To be honest Melinda the body in the boot looks more like a store dummy than a live person, beside her leg is too skinny.

Ads are designed to catch your attention and this one certainly caught yours and as a consequence it gets heaps more free advertising.

I don't suppose that you have read any of the following books?

Spreading Misandry: The Teaching of Contempt for Men in Popular Culture:

Legalizing Misandry: From Public Shame to Systemic Discrimination Against Men.

So it is a real shame that your writing skills are not applied equally and also look at the promotion of misandry in todays popular society.

Still no calls for ending the violence against men and women.

Makes one think that feminists want violence against men.

Well damn me! I'm a feminist!!

..........because if that's the label I earn because this 'advertisement' absolutely disgusts me.....; as does the two reactions so far to it,-I'll wear the feminist tag with pride!

Unbelievable!

Bravo Ginx!

Ginz,
I wouldn't like to call myself any "ist", but do you have an example of an ad for handbags and shoes that is "feminist".

Also, do you have any evidence of feminists wanting to stop violence against men.

All feminist propaganda seems to be directed against stopping any violence against women, but I can't remember any feminist propaganda being directed against stopping violence against men and women.

Next feminists will be saying that they believe in equality.

HRS

If you asked, you would find that the majority of feminists are appalled by all the numerous forms of men's violence whether it is perpetrated against women, men, children, or animals.

Dear Melinda,

What an absolute load of bollocks.

Firstly, what is the problem? I think it's pretty obvious that men who actually do kill their wives and leave them in their car boots are not moved to do so the day after receiving the latest edition of their subscription to Hapaar's Bazaar. Equally, the women who've gotten killed and stuffed in car boots clearly did not willingly scramble in after realising how well the enterprise would set off their footwear.

You say that you think the image "glamourises" violence in general? Maybe. But we're grown ups, in this society. And violence has a critical role in culture and creativity and human experience. You may not like it, but thankfully we don't all have to modify our behaviour so that Melinda Tankard Reist likes it, or else we'd all be going to church on Sunday. Creativity can be black and difficult and it can also be commercial. If we don't like it, we can boycott the product and write letters to all and sundry about why. But the fact that you got it *banned* indicates that you have no faith in the intelligence and capability of either women or men, and that you are not in favour of their emancipation.

You are the killjoy throughout history who banned Lady Chatterly's Lover and Ulysses, and made Goya put clothes on his nude Maja.

You can protect women from actual violence, Melinda, but you cannot protect them from art, or culture, or the dark side of humanity. They simply do not need your protection.

The fact is that violence against women is NOT a major societal problem, but it IS a great tool with which to advance the anti-male agenda of some of the more radical feminists and their bandwagon-riders, such as the hilariously unbalanced Michael Flood. When a man can be prevented from seeing his children except under the supervision of a so-called "Contact Centre" merely because he shouted at his former partner, it is easy to see the sort of leverage that the claim of male violence can apply and all for no more than the cost of a visit to the police. No wonder the "grrls" are so keen to keep it on the front pages - regardless of reality.

Vanilla,

O.K., so the ad is a not-so-subtle visual code for the old "I wouldn't be seen dead in that.." dress/jacket etc. Perhaps, admittedly, in questionable taste but, I agree with you, not exactly ban-worthy. Personally, if I was about to put up with the discomfort of getting my knickers in a twist (which, you gotta admit, is a pretty uncomfortable predicament), I can think of a variety of issues I would do it for. This is not one of them.

The u-tube clip I found rather disturbing, but I admit to personal reasons for this. Admittedly I haven't found out if the reason for these images was as stated in the article - which sounds a little over the top. And as for the women being "terrorised" by security guards? To me they seemed to show no other emotion than the vacant and supercilious. A look that models, whether frolicking in the Spring sunshine or posing by active volcanoes, always wear.

The impact of viewing all three lots of images at once is not particularly pleasant, but I certainly don't feel that the fruits of some hard-up ad.team to come up with yet another way to sell clothes I wouldn't buy anyway disadvantage, threaten or mock me in any way.
p.s.
I wish there was some little flag one could attach to one's posts to indicate that one is open to rationally discussing the actual article and refuses to be baited or to engage with the same 'ole same 'ole from the US (Usual Suspect) brigade.

"Ginz,
I wouldn't like to call myself any "ist", but do you have an example of an ad for handbags and shoes that is "feminist".

Also, do you have any evidence of feminists wanting to stop violence against men.

All feminist propaganda seems to be directed against stopping any violence against women, but I can't remember any feminist propaganda being directed against stopping violence against men and women.

Next feminists will be saying that they believe in equality."
Posted by HRS, Friday, 14 March 2008 12:32:59 PM

________________________

You can't seriously believe you can cross-examine me on issues feminist or otherwise and I will dutifully follow your agenda....,do you? LOVE THAT!!

Take a look at Whitty's thread in General Discussions: The Homer-fication of Men.

Other than that I can't be bothered with you or anyone else who justifies the depiction of women OR men in,-(never mind demeaning here),- such stupid ways.

We COULD get into a discussion as to the male or female construct of advertising agencies??

Male OR female; they show a barren brain attitude if this is the best they can do.

To ridicule those who oppose this unimaginative nonsense, is equally unpalatable.

Very good points Vanilla.

Not bad Romany :))))

Ginx - I hope you don't feel that I was ridiculing your opinion? I don't share it, it in this instance, but I respect it.

I do think that advertising plays a large - and rather unappetising - role in society. Far too large a role. And I believe that it misuses the power it is well aware that it has to shape society. As you said, a discussion of mens' and womens' culpability within the industry would probably be a good one.

I think, however, if I were ever to involve myself in a movement to censor/ban anything it would rather be for the irresponsible advertising that is aimed at children.

Ginz,
I wouldn’t want to call myself an “ist”, or say that I belong to an “ism” because inevitably such people start to regard themselves as being elitist, or more equal than anyone else.

Your belief that you can’t be cross examined or asked a question is very much in the area of elitism, and I can understand why you would be attracted to an “ism” such as feminism.

Certainly a public boycott of “Harper's Bazaar” magazine can be done, similar to the public boycott of “Sassy” magazine in the US. At the time this magazine was being run by the Australian feminist Dr Anne Summers, and it is ironic that due to the outrage over the content in this feminist magazine, the advertisers finally withdrew their advertising and the magazine had to shutdown.

Certainly there should also be a boycott of International Women’s Day, until schools and other organizations start to celebrate International Men’s Day as well.

We don’t want Australia becoming feminist, elitist, discriminatory and gender prejudiced.

The beauty industry, as an organism, works by convincing women that they’re unattractive, but could be real babes in they’d just apply this cream, or shoe, or dye, or wax. If the product had real potency, of course, the whole house of mirrors would tumble down. ("Hey, my face cream *really did* make me look 25! Guess I don’t need any more.”) Advertisers sell the promise of beauty — but not the actuality. From cradle to grave, women are bombarded by the message that they’re not *quite* hot enough.

Meanwhile, human have always and will always fetishise female beauty. The adornment of women is deeply rooted in nature and in society. And, let’s face it, five percent of women in the world are more beautiful than the rest of us. (What was Marilyn Monroe but our generation’s Helen of Troy — a face powerful men fought over, that changed history?)

Rather than let this depress us, or allow corporations to exploit us, why can’t beauty and fashion inspire us? When we harness fashion well, it is inventive, creative, fun, theatrical, liberating. (Like Steven Meisal’s amazing Vogue Italia spread.) And why we can’t we be more alive to different types of everyday beauty — value the big noses and strong chins and rotund arses we see around us?

If we keep working to remould the way we think about beauty, we won’t have to ban anything. Banning stuff we don’t like is a supremely ineffective way of moulding culture. For a start, it attempts to fix the problem at the wrong end — it does nothing to change the societal circumstances that created a market for the offending product. Secondly, it’s paternalistic and patronising. Thirdly, we don’t all agree — some see a cruxifix made of urine as art, others as offensive; your porn is my life drawing class; etc etc. Fourthly, draws attention to the product it seeks to remove from view (David Irving’s philosophies, for example — or the ad in question, come to think of it).

...cont if I can

I think this type of ad (which is itself shown in the article - any thoughts about that, Melinda?) perpetuates the myth that violence against women is OK. It also shows how far women have to go in our society to become equal on their terms.

Unfortunately it highlights the failure of the women's liberation movement (WLM) to push on for liberation. That is not its fault but a reflection of the conservatism gripping society from the 80s and on and the fact that the WLM has now become the women's movement. The main beneficiaries of the Women's Movement are or will be well paid upper middle class and ruling class women.

Lower paid women will continue to be lower paid women (and sexist ads like this one will continue to published) until working women (and men) enter onto the battle field of history,as they did for example on March 8 in 1917 in Russia, sparking the February Revolution. (That event was the reason IWD is celebrated on 8 March, I believe.)

Even a well organised strike movement for better wages and maternity leave and female friendly workplaces and elected bosses would go some way to righting the ongoing and systemic discrimination and violence against women.

Two pamphlets by socialists might be worth a read for those wanting to understand where the seeds of violence in our present society come from. They are:

Sandra Bloodworth "Rape, Sexual Violence and Capitalism"

Sheila McGregor "Rape, pornography and capitalism".

Well said Romany, Vanilla.

Honestly, there are better things to get worked up over.

I note HRS continues to base his main criticisms upon what isn't in articles, rather than what is, and has a very hard time sticking to specific issues when the opportunity to bash feminism overall comes-a-knocking.

Shame really. There's plenty of decent reasons to criticise this piece.

Observe this short circuit - it's like watching an wind-up car repeatedly bump into a wall:

HRS says that no feminists are willing to criticise violence against women - Posters here, who identify as feminist, say that they do oppose violence against men. Heck, I'll do it right now.

I oppose violence against men HRS, and though I'm not particularly invested in the feminist cause, the lack of reason in your posts has made me decide that yes, feminism is still necessary in this day in age.

Now observe the following contortions of logic, as he's presented with this paradox:

1) HRS believes feminists have nothing worthwhile to say.
2) A feminist just said that they believe violence against men is wrong.

I'm betting he'll adopt a 'poor me, I'm such a victim, feminists are so mean to me' approach in order to justify his hatred of women, which he disguises as a hatred of feminism.

I'm also guessing he'll interpret this post as being an attack fuelled by feminism, rather than people thinking his posts lack logic.

Or perhaps, he'll ask for other information so he can discard what's in front of him.

I'm aware I'm just stoking his apparent issues, but it really does amaze me that such a dogmatic position that flies in the face of logic, can be sustained without the typical religious methods.

With religious fundamentalists, you've got no hope of dissuading them, because they fall back on unanswerable questions.
HRS doesn't have that excuse. If we could make him see the illogic of believing every single feminist is bad, we'd have taken the first step toward being able to reason with fundamentalists of other stripes... well, in an ideal world, anyway :).

Vanilla, Passy
I once worked in a factory and did some work with the safety department. We had continuous problems trying to convince various female employess that they should wear safety shoes and safety glasses.

We had to search through the market to try and find a selection of safety shoes and safety glasses that they thought were fashionable, and would wear.

So much for men wanting to carry out violence on women.

I think the ad is in very poor taste, but no man is forcing a woman to read or buy Harper's Bazaar.

Boycott the magazine, like what was done to "Sassy" magazine, run by the Australian feminist Dr Ann Summers.

cont...

Melinda Tankard Reist may describe herself as a feminist, but I believe she is more motivated by her pro-life, right-wing Christianity — and her organisation’s half-arsed “girl-power” message is a convenient way to communicate those values to young girls. (Particularly ones with unwanted pregnancies.)

To have this ad removed from circulation, as Melinda did, teaches girls nothing about how to reconcile their own apparently imperfect looks against the images culture bombards them with. Or helps them critically analyse how advertising works. Or (and I know I’m on controversial ground here) that there are creative links between sex and death and art that we would be better to examine than ignore.

She gave them a fish. She didn’t teach them to fish. That’s why her article has gotten me so cross.

Romany: “I wish there was some little flag one....”
As do I. I hate conversations where the point is not is not to tease out the issues, or to learn, but to compete and combat, to blame, to flatter oneself and to willfully misunderstand. How can you be free to explore if your every utterance is tortured and pronounced “sexist” and if the reaction to every critique is “oh, so you’re blaming men now, huh!”

The fact is I dunno what I think half the time. I’m trying to work it out. Do I really believe what I just said? I’m not sure — maybe I’m confused because of my distaste for the Tankard Reist. It was interesting what you said about anthropology in the other thread. Maybe I’m wrong about the inevitability of humanity’s obsession with female beauty. Am I? I am so happy to be challenged, but not for my statements or questions to be converted into positions I simply don’t hold.

The usual suspects actually resemble super-rad fems of the Dworkin era. They both believe life is really tough for [insert relevant group] and much easier for [you].

It’s irrelevant, but if you’ve got time, check out some good advertising: http://dothetest.co.uk/

Re Passy “Fair go for women “

I would recommend two pamphlets for people who want to understand the link between the society we live in and violence against women.

They are both by socialists.

Sandra Bloodworth "Rape, Sexual Violence and Capitalism"

Sheila McGregor "Rape, pornography and capitalism
Posted by Passy, Saturday, 15 March 2008 1:42:37 PM

Re this thread

Two pamphlets by socialists might be worth a read for those wanting to understand where the seeds of violence in our present society come from. They are:

Sandra Bloodworth "Rape, Sexual Violence and Capitalism"

Sheila McGregor "Rape, pornography and capitalism".
Posted by Passy, Saturday, 15 March 2008 2:01:57 PM

Recycling the drivel of the left eh Passy?

The point with it is this, this twaddle presumes “capitalism” is the cause (hence the title) and “socialism” is the savior.

Socialism takes a theory and tries to find a situation which it fits.
It sees the opportunity to create a divide, like wedge politics.

The ensuing outcry for equality enables the socialist to declare “let the government regulate on behalf of everyone” and another liberty is trampled under foot to the point you end up with what Lenin himself said

“the goal of socialism is communism”.

Check the reality, libertarian-capitalist innovation and entrepreneurial skills brought women the timesaving devises which unchained them from the kitchen sink, enabled them to communicate on threads like this and empowered them (equally with men) to communicate with anyone else around the world, not socialism.

All that socialism actually offers is equality in poverty and equality of repression.

It is a Jesuit maxim: "Give me the child until he is seven and I will give you the man.”

It was Lenin who said “Give us the child for 8 years and it will be a Bolshevik forever”

However, a libertarian-capitalist philosophy seeks to ensure all children are empowered to make up their own mind, rather than simply repeat the indoctrinated dogma of the despot.

"Wedge politics" is a tool of neo-cons on the right. Howard turned Australia into anation of people who hated

- chardonnay sipping lefties
- muslims
- aborigines
- unionists

The left prides itself on its "social inclusion" agenda.

I see the Grand Prix doesn't grab your attention either.

Good post

Posted by Vanilla, Saturday, 15 March 2008 2:38:37 PM

Congradulations on teasing out Melinda's issue.

Sounds like you must have some very interesting dinner time talks.

Posted by Romany, Friday, 14 March 2008 10:42:17 PM

Not offended Romany. Truly. I absolutely agree with your further comments in the quoted post.

__________________________________

HRS,

" How can you be free to explore if your every utterance is tortured and pronounced “sexist” and if the reaction to every critique is “oh, so you’re blaming men now, huh!” " (Quote Vanilla)

I'm swiping this from Vanilla because I could not put it better as a response to you.

________________________

Onya Billie! ( But you're nissing into the pind, I'm afraid!)

________________________

My view has changed not a jot. I care little for the WLM-,(agree with your comments Passy)-, or the political perspective of the author. Not in this case.

I've had it with this type of crap. It crosses both genders, and frankly I think ad. agencies need a fair bollocking!

They won't change though, if we continue to see this as OK.

Political Correctness v Freedom of Speech is with us always!

Maybe thats a tranny.

Careful how ya look at stuff. After a while all you see is what reflects your own bias.

Fashion to die for! This is the visual equivalent of the catch phrase the advertiser is pushing. It is a catch phrase women often use, so I’m not sure just how repugned we should all feel, and why Melinda would relate it to that other favourite imagery of men’s knuckle dragging and callosity (usual implications being Neanderthal, or violence against women). Shocking as it may be, surely this is just an example of “art” in advertising. Some of us must be buying it.

Apologies to Vanilla and Romany for past misdemeanours.

"Melinda Tankard Reist may describe herself as a feminist, but I believe she is more motivated by her pro-life, right-wing Christianity — and her organisation’s half-arsed “girl-power” message is a convenient way to communicate those values to young girls. (Particularly ones with unwanted pregnancies.)"

Too right. I was involved in trying to get the abortion pill RU 486 through Parliament and one of the loudest opponests was Reist. Feminist? Bollocks.

Further, this advertising. Don't take it too seriously. The sexualisation of young girls in advertising is something else.

Prue Goward is about as Right as they come, and she is a feminist (whatever it really means).

I am sickened by the sexualisation of children, but I do not see any issue as rendering another less important.

Vanilla I read the Age opinion piece about the flip side of fantasy and the author raises some interesting and valid points.

Whilst reading the article memories kept popping in my head of ads that make me feel uncomfortable, my kids like listening to a certain radio station which sadly has about 6 ads in 30 minutes to do with erectile dysfunction during the day.

My kids haven't reached puberty and yet they are bombard with ads about erectile dysfunction, not to mention the radio hosts often talk about masturbation, ejectulation etc. So when I heat them talking about these subjects I chage stations with the excuse I want to hear the news or the traffic report.

I loved this phrase;

"Firstly, no one much cares what males think when it's their desires being appealed to and indulged, "

"so the average man can never win that woman in the airbrushed picture, however much he strives for power, money and six-pack abs."

"But for boys and men, arousal of this kind is forced on them dozens of times a day, every single day, since before they can even remember."

Only a dozen times a day? He must be getting old! ;))

What Simon doesn't mention is that males spend an enormous amount of time and effort trying to suppress or block out sexual arousal and that there is huge guilt trip being laid on men for being aroused or from becoming aroused.

I think that there are some or a lot of women who both resent this and desire it. In another blog one woman was lamenting the fact that her boyfriend had lost interest in sex and as such she felt undesirable.

She wrote' "it feels strange not to be desired that way."

In the oppositions paper is another blog by James Foster;

"Men don't think. That is why we have women. They do all the thinking for us. They tell us what things to do, when to do them, how they should be done and why we are doing them. "

Seeker,
If feminists succeed in scaring women away from men with their “men are violent” campaigns, then the only thing left in women’s lives are themselves, and their fantasies, and perhaps a mirror.

Ginz,
You seem very confused. You call yourself a feminist, but then you say you don’t know what it means. Maybe you think it fashionable to call yourself a feminist.

James H
James Foster seems another confused soul. He is quite possibly a feminist, and cannot think of a positive thing to say about men. Maybe he should stop calling himself a man, and start calling himself a fashionable feminist.

James — I’m so glad you liked this article, and you make many excellent points.

“What Simon doesn't mention is that males spend an enormous amount of time and effort trying to suppress or block out sexual arousal…”
I think he touches on that at the end, but that really deserves its own article.

“… and that there is huge guilt trip being laid on men for being aroused…”
Yes. But I would an aside on “being made to.” I hate the passive voice. (I’m talking grammar here: “to be” + part paticiple.) It’s the ulitmate lack of agency, of (funnily enough) passivity — it says, “I am at the mercy of forces.” I reckon anytime we feel we’re “being made” to think or do something, we should challenge ourselves. Who is making us? Are we surrendering prematurely? Some women claim they’re “being made to feel inadequate” by sexual imagery, some men claim they’re “being made to feel” guilty about enjoying it. I don’t doubt the validity or veracity of either’s feelings, but one must remind oneself one is in charge. I could spend all day feeling guilty I don’t look like Kate Moss. Or I could decide that maybe it’s a little sad for Kate that she doesn’t look like me.

“... a lot of women who both resent this and desire it… [One] wrote ‘it feels strange not to be desired that way’.”
Of course! The relationship women have with desire is every bit as complex as men’s. Our feelings are not politically correct, women court desire and then reject it, they resent it when they’re young and then mourn it when they’re old. It is delightful, torturous interplay. Possibly the silliest thing I’ve heard on these boards is a bloke saying (to paraphrase), “I’d love to be a woman! You have the power. Men just desire you...etc.” Likewise, many women think, “I’d love to be bloke! You have the power. You get to choose...etc.” In reality, both views lack imagination. Whenever you think, “It’s easy for *them*” you are missing something.

cont...

cont...

For both men and women, feeling desire and feeling desired is fun and tragic and frustrating and confusing, generally all at once. We need to empathise, to inhabit the world of the opposite sex. And we should not blame them for being honest, even if we don’t like what we hear. It may sound ridiculous to some men that a woman could feel guilty for not looking like Kate Moss, but rather than blaming her for being shallow or vain, imagine her world, her landscape. Some women don’t want to hear how much men enjoy looking at naked women, but to accept that it is the first step to not allowing it to ruin one’s self-esteem.

The great thing about this article is forces women to consider how men really feel about sexual imagery, not indulge in the cliched female idea that, given their druthers, *all* men would look at *all* porn *all* day. Or submit to the furphy, “If really he loved me, he just wouldn’t *need* to look at anyone else. Yet the article doesn’t point fingers — it is thoughtful, reasonable, intelligent. We need to stop the gendered blame game about desire. Desire is difficult to manage for both sexes. It’s also the blood that pumps through the veins of society, the undercurrent in all art, the passion in marriage.

Re. The Tankard Reist. You’re right, Ginx, in saying that her politics shouldn’t prejudice how one thinks about her argument, and I would have disagreed with her even if she wasn’t a sleazy puritanical god-botherer. But I see her broader agenda as influencing her thinking on this issue. She is, in essence, a banner of things. She doesn’t want women to be free, she wants to them to be protected. And not just from real things, like violence, but also from pictures that she regards as distasteful. If she says she’s a feminist, then she is — and certainly not all feminists need be lefties. But she’s not my type of feminist.

Billie “"Wedge politics" is a tool of neo-cons on the right. Howard turned Australia into anation of people who hated

- chardonnay sipping lefties
- muslims
- aborigines
- unionists

The left prides itself on its "social inclusion" agenda.

I see the Grand Prix doesn't grab your attention either.”





“Wedge Politics- why was Marx using it to separate the classes in Victorian England?

What is a “anation”, is it anything to do with “aretention”?

John Howard did not turn anyone into anything.

John Howard did his best to reflect the will of the nation who elected him, as was his duty.

It is you “lefties” who are doubled up with envy and hated of anyone who happens, through their own diligence and effort, to develop into more than you.

It is the socialists who need to ensure no one is allowed to have more than anyone else and who need to control everything, at the expense of everyone, because they know they lack the patent ability to perform and are thus suspicious of anyone who can.

It is called class consciousness and works both as snobbery and inverted snobbery. I would observe from the attitudes expressed in most of your sniveling posts that “inverted snobbery” applies to you.

The left’s idea of “social inclusion” is for us all to suffer, equally, the poverty and mediocrity which history has proved their failed economic and social policies deliver.

As for the GP, why should I pay particular interest to a bunch of blokes running around in fast cars, I would sooner cruise an art gallery and drench myself in the creative genius which comes only from the efforts of individuals, aspiring to their own potential, regardless of what the socialist tell them.

Vanilla,
Calling someone a "sleazy puritanical god-botherer" is abuse.

Feminists seem to have a fascination with abuse, but in overall terms, the most abusive posters on OLO would definitely be those who call themselves a feminist.

It appears that feminism = abuse

Whatever you say Horase. You bein' the orifice of wisdom an' all that.

Some great posts with interesting thought provoking points. Pity about some of the unhelpful antagonizing baiting comments of the 'usual suspects'.

Misogyny and Misandry are both equally unpleasant, regardless of the source. Violence against both men and women is unacceptable. Feminists do not condone one and condemn the other. The fact is that the vast majority of violence, physical injurious violence that at times causes death is perpetuated by men. Both men and women are the victims.

Tankard Reist is one of those women who makes me cross and frustrated. She articulates her points with little substance and lots of emotive language. But I have to say that this particular ad made me feel very uncomfortable.

Vanilla, though you made some excellent points I'm not convinced that advertising a product is necessarily a forum for art. Advertising surely is a mode of suggesting an idea that is desirable and is attainable by buying/using a product. That is what disturbs me about this ad.

Censorship is not the answer. Discussions like these certainly are. I have lots of discussions on these kind of things (ads, music, lyrics, language etc) with my kids who are generation Y and often have a very different take on issues to myself. Very illuminating for both of us! Quite amazing how language and imagery has changed. Though I do believe that some of the differences of what is acceptable and what is not is also because of differences in life experience.

Vanilla,

I often wonder if I am one of these infamous 'usual suspects' everyone talks about without having the guts to name...

'The usual suspects actually resemble super-rad fems of the Dworkin era. They both believe life is really tough for [insert relevant group] and much easier for [you].'

I hope I don't give this impression. I have tried to convince you previously that to refute an assertion of women as victims is very different to portraying men as victims.

I do like to reverse arguments around to show the other side of the coin, and challenge why an argument of say.. 'societal pressure' is valid in arguing oppression of women, but is not considered oppression when this 'societal pressure' affects mens decisions.

'Possibly the silliest thing I’ve heard on these boards is a bloke saying “I’d love to be a woman! You have the power. Men just desire you...etc.” '
I think this may be me, and if it is, I really am being misrepresented. All I intended to do was illustrate to a poster who lamented women becoming 'invisible' as they age, that there is a positive and negative side to this, and that most men don't get to enjoy this feeling of being desired whether old or young. I agree pretty much exactly what you have said in the same post... 'women court desire and then reject it, they resent it when they’re young and then mourn it when they’re old'. Is it so impossible to see being desired as a power and enjoying it while it is there? All I really said is that I can imagine seeing it as such and enjoying it if I were a woman.

Having said that I really enjoyed and agreed with your posts on this topic.

Vanilla

I agree with your condemnation of Melinda’s anti-abortion stance, but like Ginx I don’t think you should allow that to blinker you to the many good points she makes. I’m a leftist, atheist Green’s voter so she and I part company on several fronts but I still think she’s got a lot of good stuff to say.

I heard her on Difference of Opinion once and was impressed by her arguments then, as were a large number of the many people who posted after the show. She was calm and articulate and consistently presented a tight and compelling argument on the sexualization of children. I’m not familiar with all her stuff but I know she has done a lot of good work in this area in particular.

I think she is spot on with this one too. I respect your anti-censorship views, but I feel the world has changed to such an extent that while they may have had justifiable currency in the sixties and seventies, they really need to be re-visited now. The portrayal of violence as an accepted and acceptable part of modern life is so endemic in advertising, film, music and video games that to me it is very reasonable to make the link between this trend and the increasing prevalence of violence in reality.

If we don’t ban ads like this one, what’s the alternative?

I can’t see a consumer black ban ever gaining much traction. The only time I ever pick up a so-called women’s magazine is in a waiting room and I very rarely look at an advertisement of any sort, but I realise I’m very much in the minority. If we were all to shun this stuff though, the purveyors of the most mindless of this rubbish would soon lose their audience.

As consumers, no matter how discerning, it’s almost impossible to disentangle yourself, we're all feeding this stuff to some extent whether we like it or not.

Bronwyn,

'increasing prevalence of violence in reality. ' I wonder if there realy is an increase in the prevalence of violence, or we just hear about it more with 24 hour media saturation coverage of bad news and peddling of fear by politicians.

Yvoone,
Regards the “usual suspects”. This is some type of name calling.

Feminism is normally associated with vilification of the male gender, but I believe that abuse and name calling are also highly characteristic of feminism.

So the most common characteristics of feminism would be: - ABUSE + Villification of the male gender + Name calling.

There are many objectionable ads. If you or someone else don't like the ad, then a complaint can be made to the Advertising Standards Bureau.

http://www.advertisingstandardsbureau.com.au/pages/index.asp

I have also noticed the complete lack of complaint from self-proclaimed feminists about ads that portray men as being dumb, incompetent or suspect.

I attribute this to the fact that feminists themselves so often portray men in this way.

HRS - a woman who speaks out against, say, the stoning of women in Saudi Arabia could be define themselves as a feminist.

In your blinkered view, HRS, all feminists are abusive and this woman is to be ignored.

Allow me to extend your logic further.

Some construction workers have been known to ogle women.

Tradesmen = sexist pigs.

Occasionally, a banker has been known to take money from people.

Bankers = embezzlers.

Actually, people who ride bicycles occasionally hit people with their wheels.

Cyclists = violent attackers.

Heck, I know an elderly person who swears at people now and then.

Elderly = abusive.

Can't you see how dumb this looks? And no, this isn't a feminist criticism. It's just one person speaking to someone who is irrational.

That may be abusive. It's not the work of 'feminism.' It also happens to be accurate. Here's an analogy showing why:

I could oppose rice farming as being a waste of water and use some stupid arguments like those socialist nutbags who show up at student rallies.
When I get criticised for that, it's not the fact that rice-farmers are abusive, it's the fact that using those arguments in this way would make me an idiot, and while the individual rice farmer may be abusive, to extrapolate that to all of them is foolish.

Are you beginning to see how dumb these criticisms of yours look yet?

Or are you just going to whinge and moan about how the evil feminists are abusing you, and use this as a licence to ignore the criticisms inherent in your approach?

Are you going to trawl out another request for an irrelevant statistic? Demand a quotation from a feminist praising men, but ignore the feminist posters here who do so? Cry 'abuse' when people point out that this is irrational? Try to get people to run in circles to disprove your wild theories then ignore it when they do?

"Feminism is normally associated with vilification of the male gender, but I believe that abuse and name calling are also highly characteristic of feminism."

"So the most common characteristics of feminism would be: - ABUSE + Villification of the male gender + Name calling.

__________

I have also noticed the complete lack of complaint from self-proclaimed feminists about ads that portray men as being dumb, incompetent or suspect.

I attribute this to the fact that feminists themselves so often portray men in this way.
Posted by HRS, Monday, 17 March 2008 10:23:35 AM

_________________________

You give YOUR definition of feminism in your first paragraph.

In your second you put YOUR definition as THE definition! Cheeky sod!

As for your last remarks, WELL!..now you've gone and hurt my feelings!!

Have a wee chat with Whitty; he knows that's untrue.

Alternatively: take your blinkers off and look further.

Yvonne,
Advertising isn’t art, but that doesn’t mean advertising can’t be art. The idea of art as pure and government-funded and non-commercial is recent — the old masters had patrons they were required to reproduce at flattering angles. Ok, the Tankard’s girl “in the boot” may not have loads of artistic merit. But I’d argue that the Steven Meisal shoot that she refers to is most assuredly art — and I assume the Tankard would ban that ‘n all, given her druthers.

Following this line, would she ban the various representations of the rape of Lucretia? (Or Lucretia’s subsequent suicide. Tell me Cranach the Elder’s version doesn’t glamorise the teenage girls’ mania for “cutting”. http://www.artchive.com/artchive/c/cranach/cranach_lucretia.jpg ) What about this beauty in the Ballarat Art Gallery : http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en-commons/thumb/4/43/180px-Solomon_Ajax_and_Cassandra.jpg viewed, the day I was there, by a gaggle of giggling schoolgirls? Her rape is imminent. Does it freak Melinda out that I stood in front of a painting of Leda and the Swan in the Bristol Art Gallery for half an hour because I thought it was so deliciously erotic? The beastiality, that is. What about Ophelia as Millias painted her, the ultimate pre-Raphelite goth; dark, beautiful, adorned, dead?

Art finds beauty in violence and death. Sure, it’s not healthy to go all emo and obsessive about it, but neither is it healthy to throw the telly out and become Amish.

Bronwyn: “If we don’t ban ads like this one, what’s the alternative?”

The alternative is to teach young people — effectively — that violence is fundamentally unrewarding. To encourage people to think more critically, to stop being satisfied with creative and intellectual crud. No Country for Old Men — have you seen it? — is graphically, disturbingly violent. But you can’t watch it without thinking about the nature of violence. The alternative is having faith in young people to learn when they should take violence seriously and when they can play with its aesthetics.

To ban this ad is to teach say that human endeavour should have limits around it. That men are inherently violent and women inherently stupid. That people in general are weak and not to be trusted. That *we* are smarter than *them*.

Remember, this isn't putting limits around people's behaviour. It's putting limits around what people can *see*.

Yvonne: “Censorship is not the answer. Discussions like these certainly are.”

I think so. Is there a historical precedent that proves banning a cultural product keeps us healthier and happier? I firmly believe society should be set in the direction of more freedom, not less.

Plus, as I’ve said before, banning occurs at the wrong end. If anyone looks at that ad and thinks, “Well, I guess that it’s ok to lock a woman up in a boot,” then the last thing you get to blame is the ad itself — the problem happened way before the ad came along.

Also, like Whitty, I am not convinced violence has got more prevelent. We can get caught up in statistics here, of course.

Yvonne, I’m GenX — the Twin Peaks generation: does anyone remember Laura Palmer’s corpse: naked, beautiful, and “wrapped in plastic”? — probably somewhere between your kids and you. Whereas in the Duchamp era art stretched to fit urinals, and in Warhol’s 70s it stretched to fit soup cans and celebrity, my era saw art stretch to fit comic books and advertising. Film-makers often begin in advertising. Painters work as designers to make money. Fashion photographers mix commercial and editorial work. Fashion designers make no money from couture — that’s their art — but pots of it from perfume and fashion lines.

PS. Another artistic ad. Tell me this isn’t beautiful: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pRFfJJjLpqw

PPS. By the way, the article that James and I were discussing is here:http://www.theage.com.au/news/opinion/the-flipside-of-fantasy-a-male-perspective/2008/03/15/1205472160379.htm

PPPS. Whitty, Apologies for misrepresentation. I stand corrected.

http://www.angryharry.com/esstabbingmenisfunny.htm
http://www.cooltools4men.com/2007/12/iwantoneofthosecom-think-sexual.html#links

Whilst the debate about advertising is interesting, I wonder what Melinda would think of the knife block in the shape of a man with knives sticking out of it.

I wonder if she has one in her kitchen?

What I find very interesting is that alot of people thought it was OK to have a knife block in the shape of a man with knives sticking out of him and they critised those who objected to the display of violence.

It's loathsome, as is the other one.

James H
There was huge feminist outcry right throughout Australia over the image of the knife block in the shape of a man. You must have missed it.

The item was being sold in Australia. In fact it was being sold in my local suburban shop as a part of their gift line. I saw the item and said to the owner of the shop that the item was objectionable and shouldn’t be for sale or display.

The owner said that it was a novelty item, and meant to be humorous. However all the feminists in the shop agreed with me that the item should be taken down, so the owner took the item off the shelf and put it in the rubbish bin out the back.

That’s the type of feminist action there should be more of. I'm sure there will be more of it in the future.

Vanilla, I'm late to this thread. Reading through the posts a number of yours stood out in a way few others in my time on OLO have. Wonderful stuff, thank you.

HRS "I have also noticed the complete lack of complaint from self-proclaimed feminists about ads that portray men as being dumb, incompetent or suspect."

Vanilla commented on the portrayal of men in the media at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6820#104022

HRS time for a retraction and apology to at least one self-proclaimed feminist.

R0bert

JamesH “the knife block in the shape of a man with knives sticking out of it.”

Hey my daughter has one of the chrome ones, its cool.

However she has a similar view to me, let individuals decide for themselves and bugger the self-righteous prats who think that something is “loathsome” or should be banned for being in bad taste.

If you don’t like it, don’t buy one but don’t tell me or mine how we should spend our discretionary income.

Vanilla “The idea of art as pure and government-funded and non-commercial is recent”

And it sucks, using tax payers funds to indulge the emotional or political whims of a bunch of public functionaries who would not pay for the same if it were coming out of their own pocket.

All you get is bad art and the efforts of Victoria’s Mary Delahunty stands as testament to that.

If tax payers wanted “art”, he and she are perfectly able to purchase it as they see fit rather than see their hard earned taxes frittered away on politicians indulgences or worse, the favoring of a politicians private pet.

The only redeeming feature of “Blue Poles” is it rhymes with “Ar*e Holes”

hmmmmm, so much commentary here trying to justify why it's ok to use an apparent murder scene to sell shoes. I don't understand why people think this is ok, further to this, i don't understand why anyone would want to silence those who say it isn't ok, particularly the large number of women's groups who are familiar with the impact of violence against women.

One poster even lamented the fact that Melinda hadn't mentioned violence against men in this article. Perhaps that is because there is a woman in the boot? How many men have been left to die in the boot of their car in recent years? It was around 40 *women* who were raped on bike tracks in Brisbane last year. How many men were raped? That's right, zero.

would you defend Loula and Harpers Biazzre if they hung a black man from a flaming cross in order to sell Windsor Smith Shoes?that would be rightly called racist and I for one would be speaking out against it. This sort of crap isn't "free speech" it's just stupid.

Re the knife block:
Jeez, there’s a plethora of gender-reversed equivilents to this product. It took me about two seconds to find this, for example: http://www.gobaz.com/prodpage.asp?ProdID=7032 Come to think of it, the advertisment that this article criticises is another equivilent. All treat violence directed at one gender by another as a joke, or a way to sell a product. And if you’re looking for an ally, Melinda’s your lady. This is exactly the same issue that concerns her. Just reverse the gender.

Meanwhile, it’s exactly the kind of issue that irritates this lady. Who cares? Both the voodoo doll and the knife block are tacky novelty gifts. They’re completely harmless. They’re jokes — albeit not my style, I’m more the book of New Yorker cartoons type, and my birthday’s in September — which play on the idea that each sex gets frustrated with the other that we want to stab them. As the hilarious saying goes, “Women! Can’t live with ‘em, can’t kill ‘em!”No one is *actually* going to think any differently about the opposite sex because they get a novelty gift. No one is *actually* going to stab anyone. Just like no one is going to look at this ad and *actually* going to stuff someone in a boot.

It doesn’t matter which gender you are, if you want to walk around this green earth feeling offended and abused and oppressed by inconsequentialities, then the earth will provide and you will succeed. If men want to make the knife block an issue or MTR wants to make the advertisement an issue, then go for it, but don’t kid yourselves that you’re doing your gender any favours. Because most of us care about important things. Besides, so much of culture disparages one sex or another that it ends up in pointless your-advertisement-is-more-sexist-than-mine competitiveness.

Find something real to fight for, I reckon.

Col: “Hey my daughter has one of the chrome ones, its cool.”
Heh heh heh.

Elka,
a. Why do you think she's dead?
b. No one is trying to silence anyone. We're debating it.

Strange bedfellows!

And most definitely 'self-righteous prats'!

Debate it is, Vanilla, and as such it's 'real' to me.

You have some difficulty in accepting an alternative point of view don't you?
Is that why you resort to ridicule?

Good for you Elka!

Vanilla,
I thought the knife block in the shape of a man was funny for about 0.75 seconds, and then I thought it was feminist.

Ginx,
The term 'self-righteous prats' is abuse.

You must be aiming to win the most abusive feminist award on OLO. There is quite a lot of competition.

Elka, " It was around 40 *women* who were raped on bike tracks in Brisbane last year."

Are you sure of that? There were a lot of women (and girls) sexually assaulted in one way or another but my impression is that the vast majority were subjected to groping and or unwanted exposure rather than rape. I could be wrong. Still a potentially devistating experience with the risk of long term impacts on sense of personal safety.

I posted a link on the Fair Go thread to ABS stats on violence.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/4B2A703C9CB10C90CA25732C00207D2C?opendocument

It includes the summary info

"In the 12 months prior to 2005, 46,700 (0.6%) men and 126,100 (1.6%) women had experienced sexual violence. Most of these men and women were sexually assaulted (0.6% of all men and 1.3% of all women)."

If those figures are correct men experience sexual assault at almost half the rate that women do.

It also includes the following

"The majority (87% or 36,800) of men who had been sexually assaulted said that the perpetrator was female. Almost all (99% or 101,000) women who were sexually assaulted, reported that the perpetrator was male."

What that does not tell us is the severity of the attack or the long term impacts.

The issue is not as cut and dried as some would have us believe although men do commit the vast majority of sexual assaults and women are by far the majority of victims.

R0bert

Vanilla, though an end-of-the-line baby boomer I loved Twin Peaks. Love Wild at Heart as well. Have you ever seen Blue Velvet?

Aside from that, this ad is not an ad for an opera, but for shoes. I clearly said that it disturbed me. Not that it offends me or abuses me. But that it is disturbing. There is nothing wrong per se with being disturbed because of a violent depiction when it is for telling a particular story, making a point. As in a movie, opera, painting or photography. Not for selling an object, except maybe if it is in context. Condoms vs the ravages of STD's eg.

To use something as powerful and moving as violence so gratuitously just desensitized us. The paintings you described with such eloquence would loose their power. Violence shocks, but those old glorious art works and operas are fading because they're looking tamer by the day. We're losing sight of the human drama.

Artists making art for commercial reasons vs government funded. This is a red herring. It is immaterial to the debate on whether an ad like this is acceptable.

Man with the knifes, I've seen it and wouldn't want it in my kitchen. Maybe because I've seen enough violence and the effects of violence on men, women and children not to be able to see the funny side of it. Today, again we had an admission to our hospital Emergency Dep of a woman with the effects of sustained physical violence perpetrated on her by her male partner. So, violence just doesn't do it for me as light entertainment.

I've discussed with my tail end genX ers how violence is far more acceptable than nudity or sex. Yet the funny side of sex is something the majority of us could relate to

Yvonne: Yes, a David Lynch fan, absolutely.

“This ad is not an ad for an operal, but for shoes…” & etc
I basically agree with everything you say. The Loula ad isnt’ great art or anything. (Though I don’t hate it as much as everyone else.) But what can we do? We can’t ban stuff just because we think it’s in poor taste. We can’t tell Quentin Tarantino that he can’t make Kill Bill because it desensitises us to the real horror in the Rape of Lucretia. (And because it wasn’t as good as his early work.) As for the knives, personally I’d be happy to never own any product that one could conceivably place the word “novelty” in front of. But I wouldn’t feel comfortable actually banning them.

Elke and those who want to ban the ad,
This is going to seem like a dumb question, but I still don’t really know *why* you want it banned. Because people with copy the behaviour? Because men will believe that the ad wouldn’t exist if violence wasn’t acceptable? How do you think it affects men? Women? Will women see it and think that’s all they deserve? Or do you think we should ban it because it contributes a general culture that accepts violence? Or trivialises it? In which case, must we ban all ads that depict violence? Or only those which treat it without requisite seriousness?

How, specifically, does “glamourising” violence affect the statistics? Even re-reading the Tankards article, I realise I still don’t understand exactly how people believe this ad works to contribute to, say, the horror on Brisbane bike paths.

Another question we haven’t touched is the fact that this ad would be disturbing if you had a family member die in this way. To my mind, we should not use as a critierion in censorship. Terrible things happen all the time — surely if we sought to remove all suggestion of things that might offend someone because they’ve had a similar experience, we’d have to shut down culture.

"Ginx,
The term 'self-righteous prats' is abuse.

You must be aiming to win the most abusive feminist award on OLO. There is quite a lot of competition."
Posted by HRS, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 5:51:00 PM

_______________________

"......and bugger the self-righteous prats who think that something is “loathsome” or should be banned for being in bad taste.
Posted by Col Rouge, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 12:20:06 AM

______________________

This is the second time you have got things all wrong Horase. It's a bad habit. Give it up.

As I dislike the innuendo of the reference 'other posters'....,:-

1) The 'strange bedfellows' comment was directed at TB (Col Rouge to you), and Vanilla.

2) TB's comment 'loathsome' was a shot at my previous post, sooo...., I used HIS terminology 'self-righteous prats' in reverse!

Simple really.

Or are you saying that that terminology is abusive ONLY if it comes from a woman?

Ginx,
I'm not a "Horase".

It seems that you can't make a single post without abusing someone or calling them various names. No wonder you identify so much with feminism.

HRS, you keep repeating the same thing over and over, so I'll do the same -

HRS, can you accept that if a woman opposed the stoning of women in Saudi Arabia, for not wearing a veil, and this woman identified that as they're standing up for women's rights, they are a feminist - could you accept that this woman would be a feminist with a good cause?

You don't have to admit that feminism on the whole is a good thing. You just have to accept that some feminists have a worthwhile cause.

If you want me to believe you're not a misogynist, all you have to do is admit this. I'll retract that claim.

But given that you can't make this patently clear admission, it is apparent you're a misogynist.

So when I exhort people to ignore you, it's because I know you're not in here to offer genuine criticism of feminism, it is because you hate anyone who sticks up for women's rights.

I'm not abusing you, HRS. I'm saying that I've proven you're a misogynist, and I'm urging sensible people to shun you for that reason.

Plus, your childish prattlings that you're being 'abused' are clearly an attempt to evade this scrutiny.

Every time you repeat the same cliches on these boards, and attempt to foster sympathy, I'll repeat this same proof that you hate women.

Call that harassment or abuse if you will, but you have the power to stop it by accepting simple logic and proving you don't hate the idea of people sticking up for women.

Ginx: "The 'strange bedfellows' comment was directed at TB (Col Rouge to you), and Vanilla."

You think it's strange? I've found myself in agreement with Col on several issues lately. Holy moly.

HRS, please define abuse. You use it differently from the way it usually used in English. The dictionary definition (in terms of abusive speech) is: "to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign." Yet you think "horase" (which is fairly obviously a benign play on your name), "ilk" and "aubergine" are all abusive. You also define robust criticism as abuse. I'm sure you'll admit that you are more obsessed with abuse than any feminist could ever be. Compare, for example, the amount of times you bring up abuse on these forums, compared to the amount of times the feminists do.

So, can you share your definition with us? And also, can you tell us why you are more obsessed with abuse than a feminists, despite the fact that you would never call yourself an "ist" or an "ism"?

Also, has anyone else noticed how you never hear HRS say the word "kakidrosis" or "wanion" or "obdormition"?

Yvoone,
I would define abuse as “to speak insultingly, harshly, and unjustly to or about; revile; malign."

The continuous accusation by posters such as Turnrightthenleft that I am a misogynist is abuse. There is no evidence of misogyny.

You can look through my posts to find a single negative word about women.

Feminists operate very similar to how Marxists operated. If someone was critical of Marxism or communism, they were called an “enemy of the state” .

If someone is critical of a feminist, they are called a “misogynist” or “woman hater”. Same thing, different words.

Feminist have thrown every piece of dirt they can at the male gender. That is now abuse, and I’ve seen the affects that that abuse has on the male gender.

If there is a ridiculous ad in a magazine, that now represents men’s violence against women. Out of 10 million women in the country, how many women have been killed and put into the boot of a car?

HRS, sorry but I've had a bit of trouble finding the place where you retracted your claim about "the complete lack of complaint from self-proclaimed feminists about ads that portray men as being dumb, incompetent or suspect. " http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7119#108786

I provided evidence that Vanilla had done just that in my post at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7119#108866

I eagerly look forward to seeing your retraction and apology to Vanilla.

Or perhaps you trying for the award of the poster most unwilling to admit they were wrong on OLO. I must admit you will have some fairly stiff competition if you are trying for it.

As for most of the nominations for most abusive feminist - if your nominations represent the best there is those feminists need to learn a thing or two about insulting and abuse. The standard of abuse is far to pathetic to deserve an award. Perhaps if you try a nit harder you might be able to get a reaction when one of the more extreme feminists pokes posts. They are rare so it's a difficult quarry but much more willing to really abuse.

R0bert

In the 1980's there was a series of murders where taxi drivers were robbed, abducted and locked in the boots of their taxi's and then the taxi was set alight.

It takes only one ad picture of a woman in the boot of a car and then it is extroplated that this represents violence agianst women.

I think warren farrell may have been correct when he called men the hidden sex.

HRS, if you want to direct a comment to me, though how it relates to me I don't know, please spell my name correctly. It shows simple good manners.

Vanilla, under no circumstances would I advocate banning of the ad. Censorship does more harm than good, it pushes issues underground. Censorship concerns me.

What I think we need to discuss is why is it that a shoe company would want to run an ad targeted at women to buy their product with a scene where clearly the inuendo is a crime scene with a woman as victim.

My teenage daughter thinks it is more appropriate as an ad to highlight crimes against women. Her take was: 'wow those boots are cool, but what the ad says is: those boots make you look so good somebody will want to come and rape and kill you.'

I hadn't even thought of that.

So, why is it that a company would even want to create an ad like that? I actually don't think that this is 'accidental'. I really believe that there is a creeping sense appearing everywhere that violence is exciting and violence + sex/women is even more exciting.

Before any men start interpreting what I mean and getting it very wrong: I am not saying that this notion of violence as exciting is necessarily perpetrated only by men. Women are part of this as well. For me this debate is not actually a gender issue at all, but an issue about how glib we are becoming with depicting violence as being something cool.

A movie by Tarantino is not an ad. Advertising portrays something we should want-it reflects what is wanted by real people in our society. A movie does not necessarily have any reflection on our general society or tries to entice us to emulate something.

HRS, I've explained why you're a misogynist.

I accept you haven't directly criticised women, but I've revealed how that is a smokescreen.
You can't just substitute the word 'women' for the word 'feminist' and think that can hide your hatred for women.

If all it requires to be a feminist is to identify as one, why would it be impossible for good people to define themselves as feminists?

All they have to say is "I'm a feminist" then suddenly they're evil?

What the hell?

Does feminism then, just mean good acts that benefit women? Such as feminists who speaks out against the stoning of Saudi Arabian women?

I don't call criticism of feminists misogyny HRS.
By simple logic, it's easy to see you do indeed hate women but hide it, albeit not very well.

You've never been able to challenge this logic. All your replies evade the realities. You always just ask for irrelevant information as a distraction, or you fall back on the old 'I'm a victim, they're abusing me' chestnut.

You're no victim HRS, and I don't think it's right to let someone with such a genuine hatred of women pretend to be one, simplying by substituting 'feminists' for 'women'.

You can claim feminism as a whole is a movement that has passed it's used by date.
You can claim it's irrelevant, or that it's now more harmful than good. In those cases, I'll politely disagree.

But when you hate women so very much and hide behind this smokescreen, all you do is prove how much feminism is still needed to combat such illogical hate, especially when it's hiding beneath the surface.

Misogynists such as yourself are a liability to those with genuine criticism of feminism who employ logic and rational arguments, like Whitty and JamesH.

Can you actually challenge the logic in put to you, in how dumb it is to attack every feminist?
Or are you just going to pretend to be a victim again?

I don't think anyone's buying it any more and I'll do my damnedest to ensure it stays that way.

TurnRightThenLeft,

I wish you would stop zig-zagging around so much and instead took a moment to assess the annoyance. While HRS may be going overboard in his criticism of feminism (hey, just realised criticism is also an ism which probably makes HRS a criticist [my electronic dictionary suggested eroticist, but that can’t be right]), in his particular brand of inimitable style, we at least understand his motivations, and hope for his recovery. What’s your excuse?

I’ve been there with HRS, Timkins at al. I’ve only just started working through my “nice OLO people that deserve my apology” list (you’re not on it). We reserve the right to be enlightened by irrefutably sexy logic of Vanilla and her “ilk”; NOT yours.

R0bert,
You’re next on my list (and please don’t let the fact that you’re part of a long list, dilute its meaning). Sorry, mate. Keep up the good work.

TRTL:"I accept you haven't directly criticised women, but I've revealed how that is a smokescreen.
You can't just substitute the word 'women' for the word 'feminist' and think that can hide your hatred for women."

This is the same twisted logic that sees anyone critical of Zionism or Israeli activities labelled "anti-Semitic". It is a blatant attempt to generalise and dilute a specific set of criticisms in order to create the impression that the critic is nothing but a bigot. It's intellectually dishonest and does you no credit.

As to feminism, I suspect its day is done. The simple fact is that the so-called disadvantages that women suffer in Australian and other Western societies are at worst trivial, whilst the government assistance offered to overcome those minor issues is massive and disproportionate. The profession of feminist views has become an obligatory statement of faith if one wishes any kind of higher-level opportunity in academe or public service, not to mention Government. I've said this before, but the reason is simple: women tend to vote together, largely because they consume the same magazines and the same TV shows, all of which are pushing the same "feminist" line of
"poor disadvantaged women, terrible (or dumb) men". I suspect 'twere ever thus, with women in tribal societies sitting around the fire sharing the latest gossip about the inadequacies of the men whilst the men are out risking life and limb to bring home the bacon.

In short, it's a product of too much free time and too little obligation for self-support or other productive activity.

TRTL, Vanilla et al

I realise HRS is annoying to most people on here (he doesn't annoy me as I usually skip all his posts) but why do you waste time trying to reason with him. It seems some of you find it fun, but it looks like you are just picking on a guy who obviously has a lot of problems.

So, if your aim is to reason with him, I think you're wasting your efforts. If your aim is to shut him up, then I think ignoring him would be more effective. If your aim is to pick on him, then I think it's pretty low to pick on someone who seems to me may have emotional problems, and is perhaps at an intellectual disadvantage.

Whitty, you brought me up short with your last comment. I did ignore HRS for the longest time but when suddenly a new lot of posters joined the forum and he started trotting out things that had been painfully, time-wastingly and exhaustively disproved in the past I kinda got sucked in again.

However your last para. suddenly hit me between the eyes. You're right. His perceived intractability could indeed be attributable to the cause/s you mention. I, for one, am going back to ignoring him again.

Seeker

“We reserve the right to be enlightened by irrefutably sexy logic of Vanilla and her “ilk”; NOT yours.

So now even our logic has to be “sexy”! This is another example of an issue that still rankles strongly with a lot of feminists. Despite being told repeatedly by the likes of Antiseptic that feminists have had their day and that the disadvantages we suffer in Western societies are trivial, many of us are constantly living out this struggle to be taken seriously, irrespective of how sexy our image, or now it seems our words! It’s a struggle most men do not understand because they don’t live it. Some here like Whitty have come close and have made some perceptive observations but I can tell that even the most reasonable critics of feminism don’t really get this.

Antiseptic

“I suspect 'twere ever thus, with women in tribal societies sitting around the fire sharing the latest gossip about the inadequacies of the men whilst the men are out risking life and limb to bring home the bacon. In short, it's a product of too much free time and too little obligation for self-support or other productive activity.”

Sitting around and discussing problems (and surprise surprise they don't all involve men!) is an important prerequisite to finding solutions. Why is it Antiseptic that when women do this it is referred to as “gossip”? What is it called when men do the same thing? Of course, they’re solving the world’s problems! Funny, but the times I’ve listened in to an all-male discussion, it invariably doesn't move much beyond football, booze and sex. There has to be a name for this world-changing conversation. “Gossip” probably fits it pretty well, but of course men don’t gossip!

Talking of sitting around discussing the issues, I would suggest that it’s men who put in more hours doing this on this particular forum than women. Not that I see anything wrong with that. But then I didn’t make the observation that women have “too much free time” on their hands.

Whitty,
You're quite right, and well done for pointing it out. I will absolutely take your advice.

Seeker,
I do appreciate your apology. You are the only person on OLO who has really hurt me, when you suggested that I thought my own father and grandfather were, in your words, "rapists and abusers". It actually made me cry, one because obviously I love them (and one's dead) and the thought that anyone could think that of them is deeply distressing, and two because I just find the line that feminists hate men deeply dumb and boring. When I asked you to direct attacks at me rather than me old man, you insisted that I "painted that family portrait". You were wrong, on every count. You've nothing else to apologise to me for, bar that, so for that I accept your apology. I'm sorry to rehash it, but I thank you for letting me clear the air.

On the other hand, I'm totally cool with "sexy logic." Good logic is sexy — effortless and smooth. I think Stephen Fry does the sexiest logic and he's a poof. I'm not saying I can do it, but I aspire to it.

Antiseptic,
"...women in tribal societies sitting around the fire sharing the latest gossip about the inadequacies of the men whilst the men are out risking life and limb to bring home the bacon."
And I suspect your thinking shall remain ever thus, "thus" being intellectually less challenging and more flattering to yourself than reality. There is so much to wonder at in the world, it astounds me when people want to throw dust clothes of cliche over all the fun bits.

Feminism, to me, is just part of a natural and ongoing struggle to create a culture in which women and men are as free as they possibly can be to experience all that existence has to offer. It's a continuous process of discarding archaic and artificial gender-based limitations on our skills and abilities and creativity. The freer we are, the more we can contribute to the communal pot.

Turnrightthenleft,
You have continuously called me a misogynist, even though you can’t find any evidence that I am a misogynist. Actual facts don’t seem very important to you, and I can understand why you like feminism.

Robert and Whitty,
Of course the picture shows the complete extent of “men’s violence against women” in our society, but how many women have been killed, and then hidden in the boot of a car, with their arm and leg hanging out of the boot?

I don't think a single one, but perhaps I wouldn't know, being a misogynist and being insane and all that.

Antiseptic, you showed why I've gone to such pains to express these sentiments here. It's clear you haven't taken any notice of what I've been saying.

Antiseptic: "It is a blatant attempt to generalise and dilute a specific set of criticisms in order to create the impression that the critic is nothing but a bigot. It's intellectually dishonest and does you no credit."

No.

On frequent recent posts, I specifically went to pains to say I don't consider criticism of feminism unreasonable, and that isn't misogyny at all. I've concurred that there are a great many things about feminism that should be criticised.

I'm not generalising at all, quite the contrary.

You just did though.

I've been arguing that dismissing the views of every person who has been identified as having some feminist beliefs is irrational.

I'm happy to retract my misogynist call, if he'd admit that not everyone who identifies as feminist is evil or that defending women from stoning would be a worthwhile pursuit - even if some categorise this as feminism.

But he can't do that even though I think reasonable people can see this quite clearly. When asked if he could vote for a woman, he evaded the question.

Whitty makes a good point in that his inability to grasp these things is an indicator he isn't rational.

Though seeing Antiseptic, jumping to the conclusion that HRS isn't a misogynist, when it's clear he isn't a mere critic of feminism is worrying. I've been trying to highlight that HRS's position is a clear indicator he's a misogynist. I've done it not just for the sake of reasonable feminists, but reasonable critics of feminism too.

Seeker - my excuse is that I don't think the best thing for anyone is to be left to stew in a world where all women are like vampires when there are others that might listen to their hate.
But perhaps you're right in that given time he'll recover, and ultimately I can't be sure of his circumstances, so I'll endeavour to let it be provided others don't make Antiseptic's mistake.

"I specifically went to pains to say I don't consider criticism of feminism unreasonable, and that isn't misogyny at all. I've concurred that there are a great many things about feminism that should be criticised.

I'm not generalising at all, quite the contrary.

You just did though.

I've been arguing that dismissing the views of every person who has been identified as having some feminist beliefs is irrational.

if he'd admit that not everyone who identifies as feminist is evil"
Posted by TurnRightThenLeft,

Now we are getting somewhere. I agree with TRTL that there is much about feminism that should be criticised.

No I do not beleive that anyone who identifies as feminist is evil, but I reserve my judgement until proven otherwise.

I read a statement which said that some women may use feminist ideals to score points against men. Which makes some sense.

"Feminism, to me, is just part of a natural and ongoing struggle to create a culture in which women and men are as free as they possibly can be to experience all that existence has to offer. It's a continuous process of discarding archaic and artificial gender-based limitations on our skills and abilities and creativity. The freer we are, the more we can contribute to the communal pot."
Posted by Vanilla,

Thats why it is important for men to be included in the debate, even when they say things that rub you the wrong way.

James: "No I do not beleive that anyone who identifies as feminist is evil, but I reserve my judgement until proven otherwise."

So you believe I - and Bronwyn and Yvonne and Romany et al - are evil, unless I (we) can prove otherwise? Nice.

Are you serious? If you are, it reveals much about your emotional and intellectual understanding of the issues, and none of ours. If you are, I see no reason to take you any more seriously than I would a "radical" feminist who believes men are not necessarily evil, but reserve their judgement until otherwise proven.

Or are you joking? In which case, why why do you get to make jokes about gender, but you believe whoever made the "men are bastards" knife block cannot?

Or is that "different," is such a way that makes saying things like that ok for you, but not ok for other people? Such as, oh, say, women.

I assume people are rational, until proven otherwise. I assume they have empathy and lack prejudice, until they demonstrate they don't. I like it when people disagree with me - it's nothing to do with that.

james: "Thats why it is important for men to be included in the debate, even when they say things that rub you the wrong way."
TRTL is a man who is included in the debate and who includes others in the debate. Debate needs informed, brave, and emotionally open, and demands people do their best to avoid falling victim to predictable prejudices. It doesn't immunise people against rigorous challenges - on the contrary, those challenges are important, they strengthen us. TRTL issues those challenges, and he also accepts them.

It's easy to think people are evil. It's harder to think that they they may have a point, even when they rub *you* up the wrong way.

"So you believe I - and Bronwyn and Yvonne and Romany et al - are evil, unless I (we) can prove otherwise? Nice."

Vanilla,

That is putting words into my mouth Vanilla, which is not nice! I reserve my judgement of people until I get to know them better.

HRS "being insane and all that" - I don't think I've ever made that suggestion. I'm still hoping that you can be reasoned with, that something I or others say will help you to understand the damage you do to the case of those wanting a better understanding of the issues facing men.

What you do now makes it very difficult to get attention focussed on real issues. Some feminists such as Vanilla, Yvonne, Romany are willing to listen and engage in honest discussions and often try to do so even in the face of your attacks.

Others don't but maybe if they observe constructive discussions some will soften and start to listen.

Whilst I disagree with some of the often stated ideas about oppression and male power I put that down to the convenience of those ideas as sound bytes used to stir up ferver. Maybe some poor analysis and or lack of understanding as well.

That does not change the underlying value of working for a society where women and men have equal opportunity according to their individual ability and passion.

HRS, it's time to move on. Time to start being a constructive part of discussions rather than a serial pest. Do you have anything to offer other than a hatred of feminism?

R0bert

Bronwyn,

To me, sexy logic is not only appealing, but compelling. Sorry if that causes performance anxiety for some (we men know a little about that).

Antiseptic,

Language must have been developed by women sitting around fires just as you describe (grunting was mostly reserved for hunting and testing cave acoustics). I wonder how long it took these early linguists to find words in defence of feminist interests.

Sure, they would have also discussed who’s turn it was to fetch the water, or look after the children (don’t think straws were invented until later). But how much of it was gossip, politics or feminist discourse?

Vanilla,

To borrow from a song, I didn’t mean to hurt you… Hope you stay sexy and gracious, although, I have to say - I was a little disappointed by your misinterpretation and misattribution of JamesH just above.

“I assume people are rational, until proven otherwise. I assume they have empathy and lack prejudice, until they demonstrate they don't. I like it when people disagree with me - it's nothing to do with that.”

I may be missing something important here, but I thought JamesH was promoting the same concepts within a different context. He was reserving judgement on feminists, you, on people.

Are you suggesting such initial non-prejudicial neutrality does not work for “feminists”, and the two must be decoupled as you have done? Reserving judgement on individual feminist interpretation is to be condemned, because feminism “just is” and its adherents are all good?

I find this more than a little strange. Critics of feminism often cite their objection to the movement’s blinkered preoccupation with its women, to the detriment of its “people”. Perhaps you too are amongst those sometimes struggling with the movement’s name (your Freudian slip is showing).

The point I think most of us are circling around here, is that feminism, like any movement, has its pluses and minuses.

Some feel that the minuses outweigh the pluses in our comparatively enlightened western world.
I can see some reasonable points behind that - though I'd be curious as to the views those critical of feminism have, of the role of feminism in less enlightened cultures and whether a stronger feminist role is needed in these countries.

I can say from my perspective that the more reasonable critics of feminism in these threads have opened my eyes to the fact that it's not all positive - I'm not saying I ever thought it was all rosy, I guess I didn't think much about it in the past at all, I just acknowledged the importance of past contributions of feminism, and knowing that there is still some gender discrimination, however minor, I thought it still has a role to play... I still do.

However, I guess the critics have made me realise that gender discrimination flows both ways. I'm not convinced this is all to do with feminism or that it should be scrapped, more that it's important to identify people with agendas within movements such as feminism, and figure out what their real goals are.

The same goes for those who have an agenda of simply attacking women, because this reasonable criticism can quite easily be hijacked, and when it is, the search for real equality becomes that much harder for both sides.

I guess I just don't think this has to be a war and the real enemies are those that try to make it one, because of their own distinct prejudices, which all too often are either a hatred of men (yes, those feminists are out there, but they're rarer than their opposite advocates would have us believe) or a hatred of women, which is what I've been getting at in my last few posts.

Bronwyn: "many of us are constantly living out this struggle to be taken seriously"

Perhaps that would be less of a problem if feminist discourse were less shallow, more honest and hence more worthy of serious discussion? For my own part, I take you and others here as seriously as your contributions deserve; your gender is irrelevant.

"Why is it Antiseptic that when women do this it is referred to as “gossip”? What is it called when men do the same thing?

Gossip, perhaps? Men do plenty of it, just as women do. On the whole, though, men have less time to do it, as far more of their time is taken up earning a living. Women, especially middle-class women, which would describe the majority of those who claim to be "feminists", have much less pressure on them for self-support, let alone the support of others.

Vanilla: "Feminism, to me, is just part of a natural and ongoing struggle to create a culture in which women and men are as free as they possibly can be to experience all that existence has to offer."

It may well be that to you, but to the vast majority of women in Australia it's nothing more than "grrl power" and a justification for taking whatever they can get in the way of handouts. Sorry if that sounds misogynist, perhaps it is, but a brief look at where the majority of Government payments to individuals goes shows it to be accurate.

TRTL:"I've been arguing that dismissing the views of every person who has been identified as having some feminist beliefs is irrational."

I agree, but then, categorising all men as sexual predators and wife-bashers is irrational too and yet...

The trouble with the topic is that extremists, particularly extremist feminists, have stolen the debate from the rational centre. This is leading to a society in which men are second-class citizens and what's more, the women are standing by, cheering while it happens. Is it any wonder that some men may become somewhat unbalanced in their own views?

I would agree there Antiseptic.

Boy students are defined as being “disruptive”

Men are defined as being “abusers”.

Fathers are defined as being “absent”.

If anyone says anything about it, then they are defined as being “misogynist”.

Males are being defined and portrayed in this way so that they cannot voice any opposition to anything else that will be said about them in the future, or done to them.

Firstly, my bad, mea culpa etc etc. I'm sorry James, I read your statement as saying you assumed feminists were evil unless proved otherwise. I'd had a couple of glasses of red, and saw red. I'm a doofus, and I retract absolutely my entire spac-attack.

I really just wanted to stick up for TRTL, who I think does a stellar job of being fair and rational.

Antiseptic: "... men are second-class citizens and what's more, the women are standing by, cheering while it happens. Is it any wonder that some men may become somewhat unbalanced in their own views?"

It may not be any wonder, but it's not exactly *true*, either, is it? Nor is it useful or interesting. Any women who are standing by cheering while men become second class citizens are, without doubt, idiots. So are men who believe women are nasty gossips who leach off men. Who cares? Whingers at the fringe, the lot of them. They rarely contribute to the actual debate.

"It may well be that to you, but to the vast majority of women in Australia it's nothing more than "grrl power" and a justification for taking whatever they can get in the way of handouts."

And feminism may well be that to you, but to the vast majority of men in Australia it's been a force that's made their personal relationships more interesting and equal and sexy, and who no longer have to solely provide for an entire family.

In the "fair go for women" thread, R0bert linked to statistics that show British women make the vast majority of their money from working. Only 2% of women's wealth came from marriage. There's nothing to suggest Australia would be any different.

Those women and men who are bitter about the success of the opposite success and who feel that they, in comparison, are second class citizens, will always be with us, bitching on the sidelines. And maybe you're right, Antiseptic — most people who feel that they are victims are victims. But I can't be bothered with it myself.

Vanilla: "And feminism may well be that to you, but to the vast majority of men in Australia it's been a force that's made their personal relationships more interesting and equal and sexy, and who no longer have to solely provide for an entire family."

That would be why divorce rates are at record highs, there is a concerted push to get "single mothers" working and we're seeing articles like this one http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23411149-5001021,00.html. That must be what you mean by "interesting", because it doesn't sound real sexy to me. I guess you could claim it as a victory for equality.

I have a daughter who I'd like to hope will live a happy and fulfilled life, and I wish the same for my son. I have my doubts that either of them will end up having a long-term committed relationship, which is sad. I fear that my son will end up getting some woman pregnant by mistake and end up in the endless mire that is the CSA. Your rainbow-coloured view of the wonders of feminism doesn't add up.

"In the "fair go for women" thread, R0bert linked to statistics that show British women make the vast majority of their money from working. Only 2% of women's wealth came from marriage. There's nothing to suggest Australia would be any different."

I missed that thread, but I fail to see your point, unless you're trying to point out that claiming women are disadvantaged in the workplace is fallacious? BTW, did the statistics break up the socio/economic demographics of the women involved? Was there any variation between the demographics if so?

Actually, the divorce rate has been falling since 2001, I think it’s sensible to support single mothers working, and what the article proves I’m not quite sure — Bondi girls are shallow? — but I don’t buy it as social commentary.

Feminism isn’t a panacea, but it’s certainly true that, globally, a country’s prosperity is correlated to the freedom of its citizens — particularly women. Men & women who call themselves feminists do have better sex: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2211202,00.html And many men have enjoyed more freedom within their worklives because women now share the burden. Feminism has its failings, but it is not the evil you imagine it to be.

My point about women’s wealth was that it’s a myth to suggest women are often supported by their husbands. In fact, it’s infrequent — the vast majority of us bring our own wealth to partnerships. As to women’s disadvantage in the workplace, those statistic are irrelevant to that debate (they weren’t in comparison to men) but yes, many feminists fail to recognise and celebrate the great gains we’ve made in this area. R0bert may be able to help with demographics.

I hope your kids are happy too and it’s dismally sad that you don’t see them in long term relationships. Like many people, my greatest happiness is in my relationship and my ongoing admiration for and crush on my husband. But even if they’re single, the happiest people — men and women — are those who take personal responsibility. Surely if you teach your kids about contraception and explain that both sexual partners are equally responsible for the outcome of any encounter and encourage them to date people who, like themselves, are strong, smart and independent, then you’ll at least minimise the possibility of unwanted pregnancy, or of being unable to negotiate mutally acceptable terms should it happen.

Stats for divorce rate here: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/3307.0.55.001/#

Anyway, I’m sure you’re not convinced. I’m not interested in another feminist debate — this thread was originally about the ad. Good luck & I’ll leave it here.

I was looking at the offending picture when it struck me like a number nine boot up the ...!

there is the boot dangling from the boot and the author wants this ad given the boot.

She claims that this ads promotes violence against women, yet the action of giving someone the boot, or threatening to give someone the boot is in it's self a act or a threat of violence.

sure there is the use of figurative speech. To give someone the boot is to sack them.

But the connotation of the boot is and can be equated to promoting violence. there is the implied threat of violence when someone is threatened with the boot if they do not improve thier performance or they do not do what the bully wants them to do.

I find this a real Hoot, the boot and the boot and giving this ad the boot.

Vanilla,

'Men & women who call themselves feminists do have better sex: '
I thought you were smarter than that really. Possibly it should read people who call themselves feminists say they have better sex. What does that really prove? Seriously.

TRTL,

I think feminism has as many positives as negatives, like anything else really, and it's all about an individuals point of view anyway. From my point of view, I just think since feminism society is happy to protect females at too high a cost to males in some areas. DV, Divoce Law, Consent Laws are the main problem areas. But I think also society tries to protect us from terrorism at too high a cost to our proported values as a democratic and free society. Maybe it's really about what I think is our society's skewed and distorted attitude to risk. I suppose attitude to risk with men seen as the terrorists of women would be a good topic.

Cheers Vanilla - it's good to see most posters making headway and coming to some common ground. I'd concur with your last post there.

Ultimately, we're all responsible for how we treat ourselves and our relationships. We can blame it on society or conditioning or whatever the hell we want, but at the end I think most of that's a copout.

I guess what bothers me is when people don't actually reason with other posters or present rational arguments, and when presented with information that clearly doesn't jibe, they just malfunction, create a short circuit, then reboot.

I'd concur with most of that Whitty.

JamesH - I dunno about the use of the 'give this ad the boot' as being violent. Technically you might be right, but when I apply the common sense factor I can't help but think nobody can or should give a damn about a pretty tame phrase.

Vanilla, no additional demographics to add to what I posted on that thread. I posted it because it seemed relevant to one of the sub plots going on in that debate but it's not a topic that I've found a lot of quality material on. Most of what I found when looking for material had the kind of introductions which suggested that the authors had worked out what outcomes they wanted and then wrote to suit (advocacy research).

Hope that you are having a great easter.

R0bert

Dr Zeus I am not,

but ute ryhmes with boot, the only problem with a ute is that it doesn't have a boot.

So you cant in a ute have a boot hanging from a boot. because there aint no boot in a ute.

You can have a boot in a ute, or even a boot hanging from a ute.

But boot, ute, flute

Flute sounds good, but a flute does not have a boot, so give the flute ute the boot,

But boot, ute, flute and toot,

Toot sounds good, you can have a car that sounds toot.

In car you toot the horn, not the flute

A car that sounds toot, can have a boot.

then you can have toot and boot with a boot hanging from a boot, in car that sounds toot.

No I haven't been smoking any strange stuff, I just wanted to be ridiculaous for a change.

so the challenge is to come up with more to ryhme.

Whitty,
Yes, you’ve noted a few times that I’m thicker and less reasonable than you originally thought. Unfortunately, pretty much everyone I know comes to this sad realisation eventually.

But you can’t just say something’s wrong because I’m not as brainy as I pretend to be. If you think the Rutger’s research is a crock, why? I thought it quite reputable, and I don’t think it’s unreasonable to suggest the feminist-driven sexual revolution changed and continues to affect our sex lives — it isn’t an uncommon belief, even among those who thank feminism for nothing else. I, for one, am not keen to go back to the 50s and do it missionary.

All and sundry,
So, I wrote to both Harper’s and Loula and told them that I thought the ad was fine and was appalled that they’d been forced to bin it. I asked them not to judge all feminists by the Tankard’s standards.

Nevertheless… all this talk... what have we come up with? I’m worried that we’re still heading toward a world where advertisers and novelty knife makers alike are forbidden from playing with imagery that’s dark or violent or may possibly offend someone, somewhere. It irritates me when people claim they hate political correctness, but then have a problem with something that doesn’t suit their own brand of prejudice.

Sorry. Feeling strangely pessimistic.

PS. Wrote this, got distracted, went to post, then saw your post James. I'll try some rhymes later.

"Nevertheless… all this talk... what have we come up with? I’m worried that we’re still heading toward a world where advertisers and novelty knife makers alike are forbidden from playing with imagery that’s dark or violent or may possibly offend someone, somewhere. It irritates me when people claim they hate political correctness, but then have a problem with something that doesn’t suit their own brand of prejudice.

Sorry. Feeling strangely pessimistic.
Posted by Vanilla, Saturday, 22 March 2008 10:52:14 PM"
__________________

Pessimistic? Yes me too; and for me it's entirely predictable. In part insomnia, in part by the arrogance of your above comment, Vanilla.

'Political Correctness/Freedom of Speech'..? Rubbishy phrases that mean little more than a good excuse!

I do not like the ad, because I see it as obnoxious. I do not like the knife holder: ditto.

Like it or not, Vanilla, I have the right to disagree with your view! I don't feel the need to explain to you WHY I feel that way; whether my distaste is valid, or whatever else you need to know.

To be categorized in such a condescending manner because I don't see things your way, is absurd! (The 'I' is a generalized term).

I don't know Reist OR her politics/view's per sé, and to be honest, I don't really care about them. I have agreed with her views on this occasion, and don't give a damn if that agreement is upsetting to your way of looking at things.

It saddens me that we as a society need to resort to this kind of advertising/novelties to sell our wares. It troubles me a great deal, but doesn't 'irritate' me, that there are those of you who not only see it as OK., but object to those who have the temerity to..object!

Clearly you are angered by those who caused the banning of this ad. I see that as no different to your endorsement of it on behalf of feminists! You do NOT speak for me, or many other feminists I suspect.
Prejudice is clearly in the eye of the beholder, is it not?

Vanilla: "Actually, the divorce rate has been falling since 2001, "

The RAW divorce rate has been falling, but not as fast as the rate of marriage, which means the rate of divorce is INCREASING as a proportion of the number of marriages.
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/26D94B4C9A4769E6CA25732C00207644?opendocument#TRENDS%20IN%20MARRIAGE%20AND%20DIVORCE
That is one reason for the push to get single mothers working, which is why I mentioned it. The article was meant to be light-hearted, but it does back up my point, which is that feminism is leading to a reduction in opportunities for relationships, as women's expectations become unrealistic and men get ever-more fearful of the consequences of getting someone pregnant.

"Men & women who call themselves feminists do have better sex: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/story/0,,2211202,00.html"

Not my work, but a nice rebuttal of that article (by a "feminist"). To say the "research" is weak is to understate the matter. Hardly surprising, as
http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=1051

"the happiest people — men and women — are those who take personal responsibility.
I agree completely, and that puts me at odds with most of those professing "feminism", who promulgate an attitude that women need take no responsibility for anything (unless they want to, of course). While that may be fine and dandy, men are expected to accept their own responsibilities, whether chosen or imposed, as a matter of course. The CSA is a very good example of responsibility being imposed, as it makes little difference what either parent wants as long as one of them is receiving Government benefits, which most mothers do for at least some years. IOW, while the mother is supported, the father is hounded for money. Not much of an incentive for "better sex" is it?

Whitty:"I just think since feminism society is happy to protect females at too high a cost to males in some areas"

It was always that way (the vast majority of survivors of the Titanic were women: "women and children first"). Feminists have taken that noble spirit and turned "women first" into an obligation on all men at all times, whether it is justified or not.

Vanilla,

I've outlined exactly what I think the research proves. That people who CALL themselves feminists, SAY they have better sex. There's no evidence`that someone who calls themselves a feminist believes in the same things that another person who calls themselves a feminist does. That's been proven time and again on this forum. There's no evidence someone who says they have a great sex life has a great sex life. What they're trying to prove is that feminism improves peoples sex lives, and I see no proof of this at all. I don't think it can be proven really.

Of course feminists have better sex lives. Women on top, I say!

‘Depressed women have more sex than those who are happier, regardless of whether they are in a relationship or not, a study of Australians has found.’

http://news.smh.com.au/study-shows-more-sex-for-depressed-women/20080320-20ns.html

‘Asked whether intercourse could be an effective balm for depression, the psychologist said "we really don't know but we presume it helps as it gives these women opportunities to be close to their partner and loved."’

This research makes no comment on quality of sex, but presumably frequency would decrease if satisfaction levels were to fall to neutral or below. Don’t know how many were feminists, but feel concern for Vanilla’s recent pessimism.

Ginx: "Like it or not, Vanilla, I have the right to disagree with your view! I don't feel the need to explain to you WHY I feel that way; whether my distaste is valid, or whatever else you need to know."

Of course you have the right, and I positively love it. I'm not sure why you think I'm not supporting your right to disagree with me, unless you want me to capitulate in the face your disagreement? In fact, in this whole thread hardly anyone actually agreed with me. I enjoy that, and I think this issue is one where it's strengthening to battle it out.

Ginx: "You do NOT speak for me, or many other feminists I suspect."

No. I'm very aware of that, and I would never try to claim otherwise — indeed, that's what I've tried to make this argument about. I believe feminism is a broad church and is strong enough to hold many viewpoints. Including Melinda's, and including mine.

Antiseptic & Whitty,
I wrote all this stuff then deleted it. Tempting though it is, as I said I don't want to get in to another long argument about feminism. I've been involved in a few and I don't see any evidence that anyone shifts their view particularly, I just see a lot of people blaming the other gender for their problems.

And right now I think I might go make *my* other gender some cheese on toast, just how he likes it.

"Not my work, but a nice rebuttal of that article (by a "feminist"). To say the "research" is weak is to understate the matter. Hardly surprising, as
http://viv.id.au/blog/?p=1051"

No need to scare-quote or pseud-quote the word feminist, when referring to me, Antiseptic.

laurelhed: "No need to scare-quote or pseud-quote the word feminist, when referring to me, Antiseptic"

I wasn't doing either, I was trying to indicate that you self-identify as "feminist", whatever you mean by that. As I said, it's a good rebuttal.

"I have the right to disagree with your view! I don't feel the need to explain to you WHY I feel that way; whether my distaste is valid, or whatever else you need to know."

Ginx is that applicable to everyone? or only people who call themselves feminist?

"Unfortunately, pretty much everyone I know comes to this sad realisation eventually."

Vanilla why the self disparaging remarks?

You have put forward some interesting arguments.

I often have to deal with people who are doing doctorates or have a doctorate and let me tell you they can be a real pain in the butt to deal with. I remember one episode with a husband and wife with doctorates and I felt like tearing my hair out. Really smart people can be really dumb and not know that they are being dumb.

Like Ginx, Bronwyn and Elka I have to agree with Melinda's comments and will give her the benefit of doubt about a 'grander' agenda. Would the comments have been any different had, say Naomi Wolf written this article?

My politics and atheism are also at odds with Melinda but it is irrelevant.

It is interesting that some posters who argue that the government's role should be to regulate or oversight (as opposed to managing) are the very ones who will protest when the government (in this case Advertising Standards) step up to the plate as they rightly should. It is no different to an oversighting agency who might close down a restaurant for bad hygiene practices ie. the government doing its job.

It is all very well to bring out the "we are all adults and intelligent people argument" but who decides where to draw the line - someone has to. This argument should not be used to support a 'free for all' approach to advertising, otherwise it would be open slather on other issues such as the sexualisation of children etc.

While advertising may be directed to a specific target group, Ads are are in plain view to all, including younger developing minds. We can all pretend that the media has no effect but it does otherwise marketers would not place so much faith in it. The argument that the media is a reflection of society is bunkum to some extent, the media is a powerful vehicle and can and does influence in shaping society.

As an aside, Melinda's comments on Difference of Opinion last year were sound and intelligently articulated and at no time did she push her religious barrow.

Bottom line is what sort of society do we wish to aspire to and what are the images that best fit a society where all members are treated with respect and dignity? Sometimes it is a fine line and as intelligent adults we might not always agree but if enough people are offended enough to protest it might suggest that the line has been crossed.

"I have the right to disagree with your view! I don't feel the need to explain to you WHY I feel that way; whether my distaste is valid, or whatever else you need to know."

Ginx is that applicable to everyone? or only people who call themselves feminist?

....... Really smart people can be really dumb and not know that they are being dumb..."
Posted by JamesH, Monday, 24 March 2008 7:36:22 AM

__________________

Boy! Jamie lad, From your 4th? post in 2006, you got yourself pretty fixated on this topic didn't you?

Pop on out and smell the roses, it'll do you the world of good!

'Really smart people.../.....not know....dumb'? The true dimwit certainly doesn't, that's for sure.

Feminist, schmeninist; who cares! Too many labels, far too many.
I am a 'feminist' or not; depends on how one is perceived or perceives themselves to be.

You clearly are not a 'feminist';...it didn't stop you from replying did it?

I guess you answered your own question.
________________________

"....I'm not sure why you think I'm not supporting your right to disagree with me, unless you want me to capitulate in the face your disagreement? In fact, in this whole thread hardly anyone actually agreed with me. I enjoy that, and I think this issue is one where it's strengthening to battle it out." (Quote: Vanilla)

I disagree. Most of this thread agreed with you, but from an anti-feminist viewpoint!

"..I’m worried that we’re still heading toward a world where advertisers and novelty knife makers alike are forbidden from playing with imagery that’s dark or violent or may possibly offend someone, somewhere. It irritates me when people claim they hate political correctness, but then have a problem with something that doesn't suit their own brand of prejudice." (Quote: Vanilla)

It's not a question of 'supporting my right to disagree' is it?
You ARE rather unhappy that people cannot see this situation YOUR way, aren't you? It disappoints you.

That's life.

..I? want you to capitulate? Haven't I been saying just the opposite?

We take your invitation to disagree
sometimes much too liberally.
Seems some of us, including Ginx,
still echo from a time of Sphynx.

To see violence against women in fashion
is an illustration of logic in ration.
What’s next and where to draw a line, they ask;
desexualisation of children (and men) is our primary task.

Such linking is not crazy,
we’re not intellectually lazy!
Violence against women is just not cool
we reserve our right to use it as a tool …
in justifying choice, getting our way
… public opinion to sway!

A metaphoric club it may be
but close your mind, you mustn’t see.
Listen to the cacophony of swan song,
it signals a better world coming along.

You’re my voice of reason, my symbol of hope.
I’m so sorry I was such a dope.

Looks like this thread has deteriorated into an anti feminist thread again. Shame really.

Unfortunately to all those who hate women who call themselves feminists, we are no more to blame for all the ills of society as do all men, all Christians or any other group.

And yes Whitty, there are instances where 'the pendulum' may have swung too far to the other side through the advocacy of feminism, but that does not negate the fact that change was very necessary and would not have come about without the event of feminist voices. I agree with you in regard to issues in the family court and child protection issues. I wouldn't have believed it if I hadn't seen it from the sidelines from a male's side.

Feminists are not anti male. There is a strongly held viewpoint that men are not always served that well either.

Just an aside, I laughed so hard when I read Antiseptic's description of 'tribal life' I almost inhaled the fine Shiraz I was sipping. Having grown up in Rain forest South America and tribal West Africa I know that picture is contrary to reality. It's the men who sit around and gossip drinking the local spirit and smoking most of the day after hunting once, twice a week for a few hours. The women work from dawn till dusk every single day, more often than not with a nursing baby tied to the back.

Why do some of you men think that women too want the privileges and choices that men take so for granted that they can't even see how privileged it has been to be born as a man throughout the ages until relatively recently in the West?

Pretty good effort Seeker,

I wonder if Ginx is actually Dr Ginx?

Dr Ginx I was really trying to cheer Vanilla up, I however stand by what I did write.

When I wrote "Ginx is that applicable to everyone? or only people who call themselves feminist?" I did toss up whether to use the term feminist or female. Mainly because in the past I found that it is women who will say what you said; "I don't feel the need to explain to you WHY I feel that way;"

Usually if us blokes try that tactic we get given the third degree. It is not accepted that some of us blokes do feel that some aspects of
feminism is anti-male or that the anti-male sentiment expressed in the past is still evident today.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20040423-0000/www.kittennews.com/kn_mag/08_aug03mag/blacksmith_09.htm

Pelican,

Absolutely I’d disagree with banning this ad whether MTR or Naomi Wolfe or Nelson Mandela instigated it. If you doubt me, I can refer you to older diatribes of mine which are firmly in the absolute free speech camp.

The other thing to note is that the ASB was not involved in this decision, which is one of the things that p!ssed me off. If the complaint had gone to the ASB and been upheld then that would have been the end of it. (Though I might have considered writing in support of it.) It concerns me that MTR holds the kind of power than can force advertisers and magazines to self-censor — particularly in light of her broader agenda. At the end of the day, I care about the principle of censorship, but not about this particular ad. But when it comes to influencing young girls about their options when they find themselves pregnant, I care if their information is censored AND I care about those particular girls. That’s why I’ve highlighted her background. I do appreciate that it isn’t the issue at hand and others don’t agree it’s relevant.

Pelican: “Bottom line is what sort of society do we wish to aspire to and what are the images that best fit a society where all members are treated with respect and dignity?”
I want to live in a society that it is free and mature as it can conceivably be. I believe that someone else’s right to say what they like is way more important than my right not to be offended.

Free speech, I believe, should be the default position. Sometimes, we may need to limit that right, but if we do, we need to take it very seriously indeed. There are several reasons why, which I’ve already banged on about, but basically I don’t believe banning anything is an effective way to encourage a more virtuous society. An easily offended culture, a risk averse culture, isn’t necessarily a kind culture, or a civilised one.

...And what I haven’t heard on this thread is any compelling argument why this ad actually encourages violence. What about if we drew the line under images that we're sure actually affect people? How specifically do you think the car boot image is affecting Harper’s Bazzaar readers?

Seeker. I’m speechless. You’re a genius.

Yvonne: Yes, I agree absolutely. It’s what Romany and I were grumbling about at the beginning of this thread. You can start by exploring apart from ideology, but then someone comes along and says, as Antiseptic did, that feminists “promulgate an attitude that women need take no responsibility for anything (unless they want to, of course).”

Ginx: “You ARE rather unhappy that people cannot see this situation YOUR way, aren't you? It disappoints you.”

Of course! One of the reasons that I come to this site is because I enjoy arguing about ideas. My ideas and values are not arbitrary. I’m passionate about them, I’ve thought hard about them, and I do my best to persuade others that they’re good ideas. On the other hand, I’m happy to abandon them if they turn out to be wrong, and I don’t *need* people to agree with me. I’ve had my mind changed and/of stretched by others, including on OLO, many times.

James,
Thanks for trying to cheer me up. I'm very touched.

Vanilla
I don't doubt you at all and take you at your word. When you go on to raise MTR's abortion stance I am in total agreeance with you but this article is not about pregnant girls. I am only standing in judgement of MTR on the issue raised in the article and would hope that someone not judge my stance on one issue because of a prejudice of my view on an entirely different one - that is why I raised that point (I am not saying you are doing this as I know from your forum posts that is not the case).

Whether to ban or not to ban this Ad is nothing to do with free speech. The right to discuss the Ad is however, free speech.

I do take on board some of your points and would agree with you perhaps in another circumstances but just not on this one. We all agree that sometimes a line needs to be drawn but we might just disagree on where to draw it.

My view of a mature society is one that provides the freedoms but tempers that right with other rights that of respect and dignity. Despite some of the successes of the feminist movement I think we still have a long way to go in regard to how women are portrayed in the media. I guess that you can never please all of the people all the time when trying to balance the issues of freedoms with other rights and like all mature adults we can just agree to disagree in this particular instance.

Pelican,

I’ve been pretty neutral to this ad after ignoring Melinda’s initial diatribe, until hearing arguments such as yours, adding support to links of violence against women. I just thought it was an ad in a women’s magazine, presumably created by women, and directed at women. I thought it was visual representation of “fashion to die for”, and I assumed there was some preceding market research done, in a competent female fashion.

You made me realise how wrong I was; moreover, how older-wave feminist pressure can be exerted to reign in more contemporary feminist views. Pity the non-feminist women.

Guess their market research actually told them to create visual imagery that projected a very different catchphrase - “You never know when you may end up the subject of a crime scene – so always wear our stuff”. You know, be sexy for CSI and morgue staff. I can appreciate how that would work for their potential clientele.

Now that most of the sarcasm is out of the way, I declare my support for this particular ad is skyrocketing as is my disdain for Melinda’s cohort overwhelming. My strongest objection rests squarely on the accompanying propaganda, rather than against social damage commercial advertisers may cause (and they can, probably in similar doses to both genders). The line you draw on free speech is one-dimensional (;-) and comes up short (;-), but as mature adults we can always disagree to agree

Yvonne: "Why do some of you men think that women too want the privileges and choices that men take so for granted that they can't even see how privileged it has been to be born as a man throughout the ages until relatively recently in the West?"

While I can't quite parse your sentence, I'll address the issue of privilege. Male "privilege" has been tempered with a great deal of responsibility throughout history, just as women's "privilege" has been. Notwithstanding the fact that many women died in childbirth, women have lived longer than men and they have generally lived better than men, because men have long seen it as their role to ensure that is the case. What "privilege" do you see in the role of the peasant farmer, or the drover, or the miner, or the factory serf, or the blacksmith, or the mucker-out of stables? These are all traditionally male occupations, have been for centuries in that bastion of male privilege, the West. How about the soldier, the barber/surgeon, the linen-bleacher (which involved collecting, aging and then treading in people's urine). Seeing much privilege yet?

For the record, I'm not "anti-Feminist", but I am opposed to the toxic brand of feminism that has infitrated our bureaucracies and Government. I'm opposed because it is discriminatory in its very core. It is tailor-made for talentless people to hitch their wagon to for a free ride and I personally find that a disgrace. Furthermore, it has lead to an enormous expenditure on "research" designed for a particular finding, rather than honest, open enquiry (see anything at all by Michael Flood for an example).

I was brought up by parents who taught me to respect women and to treat them with courtesy and consideration. I find that few women, especially those who call themselves feminists, return the favour.

BTW, I grew up and lived for over 15 years in PNG and I saw just the tribal situation I described. One consequence is that men die younger and spend a lot more time injured or ill, just as we do in Australia.

Yvonne,

'privileged it has been to be born as a man throughout the ages until relatively recently in the West?'

a) What antiseptic said.

b) Maybe because the men here have been born relatively recently? And have to constantly hear stuff like this from women who have also probably been born relatively recently too. Like many men I feel I was brought up being told about my supposed 'privilege' of being a man, the supposed oppressive history of my gender that I am to somehow apologise for now, whilst observing the chip on the shoulder of women brought up with the same opportunities and probably more life choices than myself.

You agree the 'pendulum' has swung too far in some cases, yet how many times do we hear 'we still have a long way to go'.

Feminism wouldn't have achieved half of what it has achieved in the last 50 years without the help of most men. Lets face it, men cant have been the oppressive overlords they are made out to be, if they let women have all the rights and privileges in such an historically short time span. As soon as a critical mass of women decided they wanted to vote and work, it wasn't very long before they got it. People always forget it wasn't that long before women got the right to vote, or own land etc, that most men didn't either. Regardless I'm sick of apologising for my gender.

Dear Seeker

Thank you for your comments. I am not pretending these issues are uncomplicated and I try to be self-critical when I argue a point. I am usually pretty set in my beliefs but will sometimes come to see a different and valid point of view when talking with other people - not everything is black and white. My response to this article is (for me) looking to the bigger picture. But as you concurred so nicely - we can agree to disagree and argue without insults (which you didn’t by the way) and thank you (sarcasm I can take). :)

The thing that annoys me most is that if a woman makes a comment against this type of advertising (and I have seen worse) she is branded a feminist as though that category sums up her whole perspective into one little neatly packaged box. Usually perceived as a negative package in an “Oh... she is one of those...well that explains it”. It really gets up my nose.

My view of feminism includes the rights of men as I have so often stated on other threads, women and men cannot be truly equal (ever probably) in every respect but as far as possible - equal as citizens in terms of access to opportunity but also accepting responsibility in the acceptance of those rights. I also agree with Antiseptic's comments about the burdens of responsibility of men, particularly the burdens of prime breadwinner (in many cases) which brings its own pressures.

I am no supporter of women who adopt a man-hating agenda (they are the minority by far) nor men who no longer use the term women but ‘feminists’ to imply an equally negative image and who refuse to believe that women were once denied basic rights afforded to men as though somehow it was all concocted as some sort of global female conspiracy.

Gender politics always turns in the usual them-and-us scenario which is a shame but maybe inevitable as change is never a smooth road. What about a new word to encompass all – ‘Fairists’ maybe

Antiseptic

“What "privilege" do you see in the role of the peasant farmer, or the drover, or the miner, or the factory serf, or the blacksmith, or the mucker-out of stables? These are all traditionally male occupations, have been for centuries in that bastion of male privilege, the West. How about the soldier, the barber/surgeon, the linen-bleacher (which involved collecting, aging and then treading in people's urine). Seeing much privilege yet?”

I agree, there’s not much privilege here. Part of this is due to historical circumstance. Some of these occupations no longer exist and when they did there would have been women performing tasks of equal drudgery and risk to their health. Time has removed a lot of these dangers. And added new ones, for example, men working on shonky high-rise building sites.

You list the "mucker-out of stables". Today it's probably done by women and girls every bit as much as it is by men and boys. In countries without sanitation, women still carry buckets of excrement on their heads and Dalit men in India sweep the stuff. Today's "factory serfs" are the millions of women working in appalling sweatshop conditions, many of them locked in and frequently forced to work around the clock.

For every example listed to support an argument, another one can be found to support another view. Most of your examples raise social justice, class and poverty issues just as much if not more than they demonstrate the supposition that it's men who do life's risky and unpleasant jobs. To me, they only confirm the argument that women and men should both be fighting together for a fairer world rather than fighting each other over the spoils of an inequitable and failing system.

“One consequence is that men die younger and spend a lot more time injured or ill, just as we do in Australia.”

This is also attributable to other factors. Men are generally less proactive regarding their health, less well-informed on dietary issues and more likely to engage in risk-taking behaviour and health-damaging substance abuse.

Pelican - ditto to everything!

Pelican,

Thanks for showing consideration in your response and especially for suggesting a new name for feminism. Love the concept!

May not be easy to agree on a new name though. Your initial suggestion of “Fairists” is a bit “off with the fairies” and likely to disenfranchise just as many men with such connotation. Equalist and Humanist also have problems.

How about “Advantageism”? This could accommodate any activist of any gender or age fighting for equality of advantage. It is inclusive, positive (victimless), and looks to the future. That is, until someone comes along who wants to fight “against inequality of advantage”.

Or how about taking an existing word like opportunism and cleaning it up a bit for its new purpose? I wonder how we managed to tarnish such words (opportunity = good, opportunism = bad, feminism…).

Anyway, I find the idea of name change very appealing indeed.

Whatever it is, just make sure the name of it doesn't end in 'ist' or 'ism' or clearly, it must be evil right?

I also suspect that it would spawn a counter-movement, dedicated to preserving gender roles, calling these 'fairists' (or whatever they're named) an affront to our traditional ways of life.

It would only be a matter of time before people are saying the movement is evil and driven by out of touch ideologues, as critics and proponents choose to only see the best or worst in the belief system.

I was attempting a humour with the "Fairists" bit to make a point. As TRTL says no matter what the term, it will be distorted or opportunised to a particular agenda.

A comment on Whitty's previous post about the pendulum swinging too far in one direction but still in other ways a long way to go. The two are not mutually exclusive. To provide an example or two:

1. The way women are portrayed in the media. One beef is with body image and the ambiguous messages we give to young girls and boys. (I have two daughters so this is of concern to me although they are through the more difficult ages)

2. One area I think feminism has failed is that it forgot somewhere along the line about CHOICE. Agencies like the Office of the Status of Women fail to address the needs of women who might choose, for ideological or personal reasons, to stay home for an extended period of time to raise children. There is not much advocacy for these families compared to the emphasis given to say, childcare, maternity leave or workplace issues. These are important issues for sure but we should not forget policies that might help one income families (whether it be the mother or father staying at home) such as income splitting. Not all familes are 'working families' in the way that term has been used. There are many more men choosing to stay at home too. This is what we should be about - each family choosing a lifestyle that suits their particular circumstances. If we can implement policies and economic systems that allow for individually tailored family-work-life structures rather than a one-size fits all approach, all the better.

3. Feminism to some extent has not addressed the issues of class and low income women do not receive the same level or rigorous advocacy that career women might from established feminist groups (although they do have an advocate in the Unions). eg. affordable childcare usually means childcare workers receiving less than adequate wages.

Pelican,

I’m so glad you admitted your attempt at humour, otherwise my oxymoron would have looked very much out of place. Now come on! “Equality of advantage”! How many of you started working on placards to take to the streets? Hands up!

Our comic talents are wasted here, Pelican. Maybe we should use more smileys to punctuate our material. I knew “fairists” was a joke, but without the smileys one can never be quite sure with some of your other stuff. I actually felt some ROFL regret after your last post, because I eventually realised you could be serious.

“A comment on Whitty's previous post about the pendulum swinging too far in one direction but still in other ways a long way to go. The two are not mutually exclusive.”

“The way women are portrayed in the media. One beef is with body image and the ambiguous messages we give to young girls and boys.”

“One area I think feminism has failed is that it forgot somewhere along the line about CHOICE.”

“… affordable childcare usually means childcare workers receiving less than adequate wages.”

Ambiguous message? Forgot about choice? Affordable childcare means low pay? Two sides of the pendulum not mutually exclusive? (my favourite). Please confirm the smileys :-)

Vanilla,

I think you make a mean "cheese on toast" ;-)

Some great posts! Pelican and Bronwyn, great comments.

When I referred to privileges that men take for granted I'm squarely in modern times. Not 200 years ago. Not only men's lives were hard then. Women's lives where also appalling.

I'm simply referring to being able to get a loan from a bank on your own merit, moving from nurses quarters without having to obtain permission from your father, staying in the work force after marriage, having custody granted of children in the event of divorce, just to name only a few issues that improved for women in the last 40 years.

It wasn't that long ago that a women, regardless of qualifications could no longer work in a government position after marriage. A man's marital status was irrelevant.

It wasn't that long ago that a man could make any kind of financial commitment without his wife knowing, but his wife could only do so with his permission. Regardless of her own personal financial status.

It was not that long ago that custody of children automatically went to the father unless he decreed otherwise. A woman leaving her husband lost her children, except if the father of her children agreed otherwise.

In regards to the ad. I personally am extremely doubtful that an ad could encourage anybody to violence.

Censorship in a free and open society I find even more disturbing than any ad.

I'd like to get away from the whole gender issue in this instance actually and consider the subject of our casual portrayal of violence and acceptance thereof. Not that this causes a person to commit violence, but are we becoming accepting of violence?

If it is make belief is portrayal of violence than always OK?

I have some difficulty with this. I'm not that terribly young anymore and I've found life not to be that black and white and clear cut always. This ad made me feel uncomfortable and I'm very open to examine why. After all, this is only an ad for shoes, not drink driving say.

Weighing in to the debate about feminism...

I am a feminist. However, it’s a matter of indifference to me whether men/women are happier, better, nicer than women/men.

I get irritated by the incessant portrayal of women as victims, in some kind of misguided attempt to appeal to men to improve their (women’s) lot.

Likewise, I’m perplexed at the constant attempts by men here to portray themselves as victims, in some misguided appeal to women to forget about rape, domestic violence and gender salary gaps.

I am also baffled by men's stubborn lack of awareness that the forces that guide their lives are controlled, not by women, but by rich, powerful men who view them (men) as expendable.

All this OLO rhetoric about how 'If we are all nice to one another, men and women will find some common ground for communication’ generates a sense of self-righteousness, but little else.

In the gender threads I have seen, there is an unwillingness or inability on the part of most commenters to step back and look at the wider sociological picture. There has been a system in place for at least 5000 years (according to most archaeological research), in which:
• rich men dominate poor men
• men dominate women
• adults dominate children
• people dominate nature.

Before that – and this applies to about 98 per cent of human evolution – people lived in societies in which wealth, privilege and work were fairly evenly distributed across men, women and children. And animals and nature were not viewed as something to be tamed.

It’s unlikely that we can retrieve those times again, but we could at least learn something from them.

I’m not sure what this has to do with an ad depicting a female corpse in a car boot and wearing sexy boots, but I’m approaching my word limit, so I might leave that to another post.

Yvonne,

Yawn. Heard it all before a million times, well AFTER these injustices have been corrected. So why the need to constantly whinge on about the old days, when all this stuff happened before I was born? This is the chip on the shoulder I'm talking about, and it's held by many a woman born in my generation with the same opportunities as myself. It's ridiculous.

SJF,

Patronising much?

SJF. I'm desperately trying to not to get involved, but that was beautifully said, and not in the least patronising.Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

I'd love to hear your take on the ad, if it so pleased you to give it.

Good point Whitty (about feeling on a equal footing with your female contemporaries).

Vanilla

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Exactly what came to my mind when I read Whitty's post!

"Good point Whitty (about feeling on a equal footing with your female contemporaries)."

I presume you are referring to Whitty's last post. If so you are being very generous! Especially considering he'd just written off Yvonne's very well considered comments as a yawn! I like the way you always find the good. Pity it's not always reciprocated! But hopefully your fine example will gradually be reflected in all of our posts!

For those of you with daughters in the early teens, you may be interested if you haven't heard of it already in a magazine I heard featured on R.N.'s Life Matters this morning called Indigo. Its tagline is Give Girls a Voice.

It's intended as an antidote to teen mags like Dolly and features realistic looking girls rather than airbrushed twigs. There's an emphasis on girls being girls and enjoying their girlhood rather than being rushed into adulthood before they are ready. There's a wide range of topics and things girls can be involved in rather than the superficial focus on celebrity and looking good which dominates most teen mags.

There's a strong advertising code so that only ads reflecting the editorial policy will be included. It's directed at a diverse range of focus groups and, judging by the girls being interviewed, is being really well received by the target age group. It's quarterly at this stage but planning to move to monthly editions eventually. It's up to its third edition and its readership is already expanding rapidly, most of it by subscription.

So there are some good things happening out there. My girl's well past this but if you've got girls in this age group you might like to support it. I'll certainly be giving it a plug whenever the opportunity arises.

SJF

'Before that – and this applies to about 98 per cent of human evolution – people lived in societies in which wealth, privilege and work were fairly evenly distributed across men, women and children. And animals and nature were not viewed as something to be tamed.'
Dream on!

Bronwyn,

I think those magazines will be about as popular as those Happy to be Me dolls. The latest craze is that internet 'bimbo' game where girls can get a boob job, buy lingerie and take diet pills. It looks even better than the Slutz (Bratz) dolls. You'd love it!

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23433501-662,00.html

I don't think it's possible, or maybe not even always advisable, to politicise your children. You run the risk of them being an outcast in their peer group as a result of attempting to indoctrinate them with beliefs they have no chance of understanding.

Point taken about Vanilla though, I am not really generous enough. I spend my time arguing points and challenging people, but don't feel the need to waste my word quota on agreeing with people. I've discussed this with Vanilla before, and I respect her more than most of the people on here but that's more to do with her positions on things than how polite she is.

Bronwyn, thanks for the tip on the magazine. My youngest is almost 14. She's looked at the magazines targeted at her age group. As have her friends. I have no idea who buys them. The trendy, fashion conscious teenage girls I know find Dolly et al boring for a long time after having read one. 'They're all the same, just repeat the same stuff over and over'.

My daughter incidentally loved the boots in the ad, as did I, but it was not only me who found the ad strange.

Sorry Whitty for boring you. I'm thrilled to deduce from that that you are a thoroughly modern well adjusted man. As are my two sons and my husband. My children find some of my stories quaint as well. Anything further removed than 10 years is practically ancient. But I was mainly addressing Antiseptic who was black smithing, mucking out stables and what not. I tried to bring things back to at least the 20th century.

As to the Bimbo game. It looks limiting and boring. The graphics are appalling. Just that is insulting in itself. My daughter wouldn't give it the time of the day. After all the 'news' on it she had to check it out (so did I!) She's seen the possibilities of WOW etc. and played in other games. Better graphics, more choices, more fun. Surely it would only be very few girls with little imagination this would appeal to? Paper cut out dolls would be more fun.

Whitty

"I don't think it's possible, or maybe not even always advisable, to politicise your children. You run the risk of them being an outcast in their peer group as a result of attempting to indoctrinate them with beliefs they have no chance of understanding."

I find it a little bizarre (to toss back a word you threw at me once) that the fairly innocuous act of a mother providing her daughter with some light reading material to read if she so chooses could possibly be described as politicisation or indoctrination.

I understand the paramount importance of peer group accceptance, particularly for teenagers, but the logical extension of your argument is that parents should take a hands off approach and leave it to the peer group to shape their children's attitudes. I know it's a fine line to tread and it's often hard to get the balance right, but I think most parents would want their children to gain ideas from a range of sources.

I probably didn't sell the magazine very well. I think it's actually a lot trendier and more appealing than I made it sound.

I won't bore you with my views on the Bimbo game, you already know what they are. If it really was a Simpsons type tongue-in-cheek send-up of the bimbo lifestyle, it would have some value, but I'm not sure that it is. The creator's comment that "the goals for the bimbos are morally sound and teach children about the real world" is a definite worry.

You and I have different views on censorship and this issue of parents influencing their children's choices falls within the same parameters. To me, just as letting advertisers have complete sway over the images we're all subjected to, is to lose the control over the shaping of our community that citizenship should infer, so too are parents who leave their children's minds to the market and to peer group pressure abrogating their parental responsibility. In fact in light of the volume of unpoliced garbage out there these days it could well be described as child abuse.

Put away your peace pipes, SJF has arrived and the war is back on.

This is very impressive writing indeed, as emphasised by Vanilla’s “I'd love to hear your take on the ad, if it so pleased you to give it.”. We all agree on Vanilla’s generosity, but this kinda sent shivers down my spine, for it seemed to alert us to the presence of feminist royalty:

“I get irritated by the incessant portrayal of women as victims, in some kind of misguided attempt to appeal to men to improve their (women’s) lot.

Likewise, I’m perplexed at the constant attempts by men here to portray themselves as victims, in some misguided appeal to women to forget about rape, domestic violence and gender salary gaps.

I am also baffled by men's stubborn lack of awareness that the forces that guide their lives are controlled, not by women, but by rich, powerful men who view them (men) as expendable.”

Beautifully smooth, but a hard hitting “men are bastards”, just the same – rich bastards and dumb bastards, to be precise. If you’re thinking the first paragraph is some sort of self-criticism, then think again.

Like the cannon fodder that we are, we then frolic off to SJF’s pre-history lesson and of course that unforgettable quote "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Well, here’s one I can recall but unfortunately cannot attribute: The past is ignorant of the present. Be careful in taking its advice for it may just suggest new ways of going wrong.

No, wait, I’ve found a good quote on “the past” I can attribute:

AUTHOR:Vanessa Williams
QUOTATION:The past just came up and kicked me.
ATTRIBUTION:On losing Miss America title after Penthouse publication of nude pictures, People 6 Aug 84

Brillant Seeker,

SJF forgot to mention that rich men were dominated by rich women. I believe that is called high maintenance.

So in reality it was the alpha females that dominated the pack.

I remember reading somewhere that the wealthier men, were able to choose better quality partners, that poor men were not in the market.

One interesting article appeared that the very poorest of men had enforced celibacy.

So if men dominated women, how come the very poorest of men experience enforced celibacy?

Bronwyn,

Sorry. I didn't intend to criticize any personal parental choices you might have made.

'parents should take a hands off approach and leave it to the peer group to shape their children's attitudes. '

I would NEVER say that! I just don't think Happy to be Me dolls are an effective way of getting a message across, and deny the realities of life. I think they insult children’s intelligence actually. As a kid I knew when I was getting an 'educational' toy, and I hated them. Beauty is part of culture and children know when they are being lied to.

'letting advertisers have complete sway over the images we're all subjected to, is to lose the control over the shaping of our community that citizenship should infer, so too are parents who leave their children's minds to the market and to peer group pressure abrogating their parental responsibility. '

I just don't believe that the 'market' or 'peer pressure' are all powerful. Call me naive if you will, but I believe parental attitudes will rub off on the kids, and proper parenting will equip kids with the skills to sift through BS.

I also think the 'market' reflects what people really want and what people really are, regardless of how much the elites would like a different world, or think they are better than the lowest common denominator the market will naturally attempt to appeal to.

James,

I find it helpful to frame gender issues on the Doctor's wife vs the garbologists. It's just as valid as the feminists' CEO vs single mum.

Seeker,

From blog:-)
<kylev> hahahahaha
<kylev> some girl just came onto our floor
<kylev> and was yelling "sexual favors for anyone who does my sociology paper"
<kylev> i just asked her what the paper was about
<kylev> and she said the accomplishments and growth of feminism

Vanilla

‘I'd love to hear your take on the ad, if it so pleased you to give it.’

I had to stifle a smile at your regal wording, but here goes …

Regarding the ad, first my views on censorship. To be against censorship in all its forms is well-meaning but unrealistic. All societies practice censorship, but the censorship issues are different from society to society, and from era to era. At present, Western societies have virtually eliminated all forms of sexual censorship, but live under an even more severe censorship of opinions that detract from free-market competition, including (and especially) the sexualisation of women.

We are no longer living in the days of banning innocuous books like Lady Chatterley’s Lover. However, we are living in an era in which pornographic greed dominates the market, which is in turn being deregulated to the point of becoming our worst enemy. Because Western women are still unequal in every sense other than legally (and despite the outraged denials of he OLO male supremacy cabal), they are among the ones being grotesquely exploited by this state of affairs.

This ad should be banned. So too, should others like it. It is clearly beyond the pale of decency, as well as sending a clear message that the violent, terrifying death of a woman is grist for the cultural mill. If it were a child’s body or an Aboriginal’s or a Jew’s – the outrage would be deafening. Because we have become desensitized as a culture to violence against women, this ad is judged as simply a bit naughty but cool, and its detractors dismissed as prudes or man-haters.

For the record, here an excerpt from the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence Against Women: Article 4 (f) [caps mine].

‘Develop in a comprehensive way preventive approaches and all those measures of a legal, political, administrative and CULTURAL nature, that promote the protection of women against any form of violence, and ensure that the revictimisation of women does not occur because of laws INSENSITIVE TO GENDER CONSIDERATIONS, enforcement practices or other interventions.’ [http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N94/095/05/PDF/N9409505.pdf?OpenElement]

Bronwyn

‘I presume you [Vanilla] are referring to Whitty's last post. If so you are being very generous! Especially considering he'd just written off Yvonne's very well considered comments as a yawn! I like the way you always find the good. Pity it's not always reciprocated! But hopefully your fine example will gradually be reflected in all of our posts!’

Definitely agree about Vanilla’s attempts to always find the good are not always reciprocated. However, I disagree that her fine example might gradually be reflected in all our posts. So far, the OLO male supremacy cabal has shown absolutely no indication of dropping their ‘no prisoners’ belligerence. Even the nice ones like R0bert stubbornly maintaim that we are all lovely and equal now (so men can go back to being sexists).

Many of the female feminists here are still locked into the traditional feminine straightjacket of hoping niceness will be reciprocated by enlightenment. This attitude keeps putting women at a disadvantage. (Femophobes perceive women’s niceness as manipulation anyway.)

History has shown that women get results, not by being nice, but by working together, being unified in knowing what they want to change in the system, and never taking No for an answer

thanks SJF for pointing out something that was missing.

"This ad should be banned. So too, should others like it. It is clearly beyond the pale of decency, as well as sending a clear message that the violent, terrifying death of a woman is grist for the cultural mill. If it were a child’s body or an Aboriginal’s or a Jew’s – the outrage would be deafening. Because we have become desensitized as a culture to violence against women,"

Now if it were a bloke in the boot, I doubt very strongly if anyone would have noticed. I suspect we would maybe hear SJF and her ilk one hand clapping.

It is interesting that the only protected species by the UN declaration is women, no mention of ending violence agianst men.

So is feminism about equality? If it were then why does not the UN declaration about ending violence include men?

I did read that the universities in the UK are not offering feminist studies anymore, YAHOOO!

I am not really sure what you call it when for eg SJF writes that as a society we have become desensitized about violence against women, when in reality society is much more desensitized about violence against men.

Or when she wrote Because Western women are still unequal in every sense other than legally (and despite the outraged denials of he OLO male supremacy cabal, and do I not beleive that she has bothered to read any of the books I have listed earlier.

SJF,

'Western societies have virtually eliminated all forms of sexual censorship'
Really?

'..the sexualisation of women.'
Are women asexual?

'Because Western women are still unequal in every sense other than legally'
That's really interesting. Could you expand on that?

'OLO male supremacy cabal'
Who are the members of this cabal? What are their male supremist views?

'we have become desensitized as a culture to violence against women'
I don't agree. Certinly not women in particular. I think we may de desensitized to DEPICTIONS of violence in general.

'the OLO male supremacy cabal has shown absolutely no indication of dropping their ‘no prisoners’ belligerence.'
Is that the belligerence to not agree with every feminist theory, or every one of your theories and accept them as fact?

'so men can go back to being sexists'
Were all men sexist? Are all men sexist? Are women ever sexist?

'...Femophobes perceive women’s niceness as manipulation anyway.'
So there are so many of these 'Femophobes' that are mistaking women's 'niceness', that it's putting nice women at a disadvantage in trying to 'enlighten' men. Wow.

To me, it sounds as if you resent women being nice to men. Or just people being nice full stop. I really hope you will expand on your theories of women being unequal in every sense other than legally, and have the guts to name these members of the OLO male supremacy cabal, with examples of their male supremist outlook.

You know, I used to think all feminists were like you. Since hearing the more rational and reasonable opinions of the posters who you think are letting the sisterhood down, I was starting to re-examine my assumptions of feminists as man haters. I think I'll have to just take your angry rants in the same vain as most posters do HRS's.

Whitty, I don't think SJF is a extreme as HRS but I suspect about as incapable of seeing the other side of things. I suspect that SJF has immersed herself in feminist 'rhetoric' for so long that she can no longer consider the possibility that some of that rhetoric may be wrong.

She see's some posters inherent decency as weakness rather than strength. SJF reminds of those who think the way to beat radical islam is to villify muslims at every opportunity and deny that any have legitimate grievances.

SJF on gender equality reminds me of Boazy on faith equality.

I'm much more likely to be swayed in my views by those capable of seeing the other side of an argument than by someone spouting rhetoric and unable to see beyond that rhetoric.

The way forward is not by dismissing all concerns which are not our own but by working together to find mutually workable solutions.
The way forward is not by the use of statistcics taken out of context to claim an oppression that does not exist or lack of opportunity which does exist.

R0bert

'Now if it were a bloke in the boot, I doubt very strongly if anyone would have noticed. I suspect we would maybe hear SJF and her ilk one hand clapping.'

James, read SJF's post again. You patently did not get the point.

Well put SJF. Every now and then I think maybe there's no need for a 'feminist' philosophy in this day and age. That is until I get onto an OLO thread!

It is disheartening how many men still get incensed that there is an UN declaration aimed at women (as there is for children) considering women still get stoned to death, punished with lashes for being raped, forced to get abortions etc. all sentences demanded by courts of law in nations we happily do business with or call our allies.

Violence against men? Violence against men is overwhelmingly perpetrated by other men.

Why would feminism be an appropriate forum to address male violence perpetrated against men? Feminists are not universal mothers. Get away from the Madonna complex guys.

Women take responsibility to fight for rights and justice for themselves, why can men not do the same when you perceive an injustice? Don't like all the male victims of violence? Look at yourselves and ask why do men do this, how can we stop this. Do not blame any female, whether she calls herself a feminist or not, for male victims of male violence

SJF

Regarding the post addressed to Vanilla, excellent post, absolute ditto to every word!

I’m a little less unequivocal though on the post addressed to me!

“History has shown that women get results, not by being nice, but by working together, being unified in knowing what they want to change in the system, and never taking No for an answer.”

I agree that we need to work together, but part of the problem is that we’re not unified in what we expect from the feminist movement to begin with, let alone in how we should go about achieving it. I have the greatest respect for all the feminist posters here, but I think we do definitely fall into two fairly distinct groups, maybe more.

There’s one group who doesn’t really wish to rail against the injustice and discrimination inherent in the current political, economic and social order. These women are basically happy with the world as it is, but not with women’s position within it and that’s the focus of their fight which, as far as it goes, is perfectly valid. I have no real argument with it apart from the fact that I don't think it goes far enough. To me, this position is affirming of the androcentric model we have inherited with all its injustices and discriminations for many groups within society, not just women.

There’s another group, of whom I’m one and I think you might be too and maybe Fractelle and Sassy and possibly to some degree others like Billie and Vanilla, which is generally a much smaller group than the first one. These feminists are much less sanguine and much more critical of the current world order. They view the need for broader change as being just as important, if not more so, than fighting for the gains that women can achieve for themselves as individuals.

To be continued.

SJF (Continued)

I know I’m being a little simplistic here and probably haven’t explained myself terribly well. It’s always fraught territory when you attempt to analyse and label! I only did it to demonstrate that while I agree that feminists have to be unified I think it’s much easier said than done!

Regarding "niceness", I’ve found on OLO that I have to be Mrs Reasonable or I’ll be written off as some rabid feminist, communist or general nutcase! I do find it irksome at times but I’d prefer to engage in the debate rather than sit on the sidelines. Plus I do believe that finding the middle ground can be more constructive than remaining aggressively combative.

I think you’ve raised an interesting point though. I do think it tends to be the females on OLO who are more inclined to be turning somersaults and making concessions. My natural preference is always for tolerance and consensus anyway, but I think there is a sense where female posters are expected to be the peacemakers. Or if we can’t manage that, we should at the very least make sure our logic is “sexy”. I kid you not, it's been stated on one of these threads.

Whitty and RObert’s responses to your post are instructive I think. There are definitely two groups of male posters too and these two are in the group that is at least willing to engage in a deeper examination of the issues and to reflect on their assumptions. They've challenged us to examine and refine our arguments too which is a good thing. But I do agree with you that it’s a problem if women feel forced to soften or “feminise” their style in order to be listened to.

Agreed SJF!

I also agree that females DO 'adapt' at times to appease the male...

Sod that!!

Whitty: “You know, I used to think all feminists were like you [SJF]. Since hearing the more rational and reasonable opinions of the posters who you think are letting the sisterhood down, I was starting to re-examine my assumptions of feminists as man haters.”

Hear, hear!

Vanilla and others have moved me to a more reasonable position but seems that destructive energy of the first wave can be harnessed to dump on those coming up behind. Peddling mistrust and hostility, can still serve as useful means of prolonging one’s tenure in relevancy. Snippets of peace, threaten security.

R0bert: “She [SJF] see's some posters inherent decency as weakness rather than strength. “

I too declare a guilty past.

SJF: “If it were a child’s body or an Aboriginal’s or a Jew’s – the outrage would be deafening.”
How can she be sure it isn’t?

Argument about man or child in the boot is not only irrelevant, but also disingenuous. Advertisers from time to time miss their target audience, for various reasons, ranging from lack of understanding of product or audience, to just bad taste. When they get it wrong, chances are, it is through incompetence rather than malice.

We have in the past seen the violence of death, sickness, starvation and abuse of children and adults of both genders, for (or against) other products or campaigns.

I’m first to admit not knowing why death themes work in women’s fashion, but why would SJF consider her own brand of social belligerence exclusively worthy of incitement?

Why is it that when I look at the ad I see fashion and art, but when I read SJF, I detect a deeply rooted hate? Curious

Why is it that when I look at the ad I see fashion and art, but when I read SJF, I detect a deeply rooted hate? Curious
Posted by Seeker, Saturday, 29 March 2008 11:50:38 AM

I with you on this one Seeker, when I first saw the picture, I thought it wasn't a bad picture, eye catching, makes one step back a bit, then I thought that someone would then associate this picture with the findings over the last few years of 2 womens bodies in the boots of cars.

But then the body in the boot could have very easily been a store mannequin. One tiny detail is that a dead person is not the same colour as the person in that picture.

Some of you are being unfair by suggesting a "deep rooted hate". I read it more as frustration - there is a difference.

Also lets not get sidetracked about whether the body is real or a mannequin or a hologram. Irrelevant. We are talking about imagery.

Based on some of the comments here there is an assumption a lot of you are making about those who agree with the author. You think we believe that someone will see this Ad and then proceed to commit a violent act. That is too simplistic if we are looking at this Ad as a stand-alone.

When I make judgements on issues like this I ask does this fit in with the sort of society I would like to be a part of OR does this Ad help us as a society to ensure that all people are treated and respected equally regardless of gender, race, size, colour AND does this Ad highlight yet again the general media malaise (eg. desensitization and issues like the sexualisation of children). I know these issues have been raised before on the violent porn article. Corporates should take some responsibility ie.turning a profit should not come at the expense of more important social issues.

Now I know that you cannot hope to eradicate violence but I think more can be done to prevent its escalation. I strongly believe that humans are capable of being desensitised to violence and behaviour that was once thought 'out there' could be seen as quite acceptable. Why do we continue promulgate these images in the media (film, Ads, TV and video games)?

It is on this premise that I make this judgement about this Ad and not because we don't see the artistic humour in the "I wouldn't be seen dead in these shoes" or that I think we are all fools that are incapable of making our own judgements as some of you might infer.

I've been thinking through this some more. I'd still not like to see a ban but do see the value in voting with our feet.

One bank has a habit of depicting low level violence against men in it's adds as funny. They won't be getting my business.
A diswashing liquid company has used violence against men in an add and I won't be using their product.

It was recently pointed out to me that my health fund uses the idea of a guy getting beaten up (after accidently hitting someones girlfriend while trying to swat a bug). I'm pondering my options on that, again it seems to make light of violence against men. Unlike the other adds it does not seem to portray the violence as acceptable so my feelings about that add are different to the others.

There are risks when violence is treated as acceptable in the media. Rather than giving censors more power I'd rather see the sales of those who want to treat violence that way drying up.

R0bert

JamesH, Whitty, Seeker, Pelican (and to a lesser extent, R0bert)

I haven’t been back to OLO for a week or so and have just checked in again. Although the thread is virtually defunct, I’ll make a reply anyway.

What a pity none of you got the point.

My comments re niceness were made after MANY, MANY instances in which you persistently treated the thoughtful, reasoning comments of feminist posters here with outright rudeness, contempt, patronisation, tedium, insult and bigotry. In fact, this behaviour is your typical modus operandi on all gender threads - along with HRS, runner, ColRouge, Trade215 and several others.

As if the odious contempt we feminists have to regularly absorb from you is not enough, you constantly lump us with this insidious emotional blackmail that any lapse from the excessively high standards of decency and conciliation imposed on us BY YOU will simply deem us worthy of your inbuilt prejudices against all feminists.

In the silly huffiness of your responses, you merely tripped all over your own double standards.

R0bert

‘[SJF] see's some posters inherent decency as weakness rather than strength. SJF reminds of those who think the way to beat radical islam is to villify muslims at every opportunity and deny that any have legitimate grievances.’

How dare you presume to speak for my views on Islam! And to present my supposed views in such a disgusting manner, when you have never even engaged in any form of debate with me on the subject!

As for 'legitimate grievances', the feminist argument that women are still not equal to men is a prime example of a legitimate grievance - which you have consistently treated with disdainful contempt. And your response to my legitmate grievance regarding the double standard which treats the rudeness of male posters as 'normal', while deeming it unacceptable in female posters, was simply to compare me to an Islamaphobe! Just who is the pot and who is the kettle?

SJF, read the line again. I did not claim to represent your views on Islam, I pointed out that your approach on this subject is similar to that used by the anti-muslim brigade.

In regard to women still not being equal - there are places where women still suffer discrimination. My argument has been with the kind of misrepresentation and dodgy stats that you seem to like. If you have to use misrepresentation to show how unequal you are that would suggest that you really don't have much serious inequality to talk about.

I'm of the view that both genders still have some comparitive advantages and disadvantages and the way forward is to work towards removing artificial barriers so that we all have the widest range of choice and opportunity available to us which our talents allow.

Your way of claiming oppression and special disadvantage while ignoring all that does not fit can only lead to protracted gender conflict and more harm.

As for your closing comments you either have not bothered to look back very far in my history with some of the more determined feminsism bashers or it's yet another attempt on your part to misrepresent my position.

R0bert

Ummm...SJF

I never thought I would be lumped in with Whitty, JamesH, HRS, trade215 or Col Rouge - we disagree on just about everything gender related methinks although I respect their right to air their views, just mabye not the way they always go about it.

Have you actually read my posts on this thread and in other similar ones?

My first line in my last post was defending people like you who get accused of a "deep rooted hate" where I more properly described it as frustration.

pelican

You’re right. And I’m so sorry. I actually got you mixed up with Desipis. Negotiating all the pseudonyms around here is like deciphering hieroglyphs!

‘I never thought I would be lumped in with Whitty, JamesH, HRS, trade215 or Col Rouge - we disagree on just about everything gender related methinks although I respect their right to air their views…’

Methinks they should all be sent to a gulag in the desert and chased around all day by whip-wielding robots in Maggie Thatcher drag. Then they’d know how a man-hating woman really behaves.

R0bert

‘SJF, read the line again. I did not claim to represent your views on Islam, I pointed out that your approach on this subject is similar to that used by the anti-muslim brigade.’

I think I read the line in the spirit it was written. And I think your approach is similar to a parent telling his daughter: ‘Be nice to your brother, darling, or he won’t take his foot off your neck.’

‘My argument has been with the kind of misrepresentation and dodgy stats that you seem to like.’

So why do you keep bringing up that mother-of-all-dodgy Conflicts Tactics Scale in every DV thread?

‘Your way of claiming oppression and special disadvantage while ignoring all that does not fit can only lead to protracted gender conflict and more harm.’

I have written enough OLO posts to show that I have sympathy for men’s problems. I just don’t have sympathy for men who treat feminists as the main source of men’s problems. Women will stop claiming oppression and special disadvantage only when they no longer experience it. You can silence some of them some of the time in the interests of keeping the peace, but you can’t silence all of them all of the time.

SJF, it is astonishing how few people can get it into their heads that there is no conflict of interest to like men, be sympathetic to their problems AND be a feminist.

Feminism is not about taking away any rights from men. Men are not expected to experience detrimental outcomes. PROVIDED, that those rights are rights that should be accorded to any human being.

Some men do not like their loss of unreasonable preferential treatment.

The ad is offensive and disturbing, whether the viewer sees themselves as feminist or not.

I've just shown it to by adult sons. They wonder why would any woman would want to buy anything that portrays the wearer as a victim.

Would men buy runners that show them as a victim of a mugging? you know, ha, ha, they're so cool you could get mugged for them? I don't think so.

A row of naked good-looking guys lying prostrate while the wearer walks all over them: 'These boots are made for walking etc..' is violence that just might have made more of us smile.

SJF <JamesH, Whitty, Seeker, Pelican (and to a lesser extent, R0bert)

What a pity none of you got the point.

My comments re niceness were made after MANY, MANY instances in which you persistently treated the thoughtful, reasoning comments of feminist posters here with outright rudeness, contempt, patronisation, tedium, insult and bigotry. >

To be honest with you SJF is that I do not think that you are a nice person.

and NO it you who does not get the point!

<Women will stop claiming oppression and special disadvantage only when they no longer experience it. You can silence some of them some of the time in the interests of keeping the peace, but you can’t silence all of them all of the time.>
Posted by SJF, Sunday, 6 April 2008 3:49:10 PM

http://www.harrysnews.com/tgMsinformation.htm
<For instance, I do not believe that women in American(Australian) society are oppressed, or members of a subordinate class. It is no longer reasonable to say that as a group, women are worse off than men. The truth is that American(Australian) women are among the freest in the world. And yet hearing me say that, there are women who wish to excommunicate me from my sex!> Hoff Sommers

SJF once you've finished spitting chips, I had asked you about previously about a author you regard as odious, Warren Farrell "please note that I have never classified any feminist author as being odious".

A review of a new book titled Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate between Warren Farrell (with Steven Svoboda) and James P. Sterba.
http://www.canada.com/components/print.aspx?id=afa74692-d935-4240-8a37-5c325ddc62be

Yvonne, of course your sons are going to say what you want to hear, because they know what side the bread is buttered on.

<Some men do not like their loss of unreasonable preferential treatment.> I wish I knew what that was, but then not being female I have never experienced prefential treatment.

Below are links to articles that I beleive to be very interesting.

How domestic violence advocates use fear and intimidation

James Hickey
Below are extracts from articles about researchers and writers who have tried to expand the domestic violence debate to include violence perpetrated against men by women.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20060423-0000/www.kittennews.com/cgi-bin/kn_opinion/opinion6c38.html?topic=999927

Successful Feminist Sociopaths
http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20060423-0000/www.kittennews.com/cgi-bin/kn_opinion/opinion5ec7.html?topic=999960

Carey Roberts

<So when Steinmetz revealed that women are often as violent as their husbands, the fem-fascists started a whispering campaign designed to block her promotion at the University of Delaware. When that didn't work, they phoned in a bomb threat at her daughter's wedding. Cowed by the threats, Steinmetz soon suspended her pioneering research.>
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/080324

Yvonne, SJF, Pelican,
But what about those of us women — feminists even! — who are fine with the ad? Pelican, you asked a series of questions — for every one, I'd say this passes. We are at loggerheads, yet we're both reasonable, intelligent people. Where do we draw this line in the sand?

Personally, I don't want every representation of women to be "empowered". I believe visual imagery should take us to the far reaches of the imagination and the link between fashion, art, photography and advertising is distinctly blurry. I'm a fan of the 40s film noir movement that the ad directly referenced. Sex and death, and beauty and death, are inextricably linked in our cultural and artistic imagination. This ad is purposefully unreal. Fantasy. And those who find the fantasy unpalatable can not buy the boots.

James,
I don't understand your position. Are you saying you don't think this ad is offensive? But the knife set is? In both cases, members of the relevant gender objected. Are you saying it's ok for men to object but not for women?

I liked that Christina Hoff Sommers article. It irks me when feminists sigh and say, "things haven't really changed much, have they?" Actually, things have changed a great deal. It's offensive to the women who fought for the vote and to go to university and get equal property rights and no-fault divorce and all the other amazing things that they did during the 20th century to suggest that we aren't benefiting. My mother battled to go to university, my aunt wasn't allowed, and I went because that's what girls do.

Conversely, the sociopath feminist article was just silly — you could easily characterise a given group of men in the same way. I think both men and women undermine their more sensible points by blanket maligning of the other. As Ms Hoff Sommers says in the article you linked to, "Suppose we got rid of the hyperbole, half-truths and untruths"?

Suppose, suppose, suppose. It's that hyperbole that's had me lose interest in these gender debates on OLO.

Vanilla, very well said.

SJF, I'm trying to work out if it's worth continuing our discussion. We both appear to have less than flattering views of the other. Perhaps I've misunderstood where you are coming from (strangly enough I have made mistakes in the past).

I don't think it benefits either of us or the threads we participate in to continue what we have been doing.

I would point out that although I've been guilty of the same reading posts "in the spirit it was written" is a risky proposition as it's very dependant on our views of the other person. Neither of us know the other well enough to do that well and if I've done that to you I'm sorry for doing so.

Perhaps we are both letting our beliefs about where the other is coming from get in the way of fair reading of the others points.

R0bert

SJF - I thought so but you never know on OLO for sure. It sometimes is easy to offend without meaning to. :)

Vanilla

I don't feel at loggerheads with you and always respect your opinions. While we might not always agree, I do get where you are coming from the difference is just as you say, where we draw the line in the sand. :)

I feel the same way about this Ad as Whitty (I think it was Whitty) who posted a thread about the "I'm worth it" Ad and another Ad that put men in a bad light. The 'I'm worth it' Ad was just another in a long line of "me me" Ads and enforces the idea that we are the centre of our own universes and no one else matters but it is annoying more than anything else.

I did not respond to his thread because I went away for a fortnight and by the time I got back the topic had died at the bottom of the column. What I am trying to say (in a long winded way) is that I also believe Ads that represent men as buffoons or fools to a women's foil are not worthy of media space.

I am not saying we should censor every Ad we don't like (far from it) but I take RObert's point in voting with one's feet.

Feminists like all groups are not a uniform bunch in agreement about all things female. :)

I get into trouble sometimes with strong views about stay at home mothers because I did it myself for a period of time much to the chagrin of some of my friends who implied it was letting the side down or for changing my name when I got married.

It is a blurry issue for me for the same reasons you argue in relation to censorship and I can see problems inherent if we become too censorial. That would be equally as bad - striking a balance is difficult and I guess you won't always please everyone.

JamesH, my sons have never been push overs. Their answers to any debate or argument have never been conditional. You should have seen the heated debates here when Iraq was invaded! Two opposing camps in this household, but we still had dinner together.

Their bread is buttered on the side of them being true to themselves and their convictions. I'm expected to give a rational reason for my opinions and so do my children. One of my sons was part of his school's competitive debating team and he was an adjudicator, so quite capable.

A close friend of one of my sons was the victim of a rape and he's seen at close hand the emotional havoc of a once confident athlete. He doesn't get jokes re violence and women either. It wasn't my overbearing feminist leanings that did it.

Vanilla, I understand that you don't mind the ad. I do. I relate the violence to regular experience at work.

Vanilla,

here is another link saying basically what Hoff Sommers is saying;

http://www.mercatornet.com/articles/whos_oppressing_who/

<Campaigning against men>

<I then turned my attention to the negative and far-ranging effects, of feminism on men. Misandry, which is the female equivalent of misogyny (misanthropy is a hatred of humankind), is now entrenched in our public discourse, our education system and social services. Misandry flies beneath most people’s radar, because we have become compliant in the acceptance of theories that have nothing to do with reality, and compliant in the speech codes that accompany that tendency.>

As to the knife block and the ad, I lots of different thoughts about both.

<Are you saying it's ok for men to object but not for women?> I do wish you wouldn't do that, because it is not what I am saying. As bloke when I try to complain I usually get told not to be so sensitive.

You are correct that the description of sociopathy could easily be applied to a group of men. I understand that a few of our politicans display these characteristics.

Yvonne: "I relate the violence to regular experience at work."

I do appreciate this and apologise for banging on and on about it — not quite sure why this issue has so much resonance for me, but it does.

Pelican: "I don't feel at loggerheads with you and always respect your opinions."

As I do yours! But that was exactly my point — we all seem to agree that a line in the sand needs to be drawn, but we all have wildly divergent but equally valid ideas about whether we should be down at the shoreline or up at the dunes.

James: "I do wish you wouldn't do that, because it is not what I am saying."

Point taken, and I'm sorry. I was being inflammatory. Cheers for the article — it was extremely interesting. Predictably enough, I heartily agree with some bits and disagree with others.

Firstly,

SJF you wrote that you regard Warren Farrell as odious. I have read his book "Women cant hear what men don't say" and in it he suggests that men learn the listening skills to hear the intent of what his partner is saying. Now to me that is not the work of an odious person.

Secondly,

Vanilla, I am glad that there are points in the article you agree and disagree with. What I would like to know is what are the points that you think are relevant or irrelevant.

You know you are a breath of fresh air and your hubby is a lucky bloke.

JamesH

‘SJF… I had asked you about previously about a author you regard as odious, Warren Farrell "please note that I have never classified any feminist author as being odious".

Haven’t you? Perhaps I failed to notice this while ploughing through your 100s of posts which portray feminists as the most evil creatures that ever walked the earth and as the greatest threat to manhood ever to materialise in the entire history of the world.

There are many, many reasons why I consider Warren Farrell to be odious. However, due to wording restrictions, I’ll stick to just one of them.

Wazza Fazza likes to claim (and his sycophantic followers never challenge this) that feminists and the media dropped him once he stopped writing sympathetically about women.

Not so. He fell rapidly from grace in the eyes of both feminists and the media after a sleazy interview he gave to Penthouse magazine in 1977, in which he rather stupidly upheld the virtues of ‘positive incest’:

‘Incest: the Last Taboo’, Penthouse, December 1977 http://www.argate.net/~liz/fathers/farrell5.htm

One of the more memorable clunkies from this article is this quote:

“… [M]illions of people who are now refraining from touching, holding, and genitally caressing their children, when that is really part of a caring, loving expression, are repressing the sexuality of a lot of children and themselves.”

85% of the daughters Farrell ‘surveyed’ in his incest research reported having ‘negative attitudes’ toward their experience, while 80% of the fathers felt either positive or neutral about it. Yet he explains this away as …

"Either men see these relationships differently, or I am getting SELECTIVE reporting from women," he said.’ [Caps mine]

Oh, dear! Poor old Wazza! He can’t understand why young girls don’t take kindly to being raped by their fathers. And Wazza doesn't like to view these fathers as perverts, they just 'see these relationships differently'!

And wouldn’t we love to know what ‘selective’ is supposed to mean in Farrell’s dirty old man’s imagination – methinks it’s just a euphemism for ‘lying’.

No wonder Gloria Steinhein stopped returning his calls.

Pelican

‘I get into trouble sometimes with strong views about stay at home mothers because I did it myself for a period of time much to the chagrin of some of my friends who implied it was letting the side down or for changing my name when I got married.’’

I stayed at home with my kids, too. I was a full-time mum for 10 years. When my twins were about 3 months, I was routinely asked: ‘When are you going back to work?’ At about 6 months, the question was: ‘Have you gone back to work yet?’ At 9 months, it was: ‘Haven’t you gone back to work yet?’

The experience made me realize that the undervaluing of the unpaid, stay-at-home role is a social construct – that both women and men internalize. This realisation also motivated me to join a women's activist group that was lobbying for the inclusion of unpaid work in the Census (which finally happened in 2006).

Feminism often moves in mysterious ways.

Well SJF,

I thought I was almost unshockable, so congradulations on being able to shock me. I was left rather dumbfounded and speechless.

However he wrote that stuff over thirty years ago and I have not seen it mentioned in his recent books that I have read.

Psychologist Toby Green in her book "how to snap out it" also wrote something on incest that well is not particular comfortable and I would imagine would make you pretty mad and I dont wish to post or even quote.

Remind me never to really try to annoy you again.

"Perhaps I failed to notice this while ploughing through your 100s of posts which portray feminists as the most evil creatures that ever walked the earth and as the greatest threat to manhood ever to materialise in the entire history of the world."

I suppose not to annoy you I should just agree with what you wrote, but I really do feel that you have exaggerated my position just a little bit, well to be more honest I feel that you have exaggerated my position quite a lot.

Alot of the material I quote is written by other women, who do not support the excesses of feminism. Yeah I know not all feminists are the same and that there are different types of feminism.

Just today I was glancing through Marie Clarie mag and saw a picture of a man trussed up like a turkey hanging from a tree, but that sort of flys under the radar for most people.

Now let’s see … feminists of all flavours (with the exception of Vanilla ;-), want to specify the criteria for equality, go out and find the best man they possibly can, only to struggle for equality for the rest of their lives.

OK, not all. Some want to convince the state to be counterparty to every marriage and every other inter-gender commercial or social transaction. I guess those feminists instinctively seek out the most equal man to start with, but if personal development takes them in different directions or if their pace of growth is at all mismatched, expect the state to assist with transition to some renewed state of equilibrium.

And then of course, there are those who think that majority of men are fish out of water on bicycles and want nothing at all to do with them, so spend most of their lives criticising and belittling them. They criticise the so-called patriarchal society without ever acknowledging their roles or influences (and never ever, responsibility). How could they, it might suggest equality.

One thing seems fairly certain. Judging by the heated gender debates here on OLO and elsewhere, most feminists prefer focusing on, and building upon perceptions of inequality, rather than taking their equality seriously. It was SJF who said “Because Western women are still unequal in every sense other than legally…”, but never bothered to explain it when asked, presumably because it would take her away from her “inequality” whine. There’s never any sense of hypocrisy, nor any hint of irony, in hardline feminist peddling of disadvantage and insecurity to women who’ve previously perceived some reasonable balance. For me, it is indistinguishable from commercial attacks on the female body image. Especially ads like this, which scream out life is short, and it just may be better to die young in a nice body and boots (even in a car boot), then grow old into some bitter lonely old feminist.

It is both illuminating and depressing for those of us who’ve had no gender studies at uni, to participate in these threads. One can’t help but be overwhelmed by sheer enormity of issues and hyperbole. Sometimes we are dumped on by all three waves of feminism together with men’s rights and their incestuous fantasies, all at once. Then there’s unpaid work, and pay inequality. Seems feminism does indeed work in mysterious ways. Scary.

As a father of two daughters and a son, who are fast approaching but somewhat unprepared for adulthood, I’m all at sea.

James I did some chasing around about that comment.
I've not found anything that I can definately attribute to Farrell on it but have found him quoted by others (including some fierce detractors) which indicated that Farrell claimed that the word used in the interview was not the one he used. No clear answer on that which I've been able to pick.

My impression of what I did find was that Farrell was doing investigation into the impacts of incest. It was treated as one of those ultimate abuses, all who pass beyond will perish etc. Farrell interviewed a bunch of people who had experienced incest to find out their perspectives. He's apparently not released his findings other than that interview but the impression I've gained is that he found that the consequences were more diverse than was acceptable to acknowledge.

Some silly comments in the interview combined with what appears to something similar to what happened with McKinnon and Dorkin's comments about sex and violence which appear to have been embelished by their detractors to paint a more extreme view than was actually expressed.

I'm still undecided about exactly what he believed at the time about incest but regardless that does not take away from the validity of much of what's in The Myth of Male Power.

R0bert

R0bert

‘I've not found anything that I can definately attribute to Farrell on it but have found him quoted by others (including some fierce detractors) which indicated that Farrell claimed that the word used in the interview was not the one he used. No clear answer on that which I've been able to pick.’

I’m not sure what era you went to school but when I went, I was taught that direct quotes are those groups of words that have little squiggly bits at each end. Go back to the ORIGINAL Penthouse article and you’ll find those squiggly bits around statements that Farrell made about ‘positive incest’, which I included in my post (and others that I didn’t include). There is a very ‘clear answer’ there that you are choosing not to see.

And as for his being misquoted by Penthouse, where is the law suit? Where is his request for a retraction? When denying the claims, Farrell changed his story at least once and threatened, slandered and intimidated the feminist who outed him. Then he just went quiet.

This is a man who has styled himself as a guru of modern gender politics. That means he, like Caesar’s wife, should be squeaky clean as a role model. OR, failing that, he should either take some responsibility for his former published views or explain his position. Instead, he did neither. Like so much of the self-pitying rhetoric of the Mens Movement, he blamed everyone but himself

JamesH

I posted my reply to R0bert first, because the points I raised lead into this post. I’m not concerned about whether Warren Farrell is, or is not, a pedophile or a sleazebag. What I am concerned about is that he gave clear indications in the Penthouse article that the young girls in his study were NOT BEING TRUTHFUL (aka ‘selective’) in their reporting of incest, and that the men who enjoyed their incest did so simply because they ‘see relationships differently’. There are other indications in the article (not included in my post) that he believed girls tend to respond negatively to incest merely because of social pressure or, worse, the reaction of the mother.

These are all embedded patriarchal viewpoints that show a chilling lack of a sense of emotional responsibility, or any empathy with women.

There are clear parallels here between the views he expressed in the Penthouse article and the views he expresses about women (particularly, feminists) and men, in his later writings – basically that women are being selective about their disadvantage (i.e. they’re not disadvantaged at all) and that men just see things differently from women (i.e. they're not advantaged at all).

When it comes to sympathetic writing on the human condition as it affects the modern man – minus all the anti-female, anti-feminist hysteria used by the likes of Farrell and Christina Hoff Sommers to deliberately cloud the issue – I strongly recommend Susan Faludi’s ‘Stiffed’ or R.W. Connell’s ‘Gender Politics for Men’.

Seeker

‘It was SJF who said “Because Western women are still unequal in every sense other than legally…”, but never bothered to explain it when asked, presumably because it would take her away from her “inequality” whine.’

Presume whatever you like. I make a point of not rising to ‘explain yourself’ baits. Nine times out of ten, they are empty provocations, not genuine requests for clarity.

Robert we have been told that feminists have progressed since the early days and that feminism has changed.

So how come this same principle is not applied to Warren Farrell? I agree that he has presented valid points of view on other topics.

Maybe this is why there is a focus on him for trying to bring an unacceptable topic more out into the open. If you can discount what he said/wrote on one topic, then it is much easier to discount him globally. Sadly one badly expressed idea or one word out of place and it's history.

Certainly in the past certain Psychiatrists and Psychologists have conducted research into controversial and sometimes taboo areas.

I think it was Daphne Patai who wrote that feminist have certain exercises where they stoke their anger, this exercise involves focusing on the horrific things that a few men have perpetrated against a few women. Any of the positive things that the majority of men have done and will do for women is ignored, which sounds similar to the tactics that are employed by the coaches prior to a football game or revving up soldiers prior to a battle. The more positive side to this tactic would be to get someone to walk on hot coals.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?p=1805

SJF, do you have a copy of the offending magazine, I just want to look at, I mean read the articles? ;0

SJF, I did read 'Stiffed' lent it someone and never got it back. It opened my eyes to the fact that women are not as intuitive as claimed because Faludi seemed to ignore some things which I noticed that stuck out like the proverbial dogs ....

Cathy Young I recently discovered wrote an interesting review of Faludi and Farrell and I tend to agree with her views.

I have just become aware of this book;

<In Lip Service: The Truth About Women's Darker Side in Love, Sex and Friendship, Canadian journalist Kate Fillion takes on one of the great myths of gender relationships: that women are always the sweet, innocent victims of male duplicity. It's a myth which, she argues, prevents women from taking responsibility for their own lives, and in many cases from breaking out of patterns of self-destructive behavior for which men wrongly take the blame.>

Sounds good.

I did however make a promise to myself not to buy any more books dealing with all this stuff. Maybe I'll break it, maybe I'll be able to resist and take up something safer like hang gliding.

JamesH

‘I think it was Daphne Patai who wrote that feminist have certain exercises where they stoke their anger, this exercise involves focusing on the horrific things that a few men have perpetrated against a few women.’

In what universe did this happen?! I’ve been an active feminist on and off for about 25 years, in three different countries, and this is a load of utter fish swill. You’ve been conned, silly man.

Regarding the Kate Fillion book, I’ll give it a miss if you don’t mind. I’ve heard it all before and all this womenarenotthesweetlittlethingswe’vebeenledtobelieve.com stuff is really getting tired. Wouldn’t be at all surprised if there’s a grant or two from the Canadian version of the Heritage Foundation in Fillion’s history, and she’s probably danced with a man who danced with a girl who’s had lunch with Christina Hoff Sommers.

‘['Stiffed'] opened my eyes to the fact that women are not as intuitive as claimed because Faludi seemed to ignore some things which I noticed that stuck out like the proverbial dogs ....’

Those ‘things’ she ignored are the now widely standardised conventions on gender writing begun by the New Right during the Reagan era, that assume (a) that feminism is the root of all the problems men now face (b) to portray feminism as the source of any discord that now exists between the sexes and (c) to exercise a solemn duty to expose the ‘myth’ supposedly perpetrated by feminists that women are the totally innocent victims of mad, bad, dangerous men.

From the overwhelming – often scary – antipathy towards feminism in your posting history, I knew that you would contemptuously dismiss ‘Stiffed’. I made the recommendation for the sake of others who may still be on this thread, who would like to read about men’s issues without a lot of anti-feminism mythology poisoning the well.

I won’t be posting on this thread again. I’m taking a break from OLO. You sturdy defenders of embattled male integrity are safe for a while.

Scary? Yeah alot of people think that and it is the reason I didn't get the part in a horror movie once. I was too scary.

You see SJF the difference between you and me other than gender is that I will and have read books that will challange and confront me. Faludi even though it was a long time ago when I read her work, struck me as a feminist who was writting about men from her perspective. Faludis book is to me like one piece in a jigsaw puzzle, as is all the other books feminist or not that I have read. She did raise questions that I thought needed more exploration, which is one of the things that I was going to do, but never did.

As soon as someone reacts in a bad manner to a book, it makes me question why they are reacting that way, what is it in this book that has got their nose, and I go and get the book to read. And then consider if the arguements are valid or not.

I do reserve the right in the future to change my ideas and opinions and will do so when either I discover new information that sends me of on new tangent.