'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.