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.