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?