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.