they read that comment, I call bulldust on that.

You don't speak for me or any of the kids I've ever met, heck, I don't think you speak for anybody except a few men with an obvious issue with a few nutty fringe feminists.

Vanilla, how good to read your contributions. Audrey Apple you have started quite a thread here!

HRS, from reading your last post makes me think you do not have an issue with women and women voicing particular issues peculiar to femaleness, but what bothers you is the ism at the end of feminism.

I think it a little ironic that 'boys are made of slime and snails' causes you so much heartache. You would actually find that you have a lot in common with feminists who challenge prevailing attitudes and expectations of girls and women in society. That's how feminism came about in the first place.

There is an idea going about that 'men no longer know how to behave' are afraid to say the wrong thing and cowed by 'political correctnes. I have many men in my life. Personal-family and friends, and professional. I have not met a single man who could fall in this category. Where are they?

Just because a man is challenged because he is rude and denigrating what does this have to do with feminism?

The media is not run by feminists, but by male proprietors. The government is not run by feminists, but male politicians. The judiciary is not run by feminists, but by male judges.

It is pure intellectual laziness to blame feminism for all perceived injustices in our society. Take responsibility. Women have had to fight and argue that they are capable of taking responsibility for themselves. If all human beings of both genders take responsibility and realize that equality does not mean sameness, but are the two halves of the human race what a wonderful world we would have.

Men need to speak out about their own issues. They need to challenge societal perceptions, and their own, of masculinity. Yes, by all means, challenge women who have particular dogmatic views of what a 'man' is, but also what other men have to say. I would say that women are more accepting of a broad interpretation of masculinity than men are.

On at the MCA is an exhibition by feminist artist Julie Rrap. Julie uses her naked body as both object and subject. There are 100's of photographs of her naked body. Eroticism is in the eye of the beholder I'm sure, but her various intents neuter (usually) any eroticism, at the same time as they address gender and sexuality.

(Apart from her natural beauty) there is very little attempt to present women as objects of beauty. The exception is in the work "Conception", which portrays a more conventional and aesthetic image. Elsewhere she presents the female body as a challenge to norms or caught in a snapshot of existence, beyond gender politics.

Curiously, the eroticism in the exhibition was to be found in the fibreglass and bronze figures with imprints of her various poses left behind. Let the imagination run free!

What a strange weekend I've had- Saturday arvo at the Sefton Playhouse clip joint with the lads, and Sunday at the MCA falling in love with the sexy feminist artist Julie Rrap.

yvonne: "I have not met a single man who could fall in this category. Where are they?"

They are the men who grew up in a society of close minded sexist rules. Their views are so ingrained they have difficulty adapting to the more liberal society as they are unable to understand it, even though they may accept it. In social situations they are used to following simple rules (men do this, women do that) which no longer apply and there are no clear guidelines for them to follow.

They feel like they should say 'good day, ma'am' and open the door, but are unsure if that would be patronizing or not. Now some women may appreciate the gesture and some might not, so they play it safe and don't act. But then there's so many times where this is the case as so many things can cause offense, which leads to so many times where they must play it safe and not act. And then there are the times where even not to act could cause offense and they become truly lost as to what they should do.

They become victims of the process of (a justified) change because they are trying so hard to do the right thing. Their whole gender identity is one based around respecting women, which they did through a structure of social normalities. By removing these normalities, you're removing their ability to act in accordance with their identity.

"It is pure intellectual laziness to blame feminism for all perceived injustices in our society."

It's also presumptuous to assume that feminism is responsible for none of the injustices in our society.

"realize that equality does not mean sameness"

It also does not mean polarized adversity.

re: slime and snails.

If we put 'sexist' nursery rhymes told to kids at one end of the scale and 'sexist' imagery in a magazine at the other, at what point does the sexism become acceptable?

A critique of Audreys article.

In her article she firstly describes the male staff at ZOO mag, 'cheeky monkeys' later progressing to 'greasy neanderthals'.

So she has already applied labels to men.

She protests at the way ZOO mag has stereotyped herself(a feminist) and other women, yet in her attack on the staff at ZOO, she herself stereotypes men in general. She criticises ZOO for sexualising women, yet in her very article she herself hypersexualises relationships between the genders and in the process degrades men and heterosexuality in an angry tirade.

Unfortunately there are some women who are conceited enough to think that every man they meet wants to b*nk them and unfortunately some feminists think that heterosexual women are sleeping with the enemy. On onehand it is OK to meet women's needs, yet it is not OK to fulfill mens needs.

"worse, expect to be told that your very valid objections are indicative of a complete lack of humor"

However when HRS objected to Audrey having 'Boys are made of slime and snails." on her website. Audrey is having none of it, even though other nursery ryhmes have been changed for the purposes of political correctness, just in case they offend someone.

It is Audreys right to object to something she finds offensive, just as it is equally HRS's right to object to something he finds offensive.

But to apply one standard in one instance and then object to when that same principle is applied in another equally valid instance, is hypocrisy.

She then categorizes men who criticise feminism as ignorant, lazy and out to demonize feminists.

Men are often criticised for being uncommuncative, and any discussion must be conducted in feminist approved ways. So it not surprising that there are men who do not fall over in some sort of religous rapture at the idea of feminism.

Incredibly some of the best critics of feminism are women.

As a masculist with sensible shoes, I strongly object to the lesbian label. Almost equally abhorrent, I find the idea that Zoo has any real p0rn cred. This seems just yet another swipe at us poor blokes who like women as they were designed.

In intoxicating blog language, Germaine’s very public pre-pubescent boy fantasies don’t really count as any feminist perversion. Of course, they don’t.

Sometimes little gems of information are spoken very softly, sometimes it is displayed in the language used.

Have you ever heard women say things like, "I gave him what he wanted!" or "I let him have what he wanted" so in sexual politics, sex is something women give to men, as well as a way of not taking responsibility for being sexually active.

Psychologist Toby Green wrote about how some women see themselves as the power and source of male desire and are they usually shocked to find out that male sexual desire is automonous and is not dependent on them. Men in order to have a relationship with such women need play by her RULES and to have a highly tuned radar to read her signals.

In another blog some female posters in discussing their partners lack of sexual interest wrote;

"it feels stange not to be desired that way(sexually)."

Some, saw the lack of sexual interest by their heterosexual partners as being a form of rejection, another wrote that she felt unattractive because her partner had not approached her.

"Many of my male clients have serious deal breaking issues in their relationships. They can feel undervalued, used, taken for granted, undermined in front of children, overly criticized, put down, as though they can never get it right. "

I think I read something similar to the above just recently.

"I really feel for men. The male gender has copped the most unrelenting hiding over the past 30 years. You’ve been criticized, ridiculed, put down and underestimated long enough."

http://www.simplysolo.com/toby2.htm

Perhaps ZOO magazines next competition should be to offer;

Consciousness Raising 101 Inside the gender studies classroom.
Cathy Young | February 2003

"For most students, the "myth-debunking" critique of orthodox feminism -- the exposés of bogus and manipulated facts and statistics -- proved powerful and eye-opening."

"Interestingly, he and a few others said that our readings about ideologically motivated statistical shenanigans had left them with a healthy skepticism of all statistical and factual claims, by feminists, anti-feminists..."
http://www.reason.com/news/show/28658.html

Twelve-step feminist cure
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/060627

Angry Harry's Student's Guide To Feminism
http://www.angryharry.com/notefeminismforstudents.ht

I love that Doris Lessing interview — thanks HRS. I read my first DL when I was 17 — The Good Terrorist — and have always admired her bolshie honesty. As this interview demonstrates, she’s great for feminism — sensible and challenging.

HRS, you are free never to be an “ist”. No one is making you one, nor does anyone admire you because you’re not. You’re just not. This is still a free country — you get to say your piece. And say it you do!

But why not try it sans nastiness?

Whitty: “That whole idea programmed into us from childhood that men are somehow dirty and girls are 'made of all things nice' is a prevailing attitude that is carried on in society. I can see a valid objection...”

Me too, although your analysis is simplistic. As Yvonne points out, this is classic feminist thinking — our stories make us so.

Even so, would you really censor a blog? I love “twisted” fairy tales, but I would protest against any feminist-retelling of fairy tales REPLACING the real thing as strongly as I would protest if Audrey had to remove a banner to appease someone else. We critique it, but no feminist has demanded Zoo change its boobs comp. Would you stand up for a women’s mag who offered to pay for your boyfriend to get a bigger penis as a prize? If so, you believe in free speech, like us!

James, I loved that Reason piece. But to be honest, change the genders on the last two links and it would sound like extreme radical feminism. I don’t admire an inability to understand someone else’s POV, whether it comes from a woman or a man.

All this talk about radical feminists is a furphy. Where are they? I feel HRS, Whitty and James are arguing against ideas that no one on these boards actually believes. Whitty’s make-believe nursery rhyme is a case in point — if no one says it, invent it, and attack feminists for believing it!

A dollop of common sense is surely needed here.

Yvonne...

‘You would actually find that you have a lot in common with feminists who challenge prevailing attitudes and expectations of girls and women in society. That's how feminism came about in the first place.'

This is precisely what I am arguing. Feminists have and do expect to be taken seriously when the shoe is on the other foot. When a man uses a similar argument here it is considered childish.

'realize that equality does not mean sameness'

WOW. I love this one. From my experience feminists reject any biological differences between the sexes when they are used to justify a perceived advantage that men have, but embrace them when the effect is to maintain an advantage of women over men.

Vanilla...

I am not advocating any censorship!

'Whitty’s make-believe nursery rhyme is a case in point — if no one says it, invent it, and attack feminists for believing it!
'

I'm not sure what you're saying here, but my point was that a feminist would do a much better job than I of construing some sort of objection on feminist grounds to a nursery rhyme.

I look at how men are portrayed in the media as bad parents, irresponsible fools, violent wife beaters, and I habitually imagine the outcry if women were portrayed in such a way. So when an advert (By the Government) attempts to illustrate it is more shameful to have a small penis than to endanger the lives of others behind the wheel of a car, and hear no opposition, I imagine outrage from feminists if a government advert attacked women’s sexuality or body image in the same way.

We've all been brainwashed that ONLY women can be victims (notice the governments violence against women campaign), and any effort to put any men’s issues in the pubic domain is seen as taking away the 'gains' of feminism, or taking oxygen/attention/airspace from feminists.

The writer gets so hot and bothered by men making fun of feminist complaints, yet when HRS complains about her site she does exactly the same thing and I find it really hypocritical.

Yvoone,
It is interesting that feminists (radical or not) said so little when Dorris Lessing won the Noble prize for literature. You could almost hear a pin drop.

I wonder why?

Just because Dorris Lessing rejects so many "isms", has spoken out about the vilification of men carried out by so many feminists.

"I find myself increasingly shocked at the unthinking and automatic rubbishing of men which is now so part of our culture that it is hardly even noticed," she told the audience.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/arts/1491085.stm

But there are feminists who admire Germaine ("men are surplus to requirements") Greer, and write about her, and think she’s sexy.

Feminism definitely seems like some type of cult to me.

"The writer gets so hot and bothered by men making fun of feminist complaints, yet when HRS complains about her site she does exactly the same thing and I find it really hypocritical."

The difference is that Audrey wanted to critique, whereas HRS wanted Audrey to censor her site - to remove offending material. To me, that's a crucial difference.

"I'm not sure what you're saying here, but my point was that a feminist would do a much better job than I of construing some sort of objection on feminist grounds to a nursery rhyme."

I hate that imaginary feminist! She's so one-eyed!

"I look at how men are portrayed in the media as bad parents, irresponsible fools, violent wife beaters..."

I agree this happens, and speak out about it when it does, but it's an oversimplification of culture.

The truth is I personally find it hard to relate to the way you are fighting this fight, because I can't imagine why anyone would want to identify as a victim. I'm sure they're out there, but no feminist I know does. I agree that men are being done over by the media and by the trickle-down effect radical feminist dogma, but I think rationality and common sense trumps extremism. You're fighting extreme victim-thinking with extreme victim-thinking, which is fine, good on you, but it's not going to attract moderates, either male or female. Either way, you're going to be living in a PC world with no room for nuance and complexity.

There's quite a bit of feminist critique on OLO. Why don't one of you guys write an article?

Yvonne,

'The difference is that Audrey wanted to critique, whereas HRS wanted Audrey to censor her site '

She wanted more than that! The whole article is about how pissed off Audrey is that Zoo didn't listen to the feminist critique, and censor themselves, hence they are 'greasy Neanderthals' because they didn't tow the feminist line.

'can't imagine why anyone would want to identify as a victim'
Because it has worked so well for feminism! In any situation, women attain instant victim status. Two drunk people have sex, man is responsible for woman's ability to consent. Men are responsible for women's body issues. Men are solely responsible for domestic violence no matter who starts it. Men are responsible for children that may or may not be theirs and have no right to find out.

'Either way, you're going to be living in a PC world with no room for nuance and complexity.
'

The PC world is what I am against. I use the absence of any objection to discrimination or deliberate deionisation of men to illustrate the one-sidedness of the whole PC movement. I don't imagine feminists taking up any cause that could benefit men (it's called feminism not equalities for a reason), but I argue even if men decided to take up such a cause it would be an exercise in futility. When politics dictate what is correct it's called propaganda. In this case feminist propaganda.

All this talk about extreme feminism. I see it as a smoke screen to make an impossible target. If you refuse to define feminism properly you don't allow any criticism of it. Maybe that's precisely the goal of the supposed 'extreme' feminists.

To a 'mere male' (note the use of patronising women's magazine section, that men don't complain about because we, unlike feminists have a sense of humour) it is impossible to identify extreme vs. moderate feminism.

Would you categorize feminist icon Germaine Greer as an extremist?

How do feminists reconcile the acceptance of her paedophile book full of underage boys, with feminists historical attitudes to David Hamilton for example?

By chance I discovered that 'sexual' appears 11 times in Audreys article.

sexually available,
sexually adventurous,
sexually assertive,
sexually willing
sexually explicit
sexual harassment
sexual oppression

are just a few. I cant be bothered hypothesising about it at the moment.

Vanilla, whilst searching for another article about rescueing daughters from gender studies courses, I came across this article and on page 6 under the heading of 'Mothers' Power and Influence' which is to do with what is known as 'maternal gate keeping'.
http://www.wfu.edu/~nielsen/fdteaching.pdf

Whitty. I disagree with your analysis. Audrey isn’t telling Zoo to self-censor, unless all criticism demands self-censorship. HRS wanted content deleted. I can’t condone that.

Anyway. I grant you your victim status. But please don’t call yourself a “mere male”. New Idea was never funny.

“How do feminists reconcile the acceptance of her paedophile book full of underage boys...?”
A lot of feminists I know loathe Germaine Greer. I’m not one of them. I’d defend it in the same way I’d defend David Hamilton – and Bill Henson, whose work I adore. Feminism’s “historical attitudes” frequently contradict, but equality is a robust idea and loves challenge. I’m interested in what other feminists think, but have no interest in defending blanket rules. If that confuses you, sorry!

I do believe GG should have removed the cover photo of the boy.

How do you reconcile hating Germaine Greer’s Boy Book if you like David Hamilton?

The fact is, most politicians are men. Most public sector chiefs are men. Ditto private companies heads. And the media bosses. The judiciary is mostly men, particularly at the highest levels. Men still marginally beat women in academia.

And, overall, we have a free society — freedom of speech and association.

Yet, somehow, according to you, women have all the power, and use it, not to support equality, which would be in their interests, but for the diabolical purpose of denigrating men.

If I were you, I’d devote your time to working out how the hell we did it.

Whitty, I’m genuinely sorry you feel so marginalised by feminism, and I’ve taken what you’ve said on board. I don’t feel you’re really interested in what I have to say, so good luck to you in finding a path for men to feel powerful and validated. I want that too. I’m aware you won’t believe that.

I had a great conversation with the best man I know (my husband) about this last night. He said he didn’t blame feminism for gender problems, but narcissism. He went on at brainy lengthy, but I won’t. Time to do some work.

Ok Vanilla,

'The fact is, most politicians are men. Most public sector chiefs are men…
'

Ah, but women are the consumers. Women do the actual buying of stuff to a much larger degree than men. There is a Minister for the status of Women, the sex discrimination mister is badgered by feminist groups to keep her concerns only to discrimination against women.

Regardless, it's pretty standard feminist tactic to use only men in positions of power as an example of all men, while using only women in positions of disadvantage as an example for women.

Imagine if gender equality was structured around doctor's wives vs. garbage men with 4 kids to feed.

'Yet, somehow, according to you, women have all the power, and use it, not to support equality, which would be in their interests, but for the diabolical purpose of denigrating men.
'

You are putting words in my mouth. I don't say women have all the power, or try to denigrate men. All I say they have won the PR war, and have convinced everyone that women are the victims and men always the perpetrators.

The domestic violence ads are a prime example because I'll bet they are so one-sided to not take any attention away from women being the sole victims. It's like any consideration of men as victims threatens women’s position.

I do have an interest in what you have to say, that's why I asked the questions.

'How do you reconcile hating Germaine Greer’s Boy Book if you like David Hamilton?'
I never said I did like him, or hate Germaine’s book. I see it, like most things I am complaining about here as an example of the double standards of feminism. Also an illustration that's men's sexuality is considered dirty, while a woman's erotic and beautiful but that's another topic.

I think the problem here, is everybody is taking Zoo, as well as Audrey's website, far too seriously.

Fact of the matter is, there's always going to be jibes going back and forth between the genders, as well as stupid sexual innuendo.

This article's hitting out at the childishness of Zoo's feminist promotion. That seems pretty self evident to me.

I guess the reason why HRS's comments seem particularly foolish to me, is that he's actively calling for an inane comment on Audrey's website to be pulled down.
I'm quite certain his motivations are largely because he hates anyone who dares call themselves a feminist - not just the feminists who do make man-hating speeches, which I haven't seen from Audrey.

Seems quite simple - if all HRS can find to blame Audrey as being a man hater is one single line, derived from a child's tale, then he has the shakiest case I've ever seen. So shaky it's absolutely pathetic.

Not only that, she's actively said she doesn't hate men, and loves the men in her life.

Not only that, she's written another beautiful piece on the love between man and woman.

Yet HRS persists in his stupid pursuit over the banner. He'd rather ignore the sensible evidence, so he can maintain his victim status.

He's extrapolated the comments on Audrey's site to mean much more than she intends and she's told him so.
But he'd rather use his definition than hers - because she dares to call herself a feminist.

That being said, as I said earlier, as a cultural commentary, there isn't much value in this piece. It's all pretty damn obvious.

As far as Audrey's website goes, it's personal reflections, with some lighthearted headings.

People choose to read it or not. Those are her reflections, and if you don't like it HRS, well that's your problem, not hers. I don't think it is at all man-hating - it's not sucking up to men either, which is what you really want.

Whitty, you said in an earlier post that you saw 'extreme' feminism as a smokescreen, to avoid criticism of feminism at all.

That's bull I'm afraid. You can't tar any movement simply by the comments of the extreme nutjobs at either end.

Apply the same logic to christianity. Are all the reasonable Christians in Australia as extreme as Fred Nile or Danny Nalliah?

What about the KKK who derive much of their racist dogma from a few vague sections of the bible?

Here's an idea - how about we judge people by the comments they make, instead of tarring all people by a single brush?

When a genuine misandrist pokes their heads out, criticise them for it.

But if all you've got is a 'snips and snails' comment, be prepared to have people call you out on it - not because of any 'ist' but because it looks weak.

"Yet HRS persists in his stupid pursuit over the banner."

I can't help but read it as some sort of crude hyperbolic hypocrisy.

Vanilla,
I don’t think Germaine Greer actually took any photos, just borrowed photos from others. She may not have the talent to take photos, just the talent to borrow photos from others and malign men.

The statement by Audrey Apple on her gossipy and profane blogsite doesn’t appear to be original either. So she may not have the talent for anything original, just the talent to malign little boys.

Turnrightthenleft.
I think you have a crush on me, as you write about me a lot, and also keep following me around on various forums.

It is non-plutonic I can assure you.

But you recommend as a feminist Leslie Cannold, who recently wrote a book with a chapter titled “The Trouble With Men” (ie. There is always something wrong with men no matter what they do)

And you also recommended a feminist website that had slogans such as “So many Boys, So Little time”, and “Sticks and Stones May Break my Bones, But Whips and Chains Excite Me”.

Now you seem to want me to call myself a feminist, but after your recommendations regards feminist authors and feminist websites, I feel very lucky not to have to call myself a feminist, or any other type of “ist”

Whitty: "I do have an interest in what you have to say..."

Sorry. I sounded whiny in my last post. I've enjoyed our discussion and I think we do have some common ground.

I understand what you say about the PR war. I think 100 things about it. In many ways, I agree absolutely. Domestic violence, for example - one of the worst cases I know of involved a lesbian couple. I also agree that class inequity trumps gender inequity - your doctor's wife. That was my entre into men's issues, years ago. I was arguing politics with my then-boyfriend, and said, "I can never be Prime Minister." He said, "But neither can I." It was true, and changed my perspective entirely.

BUT it also makes me think of the love and pride I have for the women who fought for me to vote and contribute in public life. Yvonne talked beautifully about this. Like her, I adore the men in my life, but I'm the daughter of a working class woman who became a doctor, and feminism made her life, and mine, immeasurably richer. Maybe you need to realise that some women's loyalty to feminism has *nothing* to do with men. It's to do with the opportunity to life a full life. Neither of my grandmothers could.

Looking back at your posts, I see you're mad at you mum for her feminism. I'm sorry. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but if she alienated you, it could have been because she was a bad mother, rather than a feminist.

Having said that, I am NOT reducing your argument to some Freudian mother thing. As a feminist, I think you have a perfectly valid argument.

I'm sure these conversations will be ongoing, but to be honest, HRS's. missives make it impossible for me to chat. I know it's harsh, but he gets nasty, and I don't need it.

TurnLeftTurnRight,
You are a beacon of common sense in an HRSy fog of illogical self-rightousness and cr@p. Your tenacity and common sense and bravery rocks. Marry me.

Vanilla,
Your saying that I'm fog, illogical, self-rightousness and cr@p.

Now that is quite abusive, but I was lead to believe that feminists are not abusive.

I think it was a waste of time giving you the link to Dorris Lessing's interview. I think you didn't learn anything.

Next you will be saying that boys are made of slime and snails, like another non-abusive feminist I am aware of.

HRS,James H, Whitty etc, You are a beacon of common sense and FACTS against the massive onslaught of feminist narcissism, missinformation, abuse and double standards.
Your bravery & plain guts inspire us all, & I don't want or need to marry any of you.

"Your saying that I'm fog, illogical, self-rightousness and cr@p."
No. I'm saying what you *write* is foggy, illogical, self-righteous cr@p. I think *you* are a bully who masquerades as a victim. I think you've been maltreated by a bitter ex-wife in the Family Court, pay a lot of child support for little access, and have become a professional victim. You won't believe it, but I feel for you.

"That is quite abusive, but I was lead to believe that feminists are not abusive."
Not abuse - harsh but valid criticism. I can take criticism - it strengthens argument - so I'm happy to dish it out. What you have been led to believe about feminism is no concern of mine. Though you need better teachers.

"it was a waste of time giving you the link to Dorris Lessing's interview."
Actually I loved that interview. And agreed with it. Thanks again for posting it. I have forwarded it on to (male and female) friends.

"Next you will be saying that boys are made of slime and snails, like another non-abusive feminist..."
I agree with you that Audrey isn't abusive. Abuse is a serious thing, and, as several people have explained to you before, the "slime and snails" thing is nursery rhyme wordplay.

I would never tar all blokes with the same brush. Please be clear, HRS, it is *you* I have a problem with, not men. Your nastiness on the thread about Audrey's mother's death was *astounding*. Why exploit someone else's grief? Especially when you have so many avenues to express yourself.

You do not represent men, HRS. You betray them. The men I know are not victims. They are strong, masculine, true to themselves - they cannot be dictated to by women, just as the women I know cannot be dictated to by men. Instead, we seek to find the common ground with each other, and find strength in union rather than opposition.

What you most resemble is the thing you most despise - an unforgiving gender radical, unable to empathise with the opposite sex. You are Germaine Greer.

Bravo, Vanilla! Bravo!

& I don't want or need to marry any of you.
Posted by DVD, Thursday, 24 January 2008 12:53:36 PM

LOL, not that I am looking for another partner. But some of my friends reckon I am a real softy.

Verbally I get toungue tied. (yeah I know thats an opening for the vultures,)

DVD,
No one has asked you to marry them. In fact, no one has asked you to do anything. All that has been asked is for Audrey Apple to remove the discriminatory banner from her profane and gossipy blogsite.

Vanilla,
I haven’t been in the Family Court, and I am not Germaine Greer. Next you will be saying that boys are made of slime and snails, which is also incorrect.

If you liked the link I very kindly provided for you, then try this one
http://www.iwf.org/

I would think that there would be much more reliable information in the articles on that website, than in something written by Audrey Apple.

Dear Audrey Apple, someone who thinks that Germaine Greer is sexy, and discriminates against boys.

I gave the male centrefold in Cleo magazine a vote of 1 out of 5 for being a poser, and I give your blogsite a vote of 0 out of 10, for its profanity, discrimination, feminism, gossip and general disregard for science, reliability and accuracy, (while at the same time trying to convince people that you are a journalist).

Also you should remove the banner from your blogsite that discriminates against children. If you want to be a feminist and discriminate against males, then at least discriminate against men, and not boys

Vanilla, damn fine post. Heck, if you kept that up I'd consider that proposal.

Note that HRS still can't address weighing up the significance of a lighthearted banner versus other commentary.

And HRS, you're Germaine Greer. I'm sure if we called Germaine Greer HRS, she'd react just as you just did.

And your response HRS was the best, most succinct summary of your mindset I've seen.

A feminist criticises you, it's automatically a critique of men.

You said:

"Your saying that I'm fog, illogical, self-rightousness and cr@p.
Now that is quite abusive, but I was lead to believe that feminists are not abusive."

Well, it wasn't us leading you to believe that. Feminists can be abusive, just like anyone else.

You're saying feminists on the whole are abusive toward men.

One feminist, being abusive (though I'd say it's pretty tame salvo in a debate, learn to suck it up and stop trying to seize any opportunity to play a victim) to you, isn't all feminists, nor is is being abusive toward men in general.

Again, you twist the point.

As for me following you through threads, nope. There's only been three. Like you, I was following two arguments. In this one, I was becoming steadily more incredulous, bemused and slightly uneasy at how seriously you can take a single satirical banner.

As for the last one, I read a beautiful article, and hit out against the stupid first comment, which tried to insinuate that feminists were bad, simply because none had commented.

Another prime example of shoddy reasoning. In fact, one of the reasons why I respond to your posts, is that they're a litany of poor logic - people come to OLO for a variety of reasons, whether it's pushing a wheelbarrow or making comment. My main interest is looking at critical reasoning.

In terms of debating methods, allow me to list the many fallacies and tactics I've seen in your posts - quite frankly it's strange - unlike the many posters with dodgy arguments who put the same fallacies forth repeatedly, you keep jumping to new ones.

Cont'd.

1) You keep playing victim, demanding apologies. It may be justified in certain instances, but when you can't find a reason you manufacture one.
In an earlier thread, because someone referred to you and your 'ilk' you defined a new meaning for the term 'ilk' and pretended you'd been gravely insulted, demanding an apology.

Your attitude about the banner's the same.

2) When presented with facts that don't fit, you ignore them.

3) When pressed on these, you find various ways to ignore them:

Firstly, when presented with something that refutes your argument, you instead demand a different piece of evidence.

Example: in the domestic violence thread, you tried to pretend that women are just as guilty of domestic violence as men.

To refute this, I gave you recent statistics indicating that "the majority of victims of domestic assault were female (71.1%) and the majority of offenders were male (80.4%)."

You never addressed this at all. My assertion was that this proves you wrong, but instead of actually dealing with this statement, which conclusively demonstrates why you were wrong, you demanded statistics on a %of men that are violent. I explained why I don't think they exist.

- This is a subtle, but fundamentally flawed piece of reasoning - you think that because the direct statistics don't exist, you can therefore ignore other statistics. You were never able to address what IS put in front of you, instead preferring to make unreasonable demands of others.

This is not only heinous, but intellectually dishonest. You won't provide any stats yourself.

You ignore positive comments of men from feminists - it's right here in these threads to see. But you redefine what's acceptable.

I'm outta room and had to delete examples... but I can add plenty more.

My assertion is that not all feminists are man-haters.

Some, even many, are.

It's just I think you shouldn't be a hypocrite and hate all of them, because these are the same reasons why you hate them.

It's justified to criticise some men, HRS. And some feminists. Not all. In either case.

Vanilla,

For an apparently popular and prolific poster, you seem to miss the obvious sometimes. Here’s one example.

Amongst your recent conciliatory comments to Witty, you say: “Looking back at your posts, I see you're mad at you mum for her feminism. I'm sorry. I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but if she alienated you, it could have been because she was a bad mother, rather than a feminist. “ Bad mother, rather than a feminist.

But just before this, you say: “BUT it also makes me think of the love and pride I have for the women who fought for me to vote and contribute in public life. Yvonne talked beautifully about this. Like her, I adore the men in my life, but I'm the daughter of a working class woman who became a doctor, and feminism made her life, and mine, immeasurably richer. Maybe you need to realise that some women's loyalty to feminism has *nothing* to do with men. It's to do with the opportunity to life a full life. Neither of my grandmothers could.”

It appears there is a real possibility that you are selling your mother short by attributing her success to feminism rather than her own abilities. Could it be that your mother’s success is due to her dedication and hard work, and not feminism at all? Was the implied unhappiness of your grandmothers directly related to their non-dedication to feminism, and *everything* to do with men, or to other, totally unrelated social and economic factors? I dare not ask about your grandfathers, for they portray as abusers and rapists.

To some feminists, feminism may promise prime ministership, and to others, it can deny everything. Same feminism, different feminists. Situational feminism can be a challenge to most men – even the strong ones you so admire, but especially to those not doctors or CEO’s, or unlikely prime ministers.

TurnRightThenLeft

Whilst I agree with most of the comments posted regarding HRS's posting style he is not an island in ignoring DV material which does not suit.

I've posted material over several years which povides a case worthy of attention to show that the rates of initiation of DV by men and women are quite similar.

A variety of studies over many years have found this. The studies which don't are ones which either deliberately build in the assumption that men are responsible for most DV or which don't remove factors which proviude an artificial bias. When you read the argumenst against the methodologies used which tend to show similar rates of DV the main argument seems to be that those methodologies don't take into account the assumed power differences or other gender assumptions.

I've put up requests for links to studies which show that men are the perpetrators in the overwhelming majority of cases of DV and which also show that reasonable steps have been taken to remove gender bias in the collection process and I don't recall a single response to those requests.

I've posted links to government web sites and groups such as The Abused Child Trust, NSW Govt Child Death Review Team etc which show that women do abuse and neglect children at similar or greater rates than men (probably offset by women having the greater share of care) but still some of these same posters mock claims that women abuse children at similar rates to men.

Few if any feminists have engaged to any real degree in these discussions and where they have the result seems to be that it's just to hard to believe so I won't believe it.

I don't recall any attempt to rebutt the material on substantiated abuse I've referenced on numerous occasions, it just gets ignored.

I appreciate that Vanilla has acknowledged an understanding of the PR aspects of this in an earlier post and have very much valued her posts on this thread.

R0bert

Turnrightthenleft,
I am convinced that you do have a crush on me. Everywhere I go you follow me, like a little feminist puppy.

Maybe you should read the articles on this website as well.
http://www.iwf.org/

The articles on that website are written by many women, but the articles do not come under the title of “The Trouble with Men” (like the feminist author that you recommended.)

And the website does not have slogans such as “I Crossdress my Barbies”, or “I need someone really bad… are you really bad? (like the feminist website that you recommend that I read)

Nor does it have articles under the categories of “Boys are made of Slime and Snails” or “People are Sh_it” or “F__K the world” (like the categories on the feminist blogsite run by the profane and gossipy Audrey Apple).

If Audrey Apple or the feminists that you recommend are representative of feminism in this country, then I give feminism in this country a vote of 0 out of 10 also.

Seeker: "It appears there is a real possibility that you are selling your mother short by attributing her success to feminism rather than her own abilities. Could it be that your mother's success is due to her dedication and hard work, and not feminism at all?"

My mothers success is about her dedication, hard work, natural abilities and feminism. And about a gazillion other things. But she herself credits feminism as playing a pivotal role in her life. It was her path to fulfilling her potential and best helping others. (And meeting my dad, too!)

"Was the implied unhappiness of your grandmothers directly related to their non-dedication to feminism, and *everything* to do with men, or to other, totally unrelated social and economic factors? I dare not ask about your grandfathers, for they portray as abusers and rapists."

What a nasty little paragraph. Please don't insult my family then attribute it to me. Frankly, I have no idea what you're on about here. I never suggested that my grandmothers' inability to lead a full life (not unhappiness) was *anything* to do with men. They weren't "non-dedicated" to feminism - they just didn't have it back then. Both my grandfathers were excellent men.

"Situational feminism can be a challenge to most men – even the strong ones you so admire, but especially to those not doctors or CEO's, or unlikely prime ministers."
I agree entirely.

R0bert. I'm sorry your stats have been ignored. I know it's not the same topic, but I just started a thread on the "general" site about a new Institute of Criminology report on the sexual abuse of boys. It does discuss reasons why males are less likely to report abuse though - it might interest you.

(Feminists) seek to find strength in union rather than opposition---oh please, if that were the case they would be 'humanist' not 'feminist'.
Most of this entire thread has been how feminists don't give a stuff on how their actions impact negatively on men and boys & other non feminist women, only on themselves. Go and look after yourselves males are told and when they do feminist abuse follows.

James H & HRS etc have given dozens of examples & links to prove the point.

No DVD, most of this thread has been men whining about womens reluctance to be doormats. So many men get to hate women because they've never learnt to relate outside of me-boss-you-listen.. its worse than haliotosis and seems only rarely cured past a certain age, only devious or desperate women will suffer it and not enough to match the legions of meatheaded males. Sadly thats the way advertisers, employers and armies like it.

DVD,

Daphne Patai wrote that after her experiences with the gender studies academics she nolonger thinks that the world would be a better place if it was ruled by women. She and Hoff Summers both demonstrate that different feminists do not work together in union.

"Bad mother, rather than a feminist."

Interesting some adult of children of the earlier feminists have said that their mothers, were bad mothers.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1613#more-1613
Venus; the dark side.

"The picture is emerging of a woman who must get what she desires at all costs and must always be right. Sometimes she will deliberately claim to misunderstand something to justify doing what she wants, even though she knows it is against your wishes. She may cause problems just to attract attention to herself, because she likes to feel important.

"Creating self-doubt in her victims’ minds is an integral part of her approach. She plays on their reasonableness to give her the benefit of any doubts they may have. She knows that reasonable people don’t like to think badly of others and will often beat themselves up for thinking uncharitable thoughts. She always sounds so convincing. Her approach is intended to make you question whether you were correct in your thoughts about her. It slows you down. It’s meant to."

Liam. Hurrah! Reminds me of the famous Rebecca West quote: "I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."

James. Cheers. I know where I'm not wanted. I'll leave the thread, but with this thought - one that I'm sure you guys will *hilariously* take the p!ss out of when I'm gone. I never the thought the world would be a better place if women ran it. I thought the world would be a better place if were could run it together.

Now go for it! Let it rip boys! I want to hear how manipulative I am!

I'll bid it adieu as well, but with the parting words that if I have a crush on you HRS, you must have one hell of a whopping one on Audrey. Maybe you're simply shocking at courtship.

(For the record, I enjoy reading and commenting on many of Audrey's articles, which funnily enough, where you're often among the first to comment).

I give your posts 0 of 10, because you never address anything put to you instead adopting evasive tactics I've outlined.
Many of the arguments are enough to lay your perceptions in tatters, but those are the ones you won't allow yourself to consider.

Note that you've gone and ignored them again. Must be tough, maintaining a steadfast veil of ignorance.

Whatever experience you had with women must've been harrowing.
It's a shame that instead of combating this, you've transformed it into a broad attack on feminists - feminists being people with the simple belief that women deserve the same rights as men in practice and theory.
Sure, there are nutters that go further, but I've known dozens of women who consider themselves feminists, including my own mother, who never show or say any of the man-hating vampiric tendencies you describe.
What's ironic is the nutters behave toward men as you do toward feminists.

Whatever experience you had must've been severe and is a specific issue which needs attention, but instead of helping people in the same boat, you transform it to this petty hatred game, complete with polemics on ilks and snips and snails.

R0bert:

Depends how DV's defined. I've spent time around courtrooms (not ever as a defendant) when it comes to physical violence, men are worse in both quantity and severity.

Emotional and psychological is different. I don't know enough there.

But I refuse to categorise that as violence. It's an issue worthy of consideration, but lumping that with bashings is wrong.
Issues like neglect are serious but they're not violence.
It's not striking someone else with an intent to physically wound them or worse. On that score, men are worse, all the statistics prove this.

Liam,
I had a look in a medical encyclopaedia, and I couldn’t see anywhere that any living male could be a “meathead”, so I think that remark is simply a form of abuse of the male gender.

Similarly, I couldn’t see in the medical encyclopaedia where it says that boys are made of slime and snails (as stated by the feminist Audrey), so I think that is also abuse of the male gender.

But you would probably know more about abusing the male gender than I would.

Vanilla,
So long, and no thanks for all the abuse.

Turnrightthenleft,
Keep searching.

Whitty: "Just where has HRS expressed any hatred of women"

Apologies for not responding, but I've been away for a few days.

I think that anybody who's familiar with the numerous obsessive whines that "HRS" posts in response to female authors and commenters in this forum, could legitimately infer that he has a pathological antipathy towards women. That he has learnt how to disguise his misogyny by deploying various weasel words is more of a testament to the persistence of his deep resentment of women than any positive attitudes he may have towards them.

Whitty may be unaware that "HRS" is a sock puppet for his previous identity as "Timkins" at OLO (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6333), who was eventually banned from the forum for posting repetitive misogynist comments in which he abused women less covertly than he does now.

However, I note that his comments as "HRS" are becoming increasingly obviously pathological. I suspect that this sock puppet's days are numbered, but banning him again will only give us temporary respite from his obsessive, sad campaign against women and their interests.

C. J Morgan
Like Turnrightthenleft, I think you have a crush on me as well, as the majority of your posts are now taken up with writting about a HRS, and will rarely even mention the topic.

But how is defining males as being "meatheads" or "slime and snails" in the "interests of women"

Run along now Timmy.

I was talking about you, not to you.

Vanilla, what great posts you write. You often take the words right out of my mouth.

Doesn't leave me much room to post many of my written responses though!

Like you I'm often amazed by the awesome power feminists are supposed to have on society according to some when looking at the reality of the make-up of our parliaments, our judiciary, media owners and advertising executives. They must all be sleeping with some particularly clever feminists in heavy disguise. Feminists in deep cover so to speak, seeing as feminists all hate men. Amazing what they are willing to sacrifice for the sisterhood! ;)

Liam, I laughed out loud with your post.

CJMorgan, you are always a voice of reason. Here on OLO and in the newspaper when you are published.

Yvonne
C.J Morgan wants to talk about people and not to them (ie. gossip), so could you answer this question.

If a feminist states that males are “slime and snails” or “meatheads”, then how is this acting in the interests of women?

Also do feminists find great joy in writing or reading that “boys are made of slime and snails” and men are “meatheads”, (when no one has ever proven that boys are made of slime and snails or men are meatheads)?

HRS, I'm not no-one, I'm some-one and I am here to tell you that boys are made of slime and snails. Though, admittedly not all, but then they probably were gay.

And I know for a fact that there are a number of male meatheads about. I've met a few and had to tell them this horrible truth. Not that it brought about an epiphany on their part. They are still meatheads. You should have heard their profane language in return. Sorry, I'm not going to repeat it, my post would surely be deleted. Suffice to say, I'm sure you would not want to be lumped together with brothers who set such shocking examples of manliness to the little woman, even though they were decidedly not gay.

Now you've heard it from some-one. I'm sure you can ask just about any-one to verify the truth of the above.

Can't tell you if all feminists love reading about the theory that boys are made of slime and snails and meathead men, but this one did.

No, HRS, I do not hate men. I love them. Never could get the hots for other feminists, but there are any number of non-meathead men I find quite irresistible.

HRS,

You’re like so many men who take some things too seriously. Let me explain.

If a woman from within the depths of a forest was to scream out “I'm not no-one, I'm some-one and I am here to tell you that boys are made of slime and snails”, (and the rest are gay meatheads, or something to that effect), her worst nightmare would be that no one hears. Even if one of her multiple personality characters was to respond in voices, and even if just to call herself a crazy lost bitch, she would be happy…

When she does so on a public forum however, she so totally expects to be revered as a feminist.

Got it?

Yvoone,
After the last time the feminists of OLO said that they liked men, a feminist immediately started calling men “meatheads”.

It didn’t take long.

Seeker,
I’ve never known a feminist to be selective on what men they take money from. They will take money from any man.

But if a feminist was honest, then they should only take money from women, because no woman could be “made of slime and snails”, and no woman could be a “meathead”.

But I saw my first Zoo magazine recently. I was in a newsagency and searched around, and finally found it.

It was hidden away in the back of the shop, and came in a sealed plastic bag.

So it appears that Australian Feminist Idol Audrey Apple not only thinks that Germaine Greer is sexy, not only does she think that “boys are made of slime and snails”, not only does she like to drink from a “goon”, not only does she like to spread profanity through her gossipy and trashy blogsite, but she also likes to read magazines that are found in the back of a newsagency and come in a sealed plastic bag.

Well done Audrey.

All feminists should be inspired, and hope that one day they too can ascend to your levels of ismness.

Whoops. Sorry. I know I said I wouldn't post here again, but I just noticed Seeker was here and wanted to make sure that he heard what I had to say.

This is what you wrote earlie:
"Was the implied unhappiness of your grandmothers directly related to their non-dedication to feminism, and *everything* to do with men, or to other, totally unrelated social and economic factors? I dare not ask about your grandfathers, for they portray as abusers and rapists."

And this is what I wrote back:
What a nasty little paragraph. Please don't insult my family then attribute it to me. Frankly, I have no idea what you're on about here. I never suggested that my grandmothers' inability to lead a full life (not unhappiness) was *anything* to do with men. They weren't "non-dedicated" to feminism - they just didn't have it back then. Both my grandfathers were excellent men.

Seeker: I am happy for you to insult me directly. Go for it. Just lay off my family, particularly the male members. Actually any members.

PS. HRS, you do realise "Liam" is a guy's name. The guy who said "meatheads" was a male.

Vanilla,
I thought you'd left.

I would define a feminist as anyone who calls themselves a feminist, and that is very easy to do, and someone does not have to be female to be able to call themselves a feminist.

Also, are you at all selective in what men you take money from. Or do you only take money from men that are "slime and snails" or "meatheads".

HRS and Seeker,

Why aren't you two at work in the morning on a weekday? How is any woman, whether feminist or not, to get any money out of you two loafers? Are you kept by a woman or just raking it in from tax paying feminists?

Vanilla,

Your portrayal needed some clarification - you painted that family portrait, I merely asked for your assistance with interpretation. Thankyou.

Yvonne,

I’ll refrain from commenting on your cognitive skills, but where do you see me posting on weekday mornings?

As for being dependent on a feminist, not even I could wish that on anyone. Feminists of course, being the cute (and sexy) little socialists that they are, are heavily into interdependence. They just use a different language to cover up stuff like that. The sad fact for an independent observer such as I (;-), is that the more recruiting they do, the less equality to go around.

Yvoone,
So the list has now quickly expanded from “slime and snails” and “meatheads” to also include “loafers”.

I don’t think it could be said that a feminist is lacking in vocabulary., and it didn’t take long before the feminists of OLO returned back to true form (after that mishap when one said that they liked men).

I’m sure Audrey Apple must be very pleased with such a talented group of feminists.

Gee whiz this thread is still going.

Seeker you wrote that, men take some things too seriously.

I really say the same thing about many of the posters here, including women-who-claim/pretend-t0-be-feminists, feminists etc.

Maybe Audrey and her bad apples took ZOO mag far too seriously.

I find it amuzing how much some people try to convince HRS, myself etc that we are wrong, and that their perspective is the absolutely correct and only acceptable perspective to have.

I know I am male and I assume HRS is male as well,

HRS, I reckon that Audrey is a hypocrit and she does not get the hypocrisy in that she objects to ZOO mag, and yet find your objection to her website objectionable.

Personally I don't like the slime and snails, but then maybe women in sensible shoes do smell.

James H,
Audrey Apple may not know much about biology, or she may have undertaken a feminist biology course only, and that is why she has thinks that boys are slime and snails.

But there is the question of why Audrey Apple was reading Zoo magazine in the first place.

I searched for Zoo magazine in a newsagency and eventually found it, and it was a magazine that came in a sealed plastic bag, and it was with a number of other magazines, and each and every one of them also came in a sealed plastic bag.

So it could be the case that Audrey Apple is a connoisseur of magazines that come in a sealed plastic bag, and one day she found something in one of those magazines she thought was offensive.

The situation with her feminist and profanity strewn blogsite that maligns little boys, is that it does not come in a sealed plastic bag

JamesH and HRS,

I meant no criticism of your good work – it was an attempt to highlight that some statements made by feminists (such as Yvonne’s brain fart) are just soooo crazy, as to not warrant a rational response. Guess I showed her with mine…

There is lots of coverage of the event on the net, which would somewhat reduce the need for Audrey to venture out into dark back rooms of newsagencies for her research:
http://www.google.com.au/search?hl=en&q=zoo+magazine+win+boob+job&btnG=Search&meta=cr%3DcountryAU

There are some interesting takes on the story, including one at http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/08/14/1186857485649.html

“However a little known law in NSW prevents anyone from offering cosmetic surgery as a prize.

This morning a spokesman for Gaming and Racing Minister Graham West confirmed the magazine was now being investigated by the Office of Charities for a potential breach of the Lotteries and Art Unions Act, which forbids anyone from offering cosmetic surgery as a prize.”

Personally, I can’t wait for that impending wave of feminism that comes clean and renames itself to narcissism.

Thanks for that Seeker.

If I recall correctly some, if not many feminist organisations stage particular catchy media events to gain publicity for what ever it is that they claim is wrong with the world.

Andrew Bolt had an example of how feminist media driven hysteria bankrupted a company, paid millions of dollars of compensation to women who did not deserve it. It was once claimed that breast implants were causing all these health problems in women.

Yet all these years later breast implants are now classified as safe.

google "Perk up girls its safe."

Seeker
If boys are made of slime and snails, then girls now seem to be made of silica gel and Botox with a surface coating of Clinque.

Except for people such as the profane Audrey Apple, who believe they are of a higher order, and are made of some type of feminist material.