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