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.