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.