Speaking of sado-masochistic pornography Melinda herself belongs to a would be world conquering cult that has a sado-masochistic image at the very centre of its existence and ideology.

And is now celebrating this perversion in Sydney with reams of media hype.

That of the tortured broken body of Saint Jesus of Galilee---which is advertised as "good news".

This reference sums it all up very well.

1. http://primal-page.com/gibson.htm

This film was very much part and parcel of the propaganda promoted by the charming outfit called Opus Dei. The star attraction at the current "festival" in Sydney is staying at an Opus Dei retreat centre.

I have read this article and a can understand the view, but all I keep thinking about is 'David'. Would David be in existance if this view was to penetrate society? We need to leave art as uncensored. We can not put restrictions on it, like we so like to do in all aspects of our lives. And with this flexibility to express ones self in art, we will always be faced with reactions that can sometimes be uncomfortable and evoke negative emotions, but that is also one of the points of artistic expression.

Poor old Melinda's starting to sound a bit shrill lately. Like Bill Henson's artworks, the images in 'Art Monthly' have been cleared by the official censors.

If Melinda doesn't like this kind of art, she is free to avoid viewing it or purchasing the magazine. She is also free to voice her opinions about it. That's the virtue of a free society, where educated and sophisticated people are able to live together with wowsers and philistines.

In her article, Ms Tankard-Reist raises a number of important points about the relationship between art and ethics. These points do need thorough discussion, and yet they seem to have been lost in the debate about Henson. This has been largely a rehash of the creaky old 'art/porn/censorship' debate, and has been mostly devoid of significant feminist insights about the insidious nature of sexual exploitation.

What feminist and pro-feminist writers (I fall into the latter group, as a male) need to constantly dois distinguish their criticisms from those of social conservatives who see ALL representations of nudity and sexual expression as bad, wrong and sinful. Tankard-Reist favourably quotes Andrew Bolt, a hard right-wing Melbourne columnist who is definitely NOT famous for his support of feminism!

What ALL of us need to now do is consider the ways in which children and young people CAN be represented in art and the media. It is one thing to criticise sexualised representations of young people. It is another, perhaps more complex task to suggest an alternative to such representations.

Spare me!

Gee Melinda...don't you know that 'artists' are so much more refined than the rest of us and are able to enjoy pictures of sexualized bound schoolgirls in non-sexual ways. How dare you not want to let them take part in their exploitive sexualized pictures of young children. You must be a real wowser and philistine to dare speak about such elite cultural messages.

Obviously, as the censors have said it was okay, it must be okay. After all no-one ever complains when censors say something is not okay. Especially not people like Robert Nelson.

“Art, we were told last week, is about “giving people dignity”.

Yeah, right.

Dignity is the last thing reflected by a human sans togs.

I would like the people who defend photographs of kiddies and adults being on public display to advise me just what they get out of seeing a nude infant or a nude adult looking glumly into the camera.

You say that it’s not pornographic in any way, and I agree with you. But, what is the point of distributing naked photographs of anyone?

There might be a certain art in Ruben’s pictures, but where is the art in a photographed child or adult?

Jay Thompson

Good post.

The feminist and ethical arguments within this issue have been buried under the same old avalanche of tedious tanties about wowsers trying to spoil everyone's fun/hold us back/keep us holy. The same emotional blackmail spouts forth on cue whenever the ethics of pornography gets debated.

lol

You're quoting Andrew Bolt's cut-and-paste (and cut some more) job where he left out half the essay, manipulating it to say something completely different? Pull the other one.

Just joining in saying nothing about nothing.

!@#$ing feminists again. Check this woman's submission history. Completely biased, sexist rubbish.

The sooner Australian sexual radicals stop comparing themselves to the greatest painters in human history,

the sooner we can actually discuss artists who have already admitted to being pornographers. THe Tate Gallery is of a similar view.

We can also debate the hundreds of Japanese schoolgirls indecently assaulted each day by the fan club of the same 'art'.

So don't tell me it isn't porn when the person doing it, says it is porn. That's the context for the naked six year old.

'Schoolgirls, popular figure in traditional Japanese pornography, have featured repeatedly in Araki’s pictures

This picture is one of a series showing girls in school uniform bound with rope using traditional Kinbaku techniques. The subject is seated on a concrete surface, her legs folded innocuously on the ground beside to her right. To her left her satchel lies on the ground. A packet of Lucky Strike cigarettes and a couple of sex toys have been placed on the floor in front of the satchel, as though they have fallen out of it. The model’s arms are bound behind her and looks limpidly out of the picture at the viewer.'

With the possible exception of religious fanatacism, this debate must win the award for the one that has aroused much name calling and passion on both sides.

I wonder why that is? Leaning to one side of the camp of public opinion or the other is perceived (it would appear) to say something about who we are and what we believe? The perception that we might be cast out as a paedophile sympathiser or a wowser. The posters who simplify it as such do the debate an injustice and it certainly does not leave much room in between.

Sexualisation of children whether in art or in the wider media is not an issue to be taken lightly and it is about balancing rights with freedoms. The so called freedoms that we take for granted do not make us truly free unless we also acknowledge our responsibilities. Is an artist's right to freedom of expression more worthy than the right of children to be protected from exploitation?

Does art hold a special place devoid of any responsibility in pursuit of this artistic freedom?

Under-age children in sexually explicit poses is not art despite the psuedo intellectual camp that would argue that art knows no bounds in its relentless pursuit of 'freedom'.

CJ,

I wonder how you would feel about art that trangressed upon one of your sacred beliefs. For example, is it OK for Art to promote RACISM?

I'm just wondering what your position was on that Dutch parliamentarians film was?What I'm getting at is, is there ANYTHING which you would consider unacceptable in art? How is "Art" defined. If someone says something is art, does that make it art?

Unless you are saying anything is acceptable in Art, then all we are arguing about is where to draw the line.

It then makes the wowser/pedophile dichotomy entirely irrelevant.

I read total article and little bit understand about it. David strike in my mind. Would David be in survival if this view were to break through society? We cannot put restrictions on it, like our own life. And with this flexibility to express ones self in art, we will always be faced with reactions that can sometimes be uncomfortable and evoke negative emotions.
___________________________________________
alizia
http://www.mydebtconsolidation.name

Paul.L: << I wonder how you would feel about art that trangressed upon one of your sacred beliefs. For example, is it OK for Art to promote RACISM? >>

While I don't hold any beliefs that are technically sacred, I do regard racism as one of the most insidious social blights that the world faces. However, that wouldn't be sufficient reason in itself for me to try and silence a racist artist, or advocate censorship of a work of art because I think it's racist. Unlike some, I think that the notion of freedom of speech is bigger than my own values, beliefs and ideals.

Art works at many levels of meaning: aesthetic, intellectual, political, psychological, emotional, overt, subliminal etc etc. That's why those who've made such idiots of themselves with this little moral panic have so badly missed the point - and in so doing have displayed their artistic illiteracy. There's far more to all of these artworks than little girls' naked bodies.

I don't blame the losers of the debate for feeling chagrined at having to acknowledge that they are out of step with our society's aesthetic standards. Perhaps they should see it instead as an opportunity to open their minds a little about an area of culture in which they are apparently lacking.

If artists were left to their own merits rather than being proppet up by public funding then I'd guarantee that we'd see a lot less "Artists" and a lot more good art. I just wonder how many of those "Art lovers" who pay these insane amounts of money for some incomprehensible image actually buy it because they like it rather than because of the artificial hype to boost it's investment value.
To display photos of a little girl posing is merely a perversion to satisfy closet paedophyles.

CJ Morgan

‘I don't blame the losers of the debate for feeling chagrined at having to acknowledge that they are out of step with our society's aesthetic standards. […]Perhaps they should see it instead as an opportunity to open their minds a little about an area of culture in which they are apparently lacking.’

I’m not sure who or what you define as a loser in this debate. In my view, ‘winning’ posts like those of Jay Thompson and Pelican above portray the much needed nuances, contexts and social relativity that are missing from arguments by the cardboard cutout defenders of freedom of expression that you represent.

And as for open-mindedness, I believe Steel shares your stance on this debate. His awesome knowledge of this ‘area of culture’ is worthy of a re-quote:

‘!@#$ing feminists again. Check this woman's submission history. Completely biased, sexist rubbish.’

Yes it is awesome SJF. Haven't you read the articles and observed the actions of feminists and their ideology?? Most of their articles and motives are exceptionally sexist. Even our political system represents this
.

There is a big difference between the pretence and shallow appearance of intellectual debate and rationality used to conceal emotional hangups and discomfort, that you commend pelican for, and actual logic and reason based on facts.

pelican>"Under-age children in sexually explicit poses is not art despite the psuedo intellectual camp that would argue that art knows no bounds in its relentless pursuit of 'freedom'."

You lauded pelican at the same time he made this hideously flawed comment.

1. "Under-age" is an artificial construct and obscures the real issues. Was the girl harmed, should have been the first question here? If so, by whom? I can answer with some facts here and now: No, she wasn't. She is in fact proud and happy. Now she was harmed by the public castigation and villification for her self expression and the treatment of her as an object, rather than a person (by Rudd, Hetty and others in the media and here on OLO).

2. He calls others pseudo-intellectual, at the same time most of the core supporters represent the artistic, intellectual elite with extreme amounts of knowledge on these issues. Sorry, but pretending people who engage in these issues their whole lives at an intellectual level are pseudo-intellectual, rather than the ignorant idiots and commentators, is simply DELUSIONAL and laughable.

Secondly, people against Henson are using emotive answers and can't keep their positions straight. They are all over the place. Even Hetty Johnson was caught out changing positions and equivocating on television.

3. Regardless of whether a few people say that there are no boundaries in art, to pretend that that radicalised 'philistines' with absolutely no appreciation for the medium and having never been to art galleries (and who have clear political censorship/authoritarian agendas), would know where those boundaries are.

Steel

For your information, I have actually had a great deal to do with the art world over recent decades, enough to feel smugly pleased that it has finally revealed itself as the ultra-conservative, ultra-patriarchal institution it really is.

For several centuries, the male dominance of the art world has created the well and truly overused convention of using female nudity as a metaphor for bourgeois inhibition. For a long time this was fairly harmless. However, the art world’s unchecked addiction to pushing boundaries means that it finally pushed through one too many – as it now collides with issues such as pedophilia, feminism, neo-social conservatism and 21st century ethics, to name a few.

Yet, this whole sorry affair gives every indication that the art world has failed to learn from its mistakes.

Instead of listening to the objections raised from the community it is supposed to be mirroring, it closed ranks and shut out all debate or resorted to ‘in your face’ pronouncements about artistic freedom. Instead of discerning and addressing the many different sides and nuances to the debate, it fell back on silly, outdated clichés about sexual dysfunction and philistinism, which belong more to DH Lawrence’s 1927 court case than to the 21st century human condition.

"It didn't listen"? Oh I think it did, albeit briefly to hear the concern. I expect they found the arguments outrageous for the same reason I did: They lacked consistency; they were illogical and irrational (all these arguments are contained in the first threads I may repeat a couple here); and they gave no indication they cared about recent and old history, nor concern over other artists.

1. This work has been going on for 25 years.
2. Many parents across Australia have pictures of their naked children, at play or otherwise (and you call them pedophiles for it, which is disgusting).
3. If you see children as sexual by being naked, then you are a pedophile.
4. EVERYONE WHO *DID NOT* COMPLAIN WERE NOT COUNTED. This of course is one of the great flaws of our society and system. One single person was all it took to generate this, by utilising the police and media contacts she had. You will see a new article on OLO incidentally that looks like it takes a look at modern media.

SJF>"Instead of listening to the objections raised from the community it is supposed to be mirroring"

Appealing to the community's concerns is like appealing to the concerns of backwater rednecks who advocated lynching black and gay people. Art never has been, to my understanding about the "mirroring of community objections"...what the hell is that supposed to mean anyway? That they should have never done Impressionism, since the public expected Classical styles?

I don't see why you believe it is patriarchal and ultra-conservative, considering every major art movement in history has been progressive and anti-conservative?

SJF>"– as it now collides with issues such as pedophilia, feminism, neo-social conservatism and 21st century ethics, to name a few."

Feminism? If what you call Hetty Johnson and Melinda the writer of this article here is feminism then I am pleased in identifying it as extremely authoritarian, destructive and sexist.

What you call "21st century" ethics, I call extreme socialism and fascism meeting at their most egregious points: via social engineering and government control and force.

SJF: "the art world’s ... now collides with issues such as pedophilia, feminism, neo-social conservatism and 21st century ethics"

Depends on how you define "collide". If you mean it annoys some people who apparently insist on looking at these images despite their dislike for them, then yes, there has been a collision. But contrary to what you say, art always has collided with some peoples sensitivities. "Piss Christ" springs to mind as a famous example, and it came well after DH Lawrence.

However if you mean these images have a material and negative effect on people then no - they don't. This "fact" is an invention of the people who insist on looking despite their distaste. Its fairly clear porn does not cause an increase in paedophilia, not does it cause an increase in violence towards women. If anything the reverse is true.

SFJ: "Yet, this whole sorry affair gives every indication that the art world has failed to learn from its mistakes."

Most of the world would describe what you call "mistakes" as progress. We have replaced arbitrary rules about wrong and right with rules based on the harm actions cause, and that harm must be demonstrated by real evidence. We have replaced bigotry with tolerance. To its credit the art world done its bit in making this transition happen by, as you say, "its unchecked addiction to pushing boundaries". As the Henson case shows it continues to do so. Personally, I think this is a good thing.

rstuart

'Its fairly clear porn does not cause an increase in paedophilia, not does it cause an increase in violence towards women. If anything the reverse is true.'

What crap! Are you reading studies done by the EROS foundation. As the following article points out that gasoline lights fires. You continue to fool yourself.
http://www.drjudithreisman.com/archives/2006/09/pornographys_li.html

More pornography means more rape and more child abuse. Just ask the unfortunate aboriginal communities who are among Canberra's pervert industries best customers.

Then again don't let the destruction of many young kids lives get in the way of your right for a little perversion.

Jay....Melinda didn't quote Andrew Bolt, she quoted Olympia's father from an article he wrote, which was uncovered by Andrew Bolt.

Ho Hum....she's not catholic, no matter how hard you want her to be.

I cannot understand where the disagreement is. You people want to view naked children dressed up in adult women jewellry? Pictured alongside degrading and violent images at that! You want naked photos of young teenagers on your walls? What the hell is wrong with you?

That fact that someone has to write an article explaining what is wrong with this is very disturbing indeed.

As for "David" he was a grown man wasn't he? Not a little child following mummy and daddy's instructions to "pose."

Elka: "You people want to view naked children dressed up in adult women jewellry?"

Is that the only reason you think of to defend Henson, Elka? That people defend Henson's art because they like looking at it, I mean. If so, I have information for you: some of us take our moral judgements beyond that simplistic line of reasoning. My judgement on whether its OK to publish such are has nothing to do with my personal opinion of it at all. It doesn't matter whether I love it or hate it, whether I am uplifted by it or feel it violates my principles. Regardless of what I think of it, I feel strongly that the magazine has a right to publish it.

If someone could show there was real harm caused by this picture, I would take a very different view. As it is, all the direct participants - the girl, her parents, the magazine, seem happy with the outcome. Tankard Reist doesn't deny this in the article. Certainly she thinks the child is harmed, but I take it accepts that no one involved agrees with her. She offers no proof the child is harmed - the article is just a finely crafted essay making her feelings on the matter obvious. Just for the record, I don't consider someone being offended by a picture they could of just as easily ignored as "harm". Or if it is harm, it is self inflicted.

But here is the rub, Elka. I don't think Tankard Reist's feelings matter any more than mine do. Why does she to believe she has the right sit in judgement, when so many of us refrain? It beats me.

So Elka, if you can see some direct harm produced by this picture, then tell us about it here. Otherwise like Tankard Reist all I have is your indignation. Compared to higher ideals like being able to freely share ideas, like tolerance and equality it must take second seat; just like my opinion of the picture does.

runner shouled be ashamed. Let me direct readers to this comment in case they believe that rubbish from the religious runner:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1955&page=0#40282

-=-=
Elka, do you support murder of the unborn child? You might refer to it as abortion.

rstuart has a good point. If that is as far as your intellect can reach, then you have little hope of ever understanding the issue and becoming a more enlightened individual.

I see Steel, the supporters of the porn industry should be proud while the opponents ashamed. The industry that has caused multitudes of young indigenous kids to be sexually abused is to be applauded in your eyes.
The 'Little Children are sacred report' exposes your naivety or deceit. From the report we read

."It was subsequently confirmed at the regional meetings conducted by the Inquiry in February and March 2007, that pornography was a major factor in communities and that it should be stopped," the report continues.

"The daily diet of sexually explicit material has had a major impact, presenting young and adolescent Aboriginals with a view of mainstream sexual practice and behaviour which is jaundiced.

"It encourages them to act out the fantasies they see on screen or in magazines.

"Exposure to pornography was also blamed for the sexualised behaviour evident in quite young children.

"It was recommended that possible strategies to restrict access to this material, generally, and by children in particular, be investigated."

You might want to continue to bat for this perverted industry which leads to family breakdown and child sexual abuse but to take the moral high ground is really comical if it was not so sad.

runner: << I see Steel, the supporters of the porn industry should be proud while the opponents ashamed... >>

As usual, runner's reasoning is somewhat muddled. This is a discussion about works of art that feature images of naked children, not about pornographic images that have been implicated in child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory.

Only the most prudish critics of these artworks consider them to be pornographic - rather, most critics seem to be uncomfortable at suggestions that the child models are being 'exploited' in some way by the artists. This is an argument with which I personally disagree, but at least it is one that is arguable within the parameters of our prevailing social, ethical and moral standards.

Of course, it is by reference to these same standards that the appropriate authorities have determined that the images are not pornographic or exploitative and are therefore perfectly legal to display and publish in Australia. To assert that these standards are 'perverted' is to assert that Australian society is predominantly perverted - which may indeed be runner's idiosyncratic belief.

While he's entitled to think that and even to babble on incessantly about it, it in no way means that the old wowser is right.

rstuart

‘We have replaced bigotry with tolerance. To its credit the art world done its bit in making this transition happen by, as you say, "its unchecked addiction to pushing boundaries".’

Frankly, the Henson/Olympia affair has shown the art world to be a lot more bigoted than the general community. It’s a myth that the art world is tolerant; in fact, the art establishment has always shown itself to be notoriously INtolerant.

Besides I don’t believe that the Henson/Olympia images are pushing any boundaries that are worth pushing – just continuing the same old patriarchal ‘male gaze’ clichés, but with younger objects. As far as I’m concerned, Germaine Greer’s visual polemic, ‘The Boy’, pushes much more original boundaries – by repositioning the voyeur as clothed, adult and female, and the voyeur’s object as unclothed, young and male.

runner, earlier you quoted Judith Reisman. I think she could probably do with some professional help, but that doesn't mean she is wrong. Next you quote a report put together by a QC and a few other people with lots of letters after their name. Very impressive. But does that mean they are right?

The problem in both cases is these people are just expressing their opinions. There is no way of verify whether their opinions are right or not, so all I have to go on is their reputation. I have never heard of the people you are asking me to trust - all the only think I have to go on is the letters around their names really.

Fortunately there is another way. If people give figures, I can verify if their opinions are reflected by them. If they quote sources for the figures, I can check them. For example, take a society that did view porn, and then remove the porn. Show me figures on porn availability and crime rates and show how they change. If the figures so show increasing porn causes crime, and if the figures look to come from a reliable source, and you might sway my opinion.

As it happens runner, I have never seen you post anything that quotes figures I can cross check. Combine that with your extreme religious right wing views, and it is very unlikely I going to take anything you say at face value. As far as I can tell you are not interested in altering what I think - you just want to tell me what you think. But the reverse is sort of true too, runner. I am interested in what you think - but I already know that. So I ignore most of what you say now.

SJF, those words to runner apply to you also. I have no way of checking your assertions, but obviously others disagree - particularly those who purchased the magazine in question this month. So what am I to believe?

While I should not find it surprising that there is a lack of consideration of perspective from children themselves thus far in this aggressive debate (with an exception from Steel in an earlier comment ) I am still a little disconcerted by this.

Yes, this is largely a debate about art and ethics but the debate isn't properly articulated until we understand the broader ethics around the constructions of children we have in our society. There is alarming consistency in the way conversations are structured in Australia around children, their protection, sexualisation, education, care etc but without actually including their voices. I was astonished that the PM and Nelson instantly shunned the comments of the girl involved, Olympia. I wonder whether they would've been more receptive to her view if indeed she'd come out equally as horrified that her image had been used in this way - a sideline musing to my point but still worthy of consideration ...

Of course children warrant protection in our society and maybe the art is questionable in its ability to secure this but by completely ignoring the voices of children and constructing adults as the necessary and only arbiters of debates that directly involve them we continue to treat our youngest citizens as non-citizens - without rights, without position, without power. We need to stop having these debates above their heads - we have no right to assume that as supposed rational adults we are the only ones with a valid voice.

CJ Morgan

You write 'This is a discussion about works of art that feature images of naked children, not about pornographic images that have been implicated in child sexual abuse in the Northern Territory.'

Then why did you not address rstuart who wrote

'Its fairly clear porn does not cause an increase in paedophilia, not does it cause an increase in violence towards women. If anything the reverse is true.'

This was well before I posted anything here. So it is alright for people to divert if they have similar views to you but not if they don't.

JMS

The consensus among my sons and their friends, aged 12-16, seems to be that they find the Henson/Olympia images definitely sexual, but that the whole kerfuffle is just a bit innocuous. But then, these are kids who wear T-shirts with skateboarding zombie skeletons smoking dope and penises portrayed as nuclear missiles - so I'm not sure if they are representative.

But, I do agree with you. More public discussion about this affair by children themselves may have proved enlightening. Perhaps, Jenny Brockie is reading this...

While concious of the need to protect the world against paedophiles, I am worried at the power being given to the thought police, and the attempts to stop anything that might even obliquely be connected with wrong doing.

While taking photos of my kids on the beach I was threatened by an irate dowager. This has to stop.

While the art in question is not to my liking, it is deliberately controversial and has provoked debate, which as I recall is exactly what art is supposed to do. Once art is restricted to the white bread conformity of what the masses like, it is no longer art, but decoration.

I for one am not prepared to sacrifice free thought on the altar of political correctness.

Democritus

It seems as if you want to have your cake and eat it too. If art is designed to be controversial, why get angry and upset that controversy happens?

Thought-policing cuts both ways. Automatically defaulting to accusations of sexual dysfunction and wowserism when people express their disquiet at controversial art is just another version of thought policing.

The pedophilia aspect of the Henson/Olympia photos did not concern me, but I tried to respect the views of those who did find them confronting or even dangerous. I also felt that the issue raised many other concerns regarding ethics and art, artistic responsibility, changing morality standards (e.g. has society gone from one moral extreme to the other?), and the fact that all the controversy focused on photos of female (rather than male) children.

Yet whenever I, and others, tried to raise these issues for discussion, we were treated like sexually dysfunctional religious nutters – which ensured that our feelings and views were effectively silenced.

I also did not like the fact that the police and law were brought in to the Henson affair, and I was relieved that the authorities ruled against the complainants. However, at the same time I am glad that we live in a society in which we can still invoke the law to act as one of the arbitrators on controversial matters. This is all part of a healthy, robust democracy.

SJF, unlike your earlier posts this last one made perfect sense to me. I can't disagree with any of it.

SJF: "The pedophilia aspect of the Henson/Olympia photos did not concern me, but I tried to respect the views of those who did find them confronting or even dangerous."

While I agree with the statement, we apparently disagree on the extent you need to go to "respect the views". If someone is scared of heights we should avoid taking them to places that might trigger their phobia. Taking them to a roof top restaurant would be right out, for example. But I draw the line at a request to ban roof top restaurants simply because they don't like them. if they don't like them then don't go.

And so it is for Henson/Olympia photos. We are not talking about something that is broadcast over free to air television here, we are talking about stuff that will be seen by a few art house fans. You have to go out of your way to find them. Those wanting them banned are showing scant respect of the views of people who do enjoy them.

'And so it is for Henson/Olympia photos. We are not talking about something that is broadcast over free to air television here, we are talking about stuff that will be seen by a few art house fans'

That's the irony in the whole Henson saga sin't it. At the start, that was the case, but by the end of it all the photos were posted all over every newspaper and uncensored on TV. The body image of the girl they were all so concerned about was trampled over by the pictures of her being labelled disgusting and perverse.

A girl was saved from being the victim of a respectful artisitic appreciation of her body by having it plastered across the world and picked apart for the disgusting perverted poster of paedophillia it really is. Nice work!

Steel

Firstly, I am a she not a he.

Your comment about under-age being a "construct" really astounded me. Whether you like it or not, we do live in a society with laws; laws made for particular reasons are all "constructs" of our society.

You stated the child had no problems with the picture. How can a child possess the maturity and awareness of the consequences of such a decision? Even if the child in question grows up, and as an adult, states they have no problem with it, it is irrelevant to that child being able to make an informed decision when they are six - that is the point.

It would also be nice to read comments from you that are not riddled with anti-women invective.

For those posters concerned with censorship - I don't think protecting children from exploitation is worthy of including in the censorship debate. We are not going to legalise child pornography because of fears of censorship. Censorship has to be appropriate.

I am more concerned about censorship laws that limit freedom of speech for legitimate whistleblowers and protestors in countries whose governments allow for corruption and human rights abuses.

pelican: "How can a child possess the maturity and awareness of the consequences of such a decision?"

I was waiting for that argument to pop up. It always does.

We don't generally trust children to make decisions. Instead we trust their parents to make such decisions for them, and that is what happened in the cases under discussion.

You, I assume, think they made the wrong decision, and would evidently like to force them into making the decision you prefer with by changing the law. You must realise a lot of people will view your attempt to control their lives with deep suspicion. Still, sometimes we do accept such control is warranted. This is always in cases where the child's well being is under obvious threat - starvation, physical beatings and the like. Demonstrate these pictures do threaten the well being of children in the same way and you might get a lot of people agreeing with you. I am sure this is obvious to everyone.

Yet no one here arguing for Tankard Reist's side of the argument does that with any force. We gets lots of bold assertions that the children involved here have somehow been damaged. But not one single, verifiable fact is given to support these assertions. Given the solution being proposed, is that too much to ask for?

CJ,

I just can't believe that you continue to defend your desire to view naked children by declaring those who find it distatseful, wowserish.

IMO, your desire to view these things means you have a lot more in common with pedophiles than I would feel comfortable with.

Get over it.

rstuart
The reason it always pops up is that it is a valid argument.

Parents make many decisions on behalf of their children, usually in their best interests (we would hope). I don't think it is fair to compare a decision a parent might make about which school they should attend to whether or not to take a picture of a child in a sexually posed picture and then make it available for viewing by the greater public.

All of us would agree that a parent should not use their child in pornography which would be breaching the great trust a child has in their parents, let alone the illegality. The participants in this debate are merely disagreeing on where to draw the line and what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate. Those who disagree with the pro-Henson/Olympia side of the debate are being painted as worse than devils with horns.

I am just a bit tired of the lack of substance in the arguments by the pro-Henson/Olympia lobby that art somehow has a special exception when it comes to freedom of expression over the rights of children to be protected from exploitation. We talk about the media's abuse in this regard, why is art any different?

Pelican, if you want to know why some of us who defend art and freedom of speech get a little acerbic, just refer to Paul.L's latest nasty insinuation above, and the idiotic runner's conflation of art featuring nude models with pornography.

As I said in my last post in this thread, I think that most reasonable "critics seem to be uncomfortable at suggestions that the child models are being 'exploited' in some way by the artists. This is an argument with which I personally disagree, but at least it is one that is arguable within the parameters of our prevailing social, ethical and moral standards."

According to the odious Paul, that means I have something in common with paedophiles. I really couldn't be bothered arguing with idiots who consistently attempt to misrepresent my views the way he does, or with religious nutters who endlessly preach their peculiar beliefs at everybody else.

SJF,

I think you missed the point of my comment, I was not upset that others expressed their concerns and anger, I am angry at those who think that they have the right to force their puritanical views on everyone else.

Charges being laid against the artist due to political pressure (which had no chance in hell of sticking) and the moron of a woman who threatened to have me arrested for taking photos of my kids in costumes on the beach are two such instances.

Pelican and others, if you think that young girls are completely sexually unaware, and only at the age of 16 (18 in the USA) suddenly wake up to the birds and the bees, you obviously don't have daughters. I have to battle tears when I try to limit what my 12 year old wears to parties.

I fully intend to protect my kids against paedophiles, and the blue rinse brigade who want to control what they think.

"I have to battle tears when I try to limit what my 12 year old wears to parties."

This is very much part of the concern that many feminists and others have with this whole issue of photographing child nude models in the art world. It's not so much that it's inherently harmful in itself, but it's the way it feeds into this whole issue of the premature sexualization and exploitative marketing of young girls, which in turn is leading directly to the battles you're facing with your daughter.

I've been through exactly the same thing with my own daughter. I know how difficult it is to see a young girl unhappy with her natural girlish looks and desperately wanting a look that is far beyond her years and which she's not at all equipped to deal with. We have to ask ourselves why it is that young girls today are trying so hard to break out of girlhood and present themselves as sexually alluring at such a young age.

It hasn't happened in a vacuum. It's the inevitable result over many years of constantly being fed a certain look through the aggressive use of subtle and all-pervasive marketing. Over time this insatiable beast has targeted ever younger girls until today we have the ridiculous situation of girls as young as five or six wearing heels, bra-tops and makeup.

Instead of wringing our hands helplessly, we should be looking more broadly at how we have allowed this to happen and start doing something to give our girls back their childhood. Questioning the art world's practice of photographing young girls in adult like poses and artificially enhancing the images to present a conformist look is for me just part of that process.

"I fully intend to protect my kids against ... the blue rinse brigade who want to control what they think."

We're not wanting to control what you're daughter thinks. We're fighting against the forces who have already taken control of her thinking. We're trying to give girls back the freedom to think for themselves and to enjoy being girls.

pelican: "I am just a bit tired of the lack of substance in the arguments by the pro-Henson/Olympia lobby"

I have not seen anybody make that argument, but if it were made I would take your side.

pelican: "All of us would agree that a parent should not use their child in pornography ... [we] are merely disagreeing on where to draw the line and what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate."

This is a pretty deceptive way to make your point. You say we are "merely disagreeing", implying the solution is obvious. I presume its obvious because all of us agree we "should not use their child in pornography". So you imply the argument is about the use of children in pornography. It isn't and that is why we aren't "merely discussing" it, we have been arguing about it for 40,000 words now!

For me at least its not at all about where to "draw the line". Its about how do you decide. Do you decide by having a straw poll on who makes the passionate appeal to the raw emotions. Or do you decide or a more rational basis, based on whether the child has suffered harm?

Deciding on a rational basis is much harder to do. It requires you to put your feelings aside for the sake of others. Here is a scenario making this clear. Lets say some dirty nasty paedophile got hold of a picture of your child naked, and masturbated to it. Lets further assume doing that relives some pressures in his twisted mind, and so the neighbourhood children were safer for a day or so. I presume the thought disgusts you because it certainly disgusts me. But can you put that aside pelican? Can you say to yourself, "well no one was hurt and possibly somebody was saved", and pronounce what happened to be good thing?

Do you care enough about what actually happens kids to put your feelings aside? It's no idle challenge pelican. That scenario is reality. Your gut is wrenching in disbelief, but do you care enough to check?

Bronwyn,

People have been complaining of the sexualisation of their daughters for generations.

Small girls are not stupid, and are sexually aware from a young age. While I think the media plays on this, they did not create it, and if they are stopped, it is not going to go away.

While not entirely happy with the world, I would prefer not to allow the well meaning moral majority to erode the freedoms that have taken so long to establish.

CJ

I do understand the angst at being labelled a paedophile (or implied) and I hope you have some experience of my earlier postings to know that is not my own perception. I am only responsible for my own postings and cannot influence others, all we can only hope for is name calling can cease in deference to reasonable debate.

The debate has become more emotive than need be for some reason. As I said earlier there does not appear to be much room between wowser or paedophile which has distracted from more reasonable debate on what constitutes Art (which is a subjective) and should Art have any responsibility in terms of freedoms/rights as sovereign over all other rights.

rstuart

You appear to have labelled me in the extremist camp which I am not and my reference to child pornography was not deceptive given the debate in the media became one about whether the art in question constituted pornography. I was not responsible for the 'nature' of the debate as it unfolded.

You have totally missed my point - which was about where to draw the line in Art and obviously that is where opinion comes in, there are no DEFINITES in this debate just opinions based on the sort of society we might wish to live in (accepting that nothing is of course perfect). That does not mean that I view those who offer a contrary view as bad or evil.

Your comment: "Do you care enough about what actually happens kids to put your feelings aside? It's no idle challenge pelican. That scenario is reality. Your gut is wrenching in disbelief, but do you care enough to check?"

Feigned outrage does nothing for me I am afraid. My whole viewpoint is about caring what happens to kids and the sort of world that allows them to be children while at the same time not padding them in cotton wool; allowing them to experience and grow as their maturity, awareness and level of empathy allows. Sexualisation of children too young does not fit in with my own personal ideals.

Democritus

"People have been complaining of the sexualisation of their daughters for generations."

I'm sure they have. I know it's nothing new. You might be able to shrug off today's situation as being part and parcel of the usual generational gap, but I consider the very young age at which girls are being targeted now as something new and concerning.

"While not entirely happy with the world, I would prefer not to allow the well meaning moral majority to erode the freedoms that have taken so long to establish."

I'm not about imposing moral codes or advocating censorship. I too value the long fought freedoms we enjoy. I am concerned though at the unprecedented power of profit-driven corporations to erode these freedoms and to manipulate young and susceptible minds.

In an ideal world, I'd probably prefer to counter this through awareness raising and a subsequent mobilising of consumer power. When I see intelligent people like yourself though, denying we even have a problem, I really do despair at the soft option ever having any real impact.

Bronwyn>"I too value the long fought freedoms we enjoy. I am concerned though at the unprecedented power of profit-driven corporations to erode these freedoms and to manipulate young and susceptible minds."

You can PROFESS to value freedoms all you want, but feminists like yourself are part of the cause for their dramatic REDUCTION.

Stop blaming "profit-driven corporations"* and start blaming yourself and other feminists, the religious and socialist/fascists who are to blame for the loss of our rights and freedoms...and the continuation of such as we can see happening right now in our political processes.

*This was simply unbelievable as it is so random and baseless. But it yet proves that the agenda behind this censorship is very real and very deceitfully so.

Steel

'Stop blaming "profit-driven corporations"* and start blaming yourself and other feminists, the religious and socialist/fascists who are to blame for the loss of our rights and freedoms...and the continuation of such as we can see happening right now in our political processes.'

This is the kind of 'freedom-of-expression' discourse that makes the pro-Henson/Olympia camp shoot itself well and truly in the foot.

According to such discourse, 'freedom of expression' is a fundamental right - except for religious people, feminists, socialists and fascists. Also, respect for 'freedom of expression' is a fundamental responsibility - but not respect for the views of religious people, feminists, socialists and fascists.

And 'freedom of expression' means having the right to conflate and confuse debates by lumping vastly contrasting dichotomies together - like socialism and fascism, religion and feminism.

As for the other pro-Henson/Olympia posters here - those who have actually written intelligent, thoughtful posts - I suggest you ditch this guy like you would a bad date. He's not doing your case much good at all.

Steel

"This was simply unbelievable as it is so random and baseless. But it yet proves that the agenda behind this censorship is very real and very deceitfully so."

If you'd calm down long enough to read the preceding debate carefully, Steel, you'd soon realise that my reference to 'profit-driven corporations' is not at all random, but is in fact an integral part of the issue of premature sexualization and exploitation of young girls, which in turn is all part of the underage nude girl photography debate.

I know it irks purists like you to have anyone dare question the sacred cow of free market capitalism, but the more reasonable among us recognize that while it has of course brought us great comfort, that comfort has and is increasingly obviously coming at a very considerable social and environmental cost.

Part of that cost, as it relates to this particular debate, is the damaging effect on young girls of the relentless and insidious marketing that is telling them they should be dressing in a certain way and that they need a certain body shape and look, to the point that we now have young girls in pre-school unhappy with the way they look. And however much people like you try to ignore it, Steel, this marketing is done solely in the pursuit of profit.

If you're going to butt in which you're perfectly entitled to do, engage with my argument and stop trying to discredit me by throwing around lazy and completely unfounded claims of feminism, socialism, facism and whatever other ism you can come up with. I have no agenda. There is no agenda. Get over it.

SJF>"And 'freedom of expression' means having the right to conflate and confuse debates by lumping vastly contrasting dichotomies together - like socialism and fascism, religion and feminism."

They are not contrasting in the slightest. They share many agendas, censorship is the primary one. To believe otherwise is is a simply a denial of reality. You have no idea what you are talking about. It's unfortunate that so many people have succumbed so easily to propaganda and old ideologies.

Bronwyn, I appreciate your patience and self-belief, but you are simply incorrect on this and for a 'moderate feminist' surprisingly sexist (this need for sexism probably emerges from your feminist 'teachings'). Parents are responsible for raising their children. The real problem is that parents are are replacing parenting with feeding off of television. Your constant attacks on 'society' do children no justice, because parents are given a free pass by hordes of activists like you. This thinking is a giant disease in our society.

Pressures to conform has ALWAYS existed in society. That is part of life. In light of the Henson debate this is as I've said many times, disgusting...you have shown that the agenda has nothing to do with Henson, and more to do with feminism and socialism (while Hetty, the media and religious who caused this were more like fascists).

SJF: << As for the other pro-Henson/Olympia posters here - those who have actually written intelligent, thoughtful posts - I suggest you ditch this guy like you would a bad date. He's not doing your case much good at all. >>

Yes, this is an issue which makes for strange bedfellows indeed. While I happen to agree with Steel on the essence of this issue, I certainly don't share his views about feminist/socialist conspiracies or whatever it is that floats his boat in other areas. I've noticed that he's not the only one, either - for example, Col Rouge made a very eloquent post on one of the other threads about this subject, with which I agreed competely.

That sort of apparent contradiction is one of the things I like about OLO, actually.

Mind you, it works both ways - you'd have to agree that nasty little wingnuts like Paul.L or religious nutters like runner don't exactly enhance the arguments advanced by the more reasonable and intelligent opponents of artworks that feature images of nude children.

Bronwyn,

I think this objection to the 'sexualisation' or 'premature sexualisation' of children is more about the adults than the children.

Children are NOT asexual. How can they be sexualized? I can remember having sexual thoughts and even obtaining erections at age 7, and I know many women who admit to humping their soft toys at a similar age. It's adults that cant deal with this reality, and want to 'protect' their children from sexual imagery and, well, reality basically.

The world is there for children to see, they have a sexuality of their own that develops as their mind and later their body does, and their parents are there to guide them in their interpretations of and reations to the world they see around them.

Anyone who sees an 8 year old pull faces and reject the 'mushy stuff' on the TV will know that the same child at 9 that wants to be grown up and wear lipstick is not being prematurely sexualised. They are developing in line with their current emotional and mental development and reacting to the reality they see around them. All children want to grow up and parents of individual children can best judge what a child is ready for.

So some would like to change the reality, or protect their child from reality, and good luck to them. But the rest of the world is under no obligation to change to fit into line with the reality they want to create for their child.

Regardless, I don't see anyone complaining about little boys wanting to be tough and strong. Learning to defend themselves and watching WWF and action movies. Society values male strength and female beauty. It must be terribly confusing for kids of parents who would rather lie to their kids and say it's not so, rather than admit it is so, but teach them they don't have to conform.

Steel

‘[Religion/feminism, socialism/fascism] are not contrasting in the slightest. They share many agendas, censorship is the primary one. To believe otherwise is is a simply a denial of reality.’

Like the boy who cried wolf, crying ‘censorship’ every time some individual or social/political group expresses distaste or offence at some aspect of the prevailing culture not only confuses the whole concept of censorship, but cheapens it as well.

As societies change, prevailing cultural myths are always challenged – usually through everyday communication, but sometimes through the courts and parliaments – and tensions then arise between those who want to maintain the current myths and those who seek to revise and rework them to reflect a changing society.

This kind of conflict is healthy. Ms Tankard Reist is simply engaging in this process as she challenges prevailing cultural myths about women. If you don’t like what she is saying, or the way in which she says it, that’s fine.

However, to call such a process ‘censorship’ is what I would call the true ‘denial of reality’.

CJ Morgan

‘Yes, this is an issue which makes for strange bedfellows indeed.’

True. And it’s these strange bedfellows that provide the important nuances in this debate.

Usual Suspect

‘It must be terribly confusing for kids of parents who would rather lie to their kids and say it's not so, rather than admit it is so, but teach them they don't have to conform.’

One important way to teach children that they don’t have to conform is to have ongoing controversies and debates such as these, that convey to young people that prevailing cultural norms are not the be all and end all of reality. In fact, knowing that there are people vehemently opposed to this kind of cultural portrayal of girls and women gives children ‘permission’ to question it in their own minds.

pelican: "You appear to have labelled me in the extremist camp "

It probably appears that way, but no. I would not bother with debating with you if I though you were a runner or Gibo. Their views are unlikely to be influenced by anything I say. You evidently like to think about your positions, rather than taking them on faith.

pelican: "My whole viewpoint is about caring what happens to kids ..."

I don't doubt that. But there is no evidence the kids involved were harmed by the art, regardless of what your instincts tell you. So if this is the basis of your argument it's a very weak foundation.

My point went further though. If you really are about "caring for kids", then take notice of the strong evidence showing increasing availability of pornography actually reduces the very sort of acts "common sense" might tell you it increases. So by ignoring your instincts and making this stuff more available makes a real difference to what happens to kids.

pelican: "You have totally missed my point - which was about where to draw the line in Art and obviously that is where opinion comes ..."

No, I didn't miss your point, although it seems you missed mine. My point is that if you are going to draw a line, in other words you are going to force someone to behave in a different way, then you had better have a dammed good reason for doing so. An "opinion" isn't such a reason. Nor are gut instincts. And nor is Tankard Reist's shrill appeal to those things.

Opinion is what we use to distinguish good from bad art. Different people can and do have different opinions each art work. Opinion has no role in determining what art should be allowed. All art must be allowed, good and bad - unless it can be shown to be harmful. If only because if we banned every art work someone expressed dislike, it would be a very bland world indeed. Thus your opinion of it is irrelevant, as is mine.

SJF: "Like the boy who cried wolf, crying ‘censorship’ every time some individual or social/political group expresses distaste or offence ..."

This is the stance you have take right through the discussion here. In summary, you are saying no-one is arguing the stuff should be banned, they are just saying they don't like it and questioning why others do. I didn't take such a benign view of this debate and others here don't either. But fair enough - if you take Tankard Reist's article in that vein then its a fluff piece about her personal likes and dislikes, and as such should not raise an eyebrow. It's not like we aren't aware of her likes and dislikes already.

Bronwyn: "damaging effect on young girls of the relentless and insidious marketing that is telling them they should be dressing in a certain way and that they need a certain body shape and look"

You say this often (and not just in this thread). Maybe you are right to some extent. I think of how effective the ads for cigarette smoking are. But still, on the balance I lean towards US's viewpoint. Really, compared to cigarettes how girls dress is a minor issue.

Does how they dress really matter? (I am smiling as I write this, because it used to matter to me when my daughter was at a certain age.) But on reflection how they dressed was really a minor point. Their sexual behaviour wasn't determined by how the media says they should dress, or how to use makeup. It was determined by how stable her home life was, how good the future looked, how much competition she perceived there was for the available males. The long term risks she faced were largely determined by the availability of contraception and whether she used it, and how her lifestyle effected her education. Despite her parents obsession with it, how she dressed was almost an irrelevancy, and thus so were the ads that tried to influence it. In hindsight the worst damage they inflicted was on her parents hip pocket.

SJF, it's disappointing that you say I'm crying wolf here because it is incorrect, trivialising and suggestive that you're also ignorant of some things.

Did you follow the events as they transpired...(or not...)?

You may not care about this too much, but I do. I don't think you are equipped to see what is happening.

You could easily have said that those who constantly refer to child pornography at every turn for political gain, are crying wolf about Henson. That would be far closer to the truth here as there are scores of markers and incidents that indicate this.

It seems that you are rather lazy or uninterested in the effects and intentions of this movement.

Rstuart

I actually found your response to pelican more relevant than your post to me, so I’ll comment on that.

‘All art must be allowed, good and bad - unless it can be shown to be harmful. If only because if we banned every art work someone expressed dislike, it would be a very bland world indeed.’

Firstly, you know full well that no one here is arguing that every art work be banned if someone expresses dislike towards it. Also, it is downright impossible to ‘prove’ art as harmful, so other measures of ‘harm’ need to be taken into account.

Secondly, the premise that ‘all art must be allowed, good and bad’ underlies much of the thinking of the pro-Henson/Olympia side of this debate. This thinking assumes that art is sacred and this, combined with our great Western tradition of freedom of expression, allows it to get away with a good deal of bohemian wankery dressed up as 'pushing boundaries'.

In reality, the art world is just another dream factory that needs money to exist. It's financed from three main sources – business profits (i.e. galleries and auction houses), government grants and patronage from the wealthy. All three sources are deeply conservative institutions that ply deeply conservative agendas. Thus, all artists know – but few admit – that it is unwise to challenge too much of the status quo.

This is not to deny that many artists are brilliant at what they do and deserve recognition, fame, creative freedom and wealth. However, few of them ever really question a point of view that is anything other than male, or a social system that is anything other than men dominating other men, men dominating women (by portraying them naked and/or dead as often as possible) and men dominating nature. The same can be said of all the ‘arts’ – film and television, publishing, literature and advertising.

I don’t always agree with Ms Tankard Reist, or her methods, but she does have her finger firmly on the pulse of what is driving today’s cultural anxieties – and it ain’t pedophilia.

SJF, I don't have a clue what point you are trying to make.

SJF: "Like the boy who cried wolf, crying ‘censorship’ every time some individual or social/political group expresses distaste or offence at some aspect of the prevailing culture ..."

When I read this, I assumed you were saying you aren't arguing the art in question should not be banned, you were just saying its bad art.

SJF: "Secondly, the premise that ‘all art must be allowed, good and bad’ underlies much of the thinking of the pro-Henson/Olympia side of this debate."

When I read this, I can only assume you are wanting the pictures to be banned.

So what it is, SJF? We presumably have established you don't like the art in question. Fair enough. Some here have said they do like it, some like you have said they don't. But are you also saying it should be banned?

As for the rest of you post - was there a point to it? You mention two things - how art is funded, and who likes it. I don't see how those things are relevant to whether art is good or bad, and I don't see they are relevant to whether it should be banned or not. Unless its coming out of the public purse, its funded the same way everything else is funded - the people who liked it paid for it. It wasn't coming out of the public purse in this case, so I presume that is what is happening. If you or some group doesn't like the stuff, then go fund your own. Doing that would be a dammed sight more productive than whinging here about people paying for stuff that you don't personally appreciate.

But if your intent isn't just to complain about what others like, but instead about banning it so they can't see it - well yes, that's significant. But if that is what you are on about then for gods sake just come out and say so!

If he agrees with this article/author (whose history is even more damning...) then he most likely is wanting it to be banned. That is where this is going (and certainly the intentions of this feminist) which is why I made a discussion about it in the General forum.

rstuart

You’re desperately trying to get me to declare myself on whether these pics should be banned, when I honestly don’t care one way or the other.

What I care about is the thoroughly misguided belief that there should be absolutely no boundaries at all – legal or otherwise – on the work of those who wield influence over the cultural domain or over public opinion. This sanctity-of-the-artist defence is in itself a form of censorship.

Steel

What YOU are doing is censoring the dissemination of any kind of feminist analysis of the society in which we live.

I am proud to say that I would very much like to live in a society that does not feel a need to eroticise virtually every aspect of women’s existence. Neither YOU nor anyone else is going to shame or intimidate me into thinking otherwise.

SJF: "You’re desperately trying to get me to declare myself on whether these pics should be banned ..."

No. I am desperately trying to understand what concrete actions you think should be taken. So far, I have failed dismally.

SJF: "What I care about is the thoroughly misguided belief that there should be absolutely no boundaries at all – legal or otherwise"

I am happy with any boundaries that aren't legal ones. If you are arguing for the same thing, then we have nothing to argue about. But I have no idea if this is the case because you won't tell me! Ahhhhh!

SJF: "sanctity-of-the-artist defence"

Actually, I don't care whether the person claiming the defence calls themselves an artist, a pornographer or a paedophile. I don't care whether what they have to say is intended for inspiration, titillation, illumination, or masturbation - its utterly beside the point. If what there are doing can't be shown to be harmful, then let them do it.

SJF: "is in itself a form of censorship"

You did it again. I must be getting dimmer with old age. For the life of me, I can't see how letting someone express themselves can be a form of censorship. Can you explain it, in simple terms that I have a hope of understanding?

SJF>"What YOU are doing is censoring the dissemination of any kind of feminist analysis of the society in which we live."

Wait..my comments in this thread...... are censorship...of "feminist analysis"? I've noted this mentally.

Anything but. I'm calling it out and exposing it's corruption and sexism that extends well beyond 'benign' forms of feminism (what it's purpose was and what every moderate feminist is tricked into convincing themselves is what they represent).

SJF> "I am proud to say that I would very much like to live in a society that does not feel a need to eroticise virtually every aspect of women’s existence. Neither YOU nor anyone else is going to shame or intimidate me into thinking otherwise."

At least you are honest in your admission.

You and Melinda represent anti-female feminists, much like Islamists who desire to have women fully clothed and non-sexual. You are winding back society and saying women of any age can not exhibit themselves and be paid to express themselves, as evidenced right here:

SJF> "I am proud to say that I would very much like to live in a society that does not feel a need to eroticise virtually every aspect of women’s existence."

Society is doing NOTHING to you. This is what free choice is about. Now that women have the freedom they deserved they are choosing sexuality which is making many feminists attack women and men at the same time under the guise of victimisation. This of course makes socialists, fascists, and religious natural allies in their (and your) campaign.

Now this has nothing to do with the photographs, except in that it exposes the agenda behind the opposition to them is the same as I've described previously in many other threads and which SJF in a laudable moment of honesty confessed to here (in her own words).

You have either been fooled by feminists such as tankard SJF, or you are one of them yourself.

Rstuart

Good grief! Your post to me would have made the Grand Inquisition very proud.

(Loud booming voice) ‘Are you now …. Or have you ever been … a supporter of censorship? Do you now … or have you ever … wanted to ban the Henson photos? … Declare yourself, I say!’

(Gulp!)

And if I choose to remain silent, what next? Guantanamo Bay or the rack?

Steel

Yes, I’ve read ‘Cassanova for Dummies’ too.

If you honestly believe that unfettered freedom of artistic expression has turned the female population into a mass movement of grateful little sex kittens, then no wonder you’re so hostile to feminism.

SJF,

You are quoting things I didn't say, and putting inflections words that weren't spoken. You are arguing with your own imagination now, not the ideas you see on the screen before you.

As for what is next - nothing, of course. I was trying to understand your point of view, and if I succeeded in that add my two cents. Your point, if you had one, is lost on me and I suspect anyone else reading this thread. The damage it sustained was totally self inflicted. Even if I was in a mind to persecute you, I doubt I could improve on that.

SJF>"If you honestly believe that unfettered freedom of artistic expression has turned the female population into..."

Huh? What the hell are you talking about? rstuart is right,

rstuart>"You are quoting things I didn't say, and putting inflections words that weren't spoken. You are arguing with your own imagination now, not the ideas you see on the screen before you."

All I said was that women have chosen to sell their bodies for $$$ and promote themselves in such ways. You obviously have some hang-ups which your attachment to hateful anti-female feminism is closely interwoven.

Everything I've said is correct. You think you support women, but you do precisely the opposite by attacking women who have exercised their own free will. How sad as people like you perpetuate the hate against these women. Do you hear men complaining about sexualisation? No, because they have not been taught to hate other men by the religious and feminists like Melinda Tankard Reist who advise people like Harradine (a Catholic) and whom are Right-to-Lifers.

SJF “What I care about is the thoroughly misguided belief that there should be absolutely no boundaries at all – legal or otherwise – on the work of those who wield influence over the cultural domain or over public opinion. “

Re "Thoroughly misguided"

I would like you to define, preferably referring to statute (for legal at least), exactly what a “thoroughly misguided belief “ is,

Because you need to do that before you can judge anything.

Regarding “those who wield influence over the cultural domain or over public opinion.”

Could you please define when someone wields influence and when they do not and maybe name a few who do and although it might be nice, it might be too tough trying to name those who do not.

Now regarding those who do not wield such influence?

Should their artistic endeavours be similarly censored to those who do influence public opinion?

The dangers to which we are exposed from experiencing “absolutely no boundaries at all”

Pale into insignificance

Compared to the dangers from authoritarian definitions and limits on what "artistic expression" is allowed and what is disallowed (censorship).

Example, Gustav Klimt was labeled “degenerate” and his work vilified in the Nazi exhibition of the same name which toured Germany before WWII.

Personally I find Klimt an excellent and sensuous artist with an abstractive attention to detail, beautifully balanced with a lavish use of colour.

But I am just an individual, expressing personal opinions. If I thought it was a load of crap I would likely say nothing and move on.

No point in publicizing the banal.

Which is what “public opinion” can do

and, with the passage of time (of course), does.

Steel

‘Everything I've said is correct.’

Good for you! You must be a very exceptional person.

Rstuart

For goodness sake! Can’t you see when you are being sent up?

The fact that this was completely lost on you is proof that this commentary thread has well and truly descended into caricature.

Col Rouge

‘I would like you to define, preferably referring to statute (for legal at least), exactly what a “thoroughly misguided belief” is […] Could you please define when someone wields influence and when they do not and maybe name a few who do...’

I have stated more than once on OLO that I make a point of not rising to ‘please define’ or 'name names' baits. Nine times out of ten they are just empty provocations, not genuine requests for clarity. I can always sense the one in ten who is genuine - and you are not one of them.

SJF, you must be suffering a cold. Your sense of the genuine is not working.

I was sincere in my request of you to define what “misguided beliefs” are.

You are advocating the suppression of “beliefs”, only a fool would not be able to define what they seek to suppress. Am I to presume you are a fool?

The alternative is for me to presume you find it all too difficult to handle and are simply seeking some government authority to make decisions for you.

Now we know what happens to people who let governments do that for them, they end up queuing to watch the book burnings and laugh at the degenerates.

Without seeming to be dramatic, you are basically inviting what Pastor Martin Niemoller’s described to happen.

I wonder, who will you turn to

when this benevolent authority, this great guiding hand, the sole arbiter of public taste and decency, which is going to decide what is good and what is not fit for public exhibition or publication,

resolves that something you do is “misguided”?

So, maybe you could answer me that, if my requests to the beliefs and personalities which you find it too hard to identify are to remain unresolved.

Usual Suspect

"Society values male strength and female beauty. It must be terribly confusing for kids of parents who would rather lie to their kids and say it's not so, rather than admit it is so, but teach them they don't have to conform."

You talk about teaching children that they don't have to conform. And yet you yourself are setting a totally conformist example by failing to question that most basic and most constraining and damaging of assumptions that men have to be strong and women beautiful. To me, putting our kids into these straight jackets is much more of a lie than the questioning of the status quo that people like Melinda, Pelican, SJF, and myself are engaging in and of which you are so critical.

Even if we do accept that an integral part of being female is being beautiful, why should that beauty be dictated to us by the fashion industry? If we are really going to teach our girls that they don't need to conform, we have to break the dominance of the one prevailing model of accepted beauty and allow other models to emerge. We have to let girls be girls, to play and find their own way in the world and develop their own style and in their own time. This is what people like Melinda are arguing for. It's not about censorship or imposing moral codes on others. It's about breaking the conformist corporate shackles that dictate to girls how they should look and lock them into worrying about their appearance at an ever-younger age.

Bronwyn,

'And yet you yourself are setting a totally conformist example by failing to question that most basic and most constraining and damaging of assumptions that men have to be strong and women beautiful.'

Where do I set this example? All I say is many people in our society value physical strength in men, and beauty in women. It's a fact. I never said that's all they value. I never said you shouldn't question these values with your children. I intend to do just that.

But where i draw the line is pretending to children that everyone they encounter in life will have the same values I do. Or even that they should, or that my values are right and the world should change to reflect my values.

'It's about breaking the conformist corporate shackles that dictate to girls how they should look '
So corporations are deciding what people like are they? How does this work? Do people not like products, but buy them because corporations tell them to? I think it works the other way around. The way trends and fashion work is that someone rich and famous wears something. Then poorer people who want a piece of that lifestyle buy the same thing. Then it becomes 'common' and then the original wearer is forced to wear something different to set themselves appart. Cycle continues. Thin is fashionable becuase it's hard to stay thin in this time of pleanty. Fat is fashionable in cultures where food is scarce.

If enough 8 year olds want to wear lipstick, and their parents are happy enough to let them, why is the corporation to blame? Why should the corporation be banned from selling lipstick to 8 year olds because some parents don't want to have to say no to their children?

Bronwyn you are still showing signs of the poisoned thinking processes that you have been taught by feminists. The "fashion industry" has no obligation to make you or anyone else feel comfortable. To suggest otherwise is extreme socialism (and in your case, feminism). It is simply unbelievable that you would want to dictate your terms to the fashion industry to make whoever you are talking about feel comfortable. You know what, that's simply envy at it's core.

And if you spread this view across society you will end up with a communist/extreme socialist one because private enterprise must all conform to the average mean of society, which is stupid, unattractive, boring and uncharismatic, which in many ways is precisely where we are headed thanks to more influential people than you. Take a look at Henson debate. Australia will become a third world country in a couple of generations with such thinking.

Col Rouge

‘… only a fool would not be able to define what they seek to suppress. Am I to presume you are a fool?’

By all means … if it makes you feel better.

Steel

‘And if you spread this view across society you will end up with a communist/extreme socialist one because private enterprise must all conform to the average mean of society, which is stupid, unattractive, boring and uncharismatic …’

Speaking of ‘stupid, unattractive, boring and uncharismatic’, this perfectly describes our ‘mean’ mainstream culture's obsession with babes’ and bimbos’ boobs and bums.

And if you really want a taste of extremist totalitarianism, try living as a feminist under a patriarchy. I doubt your would last 5 minutes.

"You are advocating the suppression of "beliefs", only a fool would not be able to define what they seek to suppress. Am I to presume you are a fool?"

This made me laugh and laugh. Such a neat little package of pompousness and stupidity.

SJF Am I to presume you are a fool?’

By all means … if it makes you feel better.”

Well it certainly defines you in a single word.

I asked you twice to explain and you have twice weaseled away from an explanation

So take it as said, you are someone who demands but cannot define the constraints you would see imposed on other peoples freedom of expression.

Therefore you are a fool

Veronica “This made me laugh and laugh. Such a neat little package of pompousness and stupidity.”

Pleased to amuse you, it was no effort, a small mind is always the easiest to beguile.

Col Rouge

'So take it as said, you are someone who demands but cannot define the constraints you would see imposed on other peoples freedom of expression.'

No. It actually defines me as someone who refuses to do other people's homework for them. Don't confuse non-compliance with non-ability.

Veronika

'Such a neat little package of pompousness and stupidity.'

Indeed. Just another package in the portfolio of a pompous, patriarchal ............ (Insert own alliteration.)

SJF "No. It actually defines me as someone who refuses to do other people's homework for them. Don't confuse non-compliance with non-ability."

An opinion with no reference or reason, such as the manner of your declaration, is a hollow thing.

No different to rant or thoughtless dogma.

The rattle of an intellectually empty bucket.

So what is the difference between non-compliance and non-ability?

"non-compliance" is the excuse those who lack ability will hide behind

The able have no need to hide their reasons, only those who lack them.

Each of your successive posts reveals more and more about your lack of reasoning skill and substance.

Leaving instead your own pompous hubris.

What a nasty little man you are. Erk.

Veronika "What a nasty little man you are. Erk."

your posts have consisted of baseless attacks on me

Obviously, you lack the where-with-all, like SJF, to present any reasoned view or lucid opinion so you descending to

the vicious bite (=gumming) of a toothless hag.

This is all quite amusing.
'pompous hubris'
'nasty little man '
'pompous, patriarchal '

Unless we've moved into some sort of period drama, you're all as pompous as each other.

I'd love to be able to search how many times the word 'patriarchy' appears in SJF posts. SJF is a caricacture of how I see feminists. They're so funny.

' try living as a feminist under a patriarchy'

Now that made me laugh and laugh! I can imagine SJF with a cape, and a superman symbol on the chest, but instead of an S, there's a P on the front with a strike through it.

Usual Suspect,

This comment made me chortle the other day:

pelican: "The only thing that I don't like about OLO is it is very anti-female at times"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2024#41992

Its not that pelican is wrong. Its just having watched the girls demolish Steel in another thread, and seen some of the juvenile but aggressive arguments being made by the girls here, pelican's comment is a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Yes, the males often say things that make me wince (like Col Rouge's last post here for instance) - but the girls are more than a match for them at times. Press one of their hot button topics - something that deals with kids or family, and they can become ferocious.

Usual Suspect

'I'd love to be able to search how many times the word 'patriarchy' appears in SJF posts.'

I deliberately use it because I know how much anti-feminists hate it. Reading their huffy responses makes me go all goose-bumpy.

Rstuart

'Yes, the males often say things that make me wince (like Col Rouge's last post here for instance) - but the girls are more than a match for them at times.'

Waddya mean 'at times'? I'd say 'all the time'!

And I'm with pelican. In fact, I'd go much further and say that OLO is the most anti-female online forum I've ever been associated with (the commentary, that is, not the essays). Sooner or later, the females on these gender threads are given little choice but to take their gloves off.

SJF,

I see. So you deliberately incite people to anger using the word patriachy. I suppose this anger will then be evidence of misogyny right?

'(the commentary, that is, not the essays). '

Yes, the essays have a strong anti-male, feminist bias. Which brings out the anti-feminist reactions that you love to distort into an anti-female comments to justify your pre-existing world view.

I would like for you to point this mysterious thread out, rstuart. If you mean this one, then you must be a feminist with great loyalties to the movement, or to extreme socialism, or both. Or conversely you despise me for my opinions which are based as much as possible on fact, logic and reason.

Firstly, you cite pelican who describes the forum as anti-women. No one here is anti-women. They are anti-feminist. Those are big differences and your desire to twist it and play the classic misogynist card is noted (as is pelican's).

I don't even think you know what you are talking about. Assuming again you are talking about this thread, the argument you are defending is the control of all advertising for the express pruposes of making some women feel more comfortable with their appearance (not men, the sexism inherent in feminism was obviously lost on you like many unthinking fools). And punishing women who have found niche success in their personal beauty. Do you realise this? Do you know what that means? It means extreme socialism/chinese style communism, or worse. Government control of all media sources designed to attack 'beautiful' women and female models. This is the position you are defending. Do you know that?

I am wondering if any of you have been to the Henson exhibition.
Has the author of the article seen it?

SJF “'Yes, the males often say things that make me wince (like Col Rouge's last post here for instance) - but the girls are more than a match for them at times.'

Waddya mean 'at times'? I'd say 'all the time'!”

So you can think you are more than a match “all the time”

It is a shame your capacity for reason is not so well developed as your capacity for hubris.

She who makes demands with “What I care about is the thoroughly misguided belief that there should be absolutely no boundaries at all – legal or otherwise – on the work of those who wield influence over the cultural domain or over public opinion. “

And runs away from the question I asked “I would like you to define, preferably referring to statute (for legal at least), exactly what a “thoroughly misguided belief is“"

Obviously someone who talks the talk but can neither walk the walk or support with reason. It is all the talk of a malcontented under-achiever, frustrated by the constraints of her own shortcomings.

US “I see. So you deliberately incite people to anger using the word patriachy. I suppose this anger will then be evidence of misogyny right?”

In internet terms, they are known as “Trolls” (in this case a misandristic troll)

I am sure SJF has a nice little wooden bridge with broadband connected.

And SJF, do take your gloves off any time, I love a good old bitch slapping and am happy to crank up the rhetoric-notch some, when opportunity avails.

Col Rouge

Gee ... you really are a bit put out that I didn't jump to your original command to define that something or other, aren't you?

Didn't your mother ever tell you it's rude to keep badgering people, and didn't Mick Jagger once sing 'You cain't ahwl-weez git wot u wownt'?

I suggest two aspirins, a cup of tea and a lie down.

Usual Suspect

'I see. So you deliberately incite people to anger using the word patriachy.'

If the word 'patriarchy' is capable of inciting you to anger, perhaps you need to get out more. If it really upsets you that much, I could try using another word whenever I'm referring to a political system based on the domination of women by men. How about ... 'bananas'?

SJF,

'If the word 'patriarchy' is capable of inciting you to anger'

Heavens no. It incites me to laughter, as does any extreme feminist like yourself. I was talking about your own professed motives.

'political system based on the domination of women by men'
You are a card. Is it like the Legion of Doom? Better get your cape on!

"Sooner or later, the females on these gender threads are given little choice but to take their gloves off." http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7645#120254

"The feminist and ethical arguments within this issue have been buried under the same old avalanche of tedious tanties about wowsers trying to spoil everyone's fun/hold us back/keep us holy. The same emotional blackmail spouts forth on cue whenever the ethics of pornography gets debated"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7645#118926

The gloves are off, apparently there has been an "avalanche of tedious tanties" and "emotional blackmail" before that post which has forced SJF to come out swinging. They should be easy to locate, that post is only the 8th post on the thread.

1/ Ho Hum gives the catholic church a serve
2/ A very mild and sensitive post by Till
3/ CL Morgan gives Melinda a bit of a serve and suggests that she is free to avoid the magazine.
4/ Jay's post which SJF praises
5/ Veronika makes a very short comment - context ambiguous
6/ Grey mentions wowsers but my impression is that his post is a tongue in cheek parady not a genuine tanty about wowsers.
7/ Mr Right makes a post attacking photographs of naked people.
8/ SJF comes out swinging with the gloves off apparently provoked beyond reason by the preceding "same old avalanche of tedious tanties ...".

It looks like sooner wins out over later.

Unless whole pages of posts have been deleted it looks like SJF's claim of being forced into taking the gloves off is just a false claim to justify launching attacks on other posters. The person who comes out swinging first later claims that they were only defending themselves - yeah right.

R0bert

Steel: "I would like for you to point this mysterious thread out"

It was this one, started by you:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2005&page=0

Your final comment in it was:

Steel: "Ah hell.... say whatever you want... I don't much care."

Demolish was probably a poor choice of words. "Nagged to death" would be a better description perhaps? In any case you were clearly pursued by the girls until you have up.

From my point of view it wasn't a very illuminating exchange. I had to pick my way though the vitriol in order to tease out the arguments. To me it didn't look like the protagonists were really discussing the subject at hand, instead each was trying to prove they had the biggest dick by shouting the loudest. Sadly, I didn't check out SJF's comments before engaging her here, and thus ended up playing the same silly game.

If you want an example of a discussion which attacked the issue and not the person look at the exchange between Usual Suspect and Bronwyn here. I don't always agree with them, but I usually get to understand their viewpoint and why they think that way. Very occasionally they will argue so well I find myself changing the way I think. That is possibly the most rewarding experience I have here on OLO.

US “SJF is a caricacture of how I see feminists.”

Maybe its me but I did not associate SJF with being either sex, with a few exceptions, most posters I do not associate with either gender, quite androgynous in fact (or maybe just frustrated middle aged women of either gender)

SJF “Gee ... you really are a bit put out that I didn't jump to your original command to define that something or other, aren't you?”

My criticism to SJF is simple, having made demands for the curtailment of “thoroughly misguided beliefs”

I requested a definition of exactly what “thoroughly misguided” meant and therefore which beliefs were being challenged, since I consider the curtailment of public freedoms and serious issue.

SJF has repeated avoided any definition suggesting he/she lacks the intellect and character to stand behind his/her posts.

I will ask, once again, for SJF to explain the specific “thoroughly misguided behaviour” which he/she perceives as so serious it mandates being censored or curtailed by law.

When you can state clearly and unambiguously what you are talking about I will happily challenge it.

As for gloves off – yes you come across as a gloves off type, like some old slapper.

So bring it all on.

In the mean time, your reasons are no more developed than the petulant child who does not want to take a bath and hates its mother for demanding it be clean – you just stand and shout to no avail, no one cares for your bad manners and you are still going to get a soaking, metaphorically speaking.

US “Unless we've moved into some sort of period drama, you're all as pompous as each other.”

LOL maybe, although 'pompous in pursuit of a reason' is different to 'pompous in support of excuses'.

I am sure dear old Oscar Wilde would put it more eloquently

Rstuart “Yes, the males often say things that make me wince (like Col Rouge's last post here for instance)”

I am flattered that anyone reads them at all : - )

Like Melinda Tankard Reist, I sought out the offending issue of "Art Monthly", only to be told that it had been recalled. A later inspection of their rubbish bin uncovered the truth.
Unlike Melinda Tankard Reist, who plainly knows what she doesn't like, I found Laity's homage/distillation of a Hokusai woodcut, to be a hoot.
It's a male gaze alright, but a female fantasy...and it's been around a long time. Doesn't look like felatio to me! Just a slip of the tongue eh Melinda?
Has nobody seen the Henson exhibition?

Clink, do you mean THE exhibition, at Ros Oxley? No, I didn't know it was back up. (I'm not in Sydney.) Have you?

I saw the retrospective many years ago, and I've seen him whenever I had an opportunity since.

My subscription to Art Monthly ran out about two months ago, would you believe. I didn't bother renewing. Wish I had now. Having said that, I don't like Polixeni Papapetrou. It's all a bit too kitchy for me. I get what she's trying to do but I think Pierre et Giles and others were doing it much better a lot earlier.

SJF, what part of the art world have you found "ultra-conservative, ultra-patriarchal"? Clearly not Art Monthly, staffed entirely by women and/or poofs for the past decade. Clearly not the Ros Oxley, admirably presided over by Ros herself. I've also had stuff to do with the art world (I wouldn't claim to be actually *in* it, but I know a lot of people who are and I have freelanced in various galleries) and I honestly haven't seen its "ultra-conservative, ultra-patriarchal" underbelly. Or frontbelly. And I consider myself a feminist, although Steel will be disappointed to hear that I forgot to attend the seminar where they dolled out the "poisoned thinking processes".

As a feminist, I've got no problem with Henson or Papapetrou. As an art lover, I adore Henson and have little time for Papapetrou. I see far more danger in the bland conservatism of Dolly magazine and Bratz dolls.

I don't know that I quite believe in "the fashion industry". Haute Couture just looks like art to me, and websites like www.chictopia.com (and the thousand blogs that inspired it) show that young women are using the high end to inspire and fuel their creativity and street style.

The *proper* fashion industry — the haute couture one — has much to do with beauty and little to do with sex appeal. It's an industry of women and gay men. (Like much of the art industry.

Cont...

In the real world, men and women do want to attract each other. Some make it the be all and end all of their existence, others keep it in check. But it's part of us all. The big secret, I reckon, is happy, confident people end up attractive *enough*. Most people are models, but end up partnered all the same.

We'd do better if teach our daughters (and sons) about art, to stretch their malleable little science-experiment brains, than worry about whether Olympia Nelson is going to suffer later in life simply because of her mother's bad art and her father's hideous bow ties.

Anyway, blah blah blah.

I find this forum hilarious. My hoity-toity serve at Col was delivered after looking at his history and seeing how nasty he was to everyone he conversed with. From what I observed, he's neither clever nor stupid, and clearly obsessed with this site — which is fine — but also very invested in putting down others. It struck me as real meanness of spirit, but I was meansprited to point it out.

Veronika,

There was more concrete information about the topic at hand in your last two posts then there was in the article and the remainder of the comments combined. Well done and thanks.

rstuart

Thanks for having the decency to quote my 'anti-women' sentence completely unlike Steel who came up with this gem.

"Firstly, you cite pelican who describes the forum as anti-women. No one here is anti-women. They are anti-feminist. Those are big differences and your desire to twist it and play the classic misogynist card is noted (as is pelican's). "

I see this thread has deteriorted into a male vs female frenzy. And Steel as you well know (try and maintain some integrity please) my exact words were that the Forum can be anti-women at times. I find very few male posters on here to be anti-women; in fact I can count them on one hand, but the posters I put in that category are so vitriolic they stand out like the proverbial.

I was careful not to use the world misogynistic for a reason. Most of the posters I would include in the anti-women category do not hate women (bar one or two exceptions if their words are a true reflection of their feelings) but are so pent up and obsessed with their own personal experiences they cannot see the wood for the trees.

Rstuart said:
"Yes, the males often say things that make me wince...but the girls are more than a match for them at times. Press one of their hot button topics - something that deals with kids or family, and they can become ferocious."

I guess we all have hot topic buttons :). I am a mother and I guess true to my biology will protect my litter as they need. :)

There is more anti-women comment on here than anti-male. Steel's nonsense about anti-feminism as opposed to anti-women is bunkum. It is the same thing. Feminism is about equal rights for women and if you don't agree with that well I can't think of a better word than anti-women. What century are we living in?

Personally I would prefer a better word to feminist that is inclusive of both genders and ensures that equality (where possible) and fairness is our common goal.

OK,

I'll stoke the fire.

'Feminism is about equal rights for women and if you don't agree with that well I can't think of a better word than anti-women. '

Actually that post is the real fuel.

That whole statement is propaganda. I suppose it's a lot more honest than 'Feminism is about equality' though.

Feminism was started by those who desired women to have the same legal and professional rights and privileges that men had (such as the right to vote and access to education).

Although this has now been achieved in our society, the phrase 'equality for women' proposes a dogmatic assumption that women are still oppressed in overall relation to men. In fact, no matter what rights women were to obtain, even if they well exceeded men's rights, I'm sure this slogan would still be used.

When people are told that women are disadvantaged and "underneath" men and that this situation must be rectified, it easily follows that any action advancing women ought to be praised and any action advancing men threatens to widen this presumed gulf, and thus coerces the believer into objecting to it. Therefore, it creates a situation where objecting to any advancement to women, at any cost to men, is somehow evidence of being anti-women or misogynist.

Think of the end result. Men and women are under-represented in certain areas of life. Feminism equates under-represention with inequality. Feminism attempts to force equal representation with men in favourable things, but not in unfavourable things. Men are not forced into equal representation with women in areas where women are in a favourable position. The desired result of feminism is a Matriachy.

I would have no problem with feminism if it was called egalitarianism, and interested in true equality between the sexes in all areas. But it's not, it's an open-ended commitment to furthering the status of women at any cost to men.

pelican, I think part of the issue is that we tend to notice the negatives in stuff we disagree with more than that we agree with.

Have a snoop at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2031#42278 for the other side of this. Also SJF's posts on this and other threads are as anti-masculism (that naming problem again) as attacks on feminism.

Some do hate feminism, I think mostly because they don't equate it with seeking equality and a couple because of what appears to be religious views. I take the view that feminism covers a wide range of views, those genuinely working towards equality I support, those playing a power game to advantage women I disagree with in the same manner that I try to do with those supporting mens rights.

The labels are an issue, so many things can fit under the one blanket umbrella.

Cheers
R0bert

Usual Suspect I dispute the goal of feminism is matriarchy. Why would someone who believes patriarchy to be unfair turn around and advocate for more of the same just a different gender. Did you read the last sentence in that post?

Your post represents exactly what I think and have said as much in my last post (although not as eruditely as yourself). We have said exactly the same thing but in a different way so I am not sure what your problem is.

Feminism did not just emerge from the swamp for no inexplicable reason. Feminism was about equal rights for women at at time when women were seen as inferior to men in many ways - intellectually, emotinally and in the workforce. I have one elderly friend who supervised two men in her job (in the 1960s) and was on a lower pay rate. When people (either gender) are treated with respect and equality they tend not to 'revolt'.

The problem with the anti-feminist brigade is that they pick examples from websites of extreme feminists and spout them off as though this is what all feminists are about.

This would be like me quoting Hitler as representative of all vegetarians or atheists (as the religious nutters are apt to).

RObert
"pelican, I think part of the issue is that we tend to notice the negatives in stuff we disagree with more than that we agree with."

This is true RObert. Often when discussing these issues I find that, in essence, many of us are on the same page but there is still the tendency to defend one's gender from attack or perceived attack. But if you have read any of my past posts you would know that I agree that men often get the short end of the stick eg.in family court cases particularly with access to their children.

I don't see many concessions on the part of the usual suspects (not the moniker US) for women. That is my experience only on OLO I should say not out here in the real world. :)

pelican,

'Usual Suspect I dispute the goal of feminism is matriarchy. '
Well that's what I imagine when I CONSTANTLY hear from feminist commentators and on OLO "we've got a LONG way to go". When all evidence around me suggests we have near equity, certainly of opportunity, with the outstanding gender differences mostly wrapped up in personal choice, idiosynchrasies of culture and biological differences.

'I don't see many concessions on the part of the usual suspects '
I don't understand this supposed convention of outlining everything you agree with in any post you address. You can generally take it as read that if I disagree with one statement in a post, I generally agree with the rest of the post.

'The problem with the anti-feminist brigade is that they pick examples from websites of extreme feminists and spout them off as though this is what all feminists are about. '
Are these the very same web sites that have very derogatory views of what all men are about? I understand your point though, it also applies to people demanding Muslims 'denounce' any other Muslim that has a wacky opinion.

But the phrase you use 'Equality for Women' is pretty well worn from feminists. So is the use of misogynist for those who don't support all the goals of feminsim, that you have softened to anti-women. These aren't examples of 'extreme' feminism, they're pretty mainstream.

'We have said exactly the same thing but in a different way so I am not sure what your problem is.'
I thought I outlined it exactly. The propaganda of the phrase 'equality for women' and the assumption that anyone who doesn't agree with this is anti-women.

I think words such as feminist, misogyny, patriachy, 'equality for women', 'long way to go', 'glass ceiling', 'boys club', 'sisterhood' represent themes and grievences from the past, a chip on the shoulder of the modern women with no claims to such grievences, and an unfair projection onto modern men. Perhaps they should even be abandoned by older women, and be replaced by a celebration of what they have achieved.

US “Although this has now been achieved in our society, the phrase 'equality for women' proposes a dogmatic assumption that women are still oppressed in overall relation to men.”

I do so like to quote dearest Margaret on these matters and about 20 years ago, or so, she said

“The battle for women's rights has been largely won.”

More to the point she also said “The woman's mission is not to enhance the masculine spirit, but to express the feminine; hers is not to preserve a man-made world, but to create a human world by the infusion of the feminine element into all of its activities.”

She saw the goal not to reinforce masculinity and not to replace that with a feminist outcomes but to achieve the best ‘human’ outcome.

She spoke with a common sense that defies many. Then, she spoke so much common sense, no wonder she was, at her zenith, the most powerful woman in the world.

I note SJF has remained silent on definitions of “misguided behaviour”.

Me thinks her post itself was “misguided” in the first place.

And Veronika “I was meansprited to point it out.”

yes, “mean spirited” is, obviously, something you aspire to.

As for myself, I refer you to Rhett Butler’s famous parting line.

US

Bottom line is we are in agreement on the big picture if not some of the finer details. The ideal is for overall fairness and equality regardlesss of gender (or race etc).

Feminism has gained much for women in many spheres but in other ways it has also been detrimental but that is another issue.

R0bert

As you have written two bitchy posts about me here (with a hint of an ongoing grudge), and several on other OLO threads, I have the right to throw back some of the same.

Firstly, if you really practised the fairness and objectivity that you constantly preach, you would find that my OLO history contains many, many reasoned and respectful exchanges with many fair and reasonable men and women - not just on gender, but all the threads I have participated in. When I am dealing with fair, reasonable people, I treat them with fairness and reason.

When I refrain from treating certain posters with fairness and reason, this is an intellectual CHOICE I make, not an undisciplined emotional dump as you make out. Even then, they are just tongue-in-cheek rehashes of the pompous writing style that many of these anti-feminist posters adopt as a matter of course – while expecting to be treated with dignity in return.

I do not agree with the approach taken by other feminists here that one must be even-tempered and reasonable in the face of slanderous attacks on feminism. Not only do you end up wasting hours and hours in fruitless exchanges that go nowhere, I also believe this approach is simply an extension of the traditional male/female power structure – which deems that men can say whatever they like, but women must always conciliate.

And secondly, you and I have never hit it off because, among other things, I have often shown your statistics and methods to be either unethically selective or downright false. Underlying many of your posts is a weird crusade to prove that feminists generally use statistics and other research to distort the truth, when this is the very thing I have caught you out on on several occasions.

And lastly, if you intend to do a Col Rouge and provoke me in post after post to declare times, dates, links and commentary threads to back up every claim made here, save yourself the time – because the history is there for those who wish to look it up.

But is your ultimate goal a matriarchy, SJF? Doncha know that's what we're all gunning for.

Meanwhile, I wonder MTR thinks of the Blake Prize entrants. I'd like to see her bring her hammer-sharp art crit to the whole "jew on a cross" debate.

SJF, I referenced your own false claims and showed them to be just that. You've never shown my statistics and methods to be either unethically selective or downright false, rather you've made the claim that the methodology behind those stats is flawed and ignored the material showing that claim to be false. You've generally not even bothered to post material in support of your claims on that front let alone engaged in any honest debate about those claims.

You hide behind the idea of not needing to follow anybody elses instructions to avoid acknowledging that you can't back up your claims. I've posted a detailed summary which clearly shows that you have made false claims on this thread. The history was there when I chose to look it up. Where was the "same old avalanche of tedious tanties about wowsers trying to spoil everyone's fun/hold us back/keep us holy" you refered to? Rather you were trying to provoke such as response.

As Pelican points we tend to defend our own gender when it seems under attack, I think you are both trying to provoke those attacks and create the impression that feminism was under attack to create conflict.

Thankfully most of the other feminists here do take a different approach, they discuss the issues, trying to be fair in their dealings with others, defending feminism when it's under unfair attack but not seeking conflict for conflicts sake. Your choice to interpret that as "one must be even-tempered and reasonable in the face of slanderous attacks on feminism" says much more about your own attitudes than it does about feminists who want solutions rather than fruitless conflict.

R0bert

Veronika (RStuart)

‘SJF, what part of the art world have you found "ultra-conservative, ultra-patriarchal"?’

Some thoughts …

Despite its bohemian pretensions, the art world is heavily restricted in terms of what artists can and can’t paint and what galleries can and can’t exhibit and what funding bodies can and can’t grant. For example, my peace group has tried to establish a Peace Art Award, but none of the arts funding agents were willing to give us a grant because we were ‘too lefty’ and ‘too anti-war’.

Also, and unlike most people, I actually view the pornographic use of women’s bodies – artistic or otherwise – as socially conservative, not progressive. It’s been around at least since Roman times, and reached a zenith in the Victorian era. Heavily militaristic/religious/corporate/fascist societies are almost always sexually repressive – not because they don’t like sex, but because they fear its power and must control it. Yet, ironically, the more repressive the social landscape, the more pornography proliferates.

I believe that one of the reasons why pornography has proliferated so much in recent times is because we are living through a repressive dominator backlash against the liberalization of society in the mid- to late 20th century, that was really just another resurgence of the Enlightenment continuum.

I also view the ‘political’ control of women’s sexuality as a symptom of this deeply conservative backlash. The scantily clad woman of Western culture and the heavily veiled woman of Eastern culture are just two sides of the one conservative coin.

As I’ve indicated to RStuart a couple of times, and to his exasperation, I’m neither for nor against pornography or its censorship. I do believe, however, that discussions about pornography should not be viewed as a battle between those who are anti-sex/pro-sex, anti-censorship/pro-censorship and pro-progress/anti-progress. Eroticism is a very complex business.

Don’t know if this adequately addresses your query or whether it runs off on the wrong tangent. However, I felt I just wanted to get some of my ideas down regarding the original essay – instead of having to fruitlessly defend myself against anti-feminist ‘jerkery’

SJF, for the record - loved that last post. Some food for thought in it, you've expanded on ideas I already hold but which I've not explored. Social repression of sexuality does in my view lead to more extreme behind the scenes behaviour.

R0bert

SJF: "Not only do you end up wasting hours and hours in fruitless exchanges that go nowhere..."

But, with respect, isn't that exactly what you ended up doing, in your squabble with Col Rouge?

Thanks for your comprehensive answer about the art world. You've got a very interesting take on it, and I have a few responses.

One is that funding bodies don't determine what artists can paint. Some wonk inside the Australia Council mightn't like their art too anti-war, but George Gittoes is still one of Australia's most famous artists.

That's not to say that the art world is free from self-censorship of various stripes, but I can't see that it's "heavily restricted".

"I actually view the pornographic use of women's bodies – artistic or otherwise – as socially conservative, not progressive."
Fine, but I think you must also accept that many people, including me, see the nude in art (not in porn) as neither progressive nor conservative. The human body is the vessel we inhabit, and to seek to represent it in art is, as far as I'm concerned, basic, necessary, beautiful and never boring.

SJF: "I also view the 'political' control of women's sexuality as a symptom of this deeply conservative backlash. The scantily clad woman of Western culture and the heavily veiled woman of Eastern culture are just two sides of the one conservative coin."
Hmm. I agree with this in many ways, however I'm not sure that it's something I see in the art world particularly. In fact, I must say that in my own life I enjoy being in the art world because it frees me from the tight restrictions mainstream culture puts on beauty.

The rest of your post is really about pornography. I'm not averse to going off on a tangent but want to make it quite clear that a tangent I believe it to be — pornography and art are different things. Or do you argue they're one and the same?

SJF
“Col Rouge and provoke me in post after post to declare times, dates, links and commentary threads to back up every claim made here, save yourself the time – because the history is there for those who wish to look it up.”

What I asked was for you to define what a “misguided behaviour” might be, because there was a legal implication to what remedies you were considering and I dislike laws enacted from undefined definitions.

No dates no times, no links, no need to back up every claim you made.

And you have failed after me asking four times and still you decline to qualify what you mean by “misguided behaviour”.

Wriggle all you want, protest as vehemently as you want. But you cannot answer the simple question of

what you define “misguided behaviour” to be

“I also view the ‘political’ control of women’s sexuality as a symptom of this deeply conservative backlash.”

When you get right down to it, that is just a bunch of shallow words which mean nothing,

A dogma formulated on clichés.

Lets get to the reality, SJF

The truth is, you have no substance or reason for anything you say. You are just a bunch of sanctimonious clichés and weasel words which have no meaning because they are not supported by any reasoned thought,

You are the banner carrying activist marching in the streets but who doesnot understand the words on the banner you are carrying

You present as a shallow pretentiousness, desperately clung on to by a half wit.

If you had asked me to explain or define anything I would have tried to do so but I doubt you will,

the smug, conceited underachievers, with an exaggerated sense of self entitlement, never do.

Robert “Social repression of sexuality does in my view lead to more extreme behind the scenes behaviour.”

Yes but it is the sort of bunkum which wannabes fill their mind with.

It is the instant excuse, "blame all failure on sexual repression", for not living up to what an over-developed sense of self entitlement and self importance demands.

RObert
"As Pelican points we tend to defend our own gender when it seems under attack, I think you are both trying to provoke those attacks and create the impression that feminism was under attack to create conflict."

You are welcome to your view of course but I can assure you that when am on OLO my aim is not to provoke but to debate and learn something from other people.

If anything sometimes I find myself in the conciliatory position that SJF talked about. Just because someone disagrees with you does not mean that they are doing it with the intent of provocation. It does not take much to provoke on OLO.

Can you really read this whole thread through and argue that feminism or feminists were not under attack?

The truth is that some men will always see feminism as the enemy without acknowledging any positives and a close scrutiny to why it was even necessary in the first place. Why do movements like feminism arise?

Of course the ultimate aim should be something inclusive of fairness and equity for men, women (and children). But that ideal can only be served once all parties have equal rights and standing in a community otherwise 'fairness' will ony ever be defined to suit the goals of the superior group. That not only goes for gender but for race, economic prosperity and lifestyle choices.

PS

I meant to add that there also appears to be a problem with definition.

What some posters believe feminism or its goals to be, is not the same as others, so to some extent we are arguing at cross purposes.

Pelican

Good point. We learn a lot here on OLO.

For example, I didn't even know that feminism is actually a subversive organisation for eliminating men and establishing a dominant matriarchy.

All my life I thought that feminism was acknowledgement of and a fair go for all humans, not just men.

;-P

Col, SJF never used the term "misguided behaviour". She used the term "misguided belief". It was one belief, and she defined it within the sentence: "that there should be absolutely no boundaries at all – legal or otherwise – on the work of those who wield influence..."

It's a strawman belief — no one actually holds it. You'd be hard pressed to find someone to argue that artists should be exempt from normal legal boundaries.

Pelican poses the same question: "Does art hold a special place devoid of any responsibility in pursuit of this artistic freedom?"

The answer, clearly, is no — their rights and responsibilities are exactly the same as for rest of us. Those of us who support Henson and the artists that appear in Art Monthly argue that they have not reneged on those responsibilities.

Henson's work doesn't sexualise children, but it does provide portals through which we can view the sexuality they already possess. The children are beautiful, the landscape frightening. The usual comparison is to Caravaggio, but I can also see William Blake in there, and Ishiguro's book The Unconsoled. I'm sure some of you think this is the height of wankery. It seems revealing how you feel about the work honestly is seen as "pseudo-intellectual" in the OLO universe.

When I was a teenage girl I found his work startling and transforming and I loved it. In my view, as a teenager, Henson had not only honoured his responsibilities but added one — to tell the truth about adolescence.

I found MTR's art criticism absolutely laughable. It relies on her misinterpretation of the idea of dignity — she has taken it to mean that the subject of an artwork should look dignified.

pelican, I've apparently used some very poor phrasing.

When I said "I think you are both trying to provoke those attacks and create the impression that feminism was under attack to create conflict" I was refering to SJF trying to do two things not including you as a provoker. Woops, sorry, abject apologies etc. Poor wording on my part which I didn't notice till I saw your post. I mentioned what you said because it was a good point. My impression of you is also "when am on OLO my aim is not to provoke but to debate and learn something from other people."

As for feminism being under attack, it was clearly not under attack until SJF put forth her rallying cry. Have a look at the first 7 posts on the thread and then SJF's claim about an avalanch.

It bothers me because I think the unnecessary gender conflicts that some on both "sides" seem to love is a real hindrance to progress and understanding. If SJF had held off a bit some of the usuals (not refering to Usual Suspect) would probably have given her a basis for that claim but apparently that was taking too long this time.

Your comment seemed relevant because thats the behaviour that SJF seems to play off. Get people in defensive postures so they don't listen, don't open up and try to understand. I think SJF has some worthwhile stuff to say when she puts that down, yesterdays post about art and porn was thought provoking although at a guess I have a different interpretion to Col on one aspect of it.

Sorry if my phrasing caused you grief, that was unintentional.

R0bert

R0bert

‘As for feminism being under attack, it was clearly not under attack until SJF put forth her rallying cry. Have a look at the first 7 posts on the thread and then SJF's claim about an avalanch.’

This is another one of your typically false claims, based on typically subjective interpretations .

My comment was …

"The feminist and ethical arguments within this issue have been buried under the same old avalanche of tedious tanties about wowsers trying to spoil everyone's fun/hold us back/keep us holy. The same emotional blackmail spouts forth on cue whenever the ethics of pornography gets debated"

Where in this comment have I said that feminism was under attack? My argument was that the feminist viewpoint on pornography was not being adequately expressed. I was being critical of pro-pornographers, not anti-feminists. And if you look at posts # 1 and # 2, you may just see why.

My post was IN DIRECT RESPONSE to this comment from Jay Thompson at post # 4:

‘This has been largely a rehash of the creaky old 'art/porn/censorship' debate, and has been mostly devoid of significant feminist insights about the insidious nature of sexual exploitation. What feminist and pro-feminist writers (I fall into the latter group, as a male) need to constantly dois distinguish their criticisms from those of social conservatives who see ALL representations of nudity and sexual expression as bad, wrong and sinful.’

I endorsed Jay’s post because I agreed with his attempt to distinguish between feminist concerns about genuine sexual exploitation and the judgmental morality voiced by conservative women’s advocates like MTR.

And if my blunt writing style so upset your sensibilities, have a look at post # 11:

‘!@#$ing feminists again. Check this woman's submission history. Completely biased, sexist rubbish.’ (Steel)

So according to your logic, I set the scene at post # 7 for the gender conflict that followed because I endorsed Jay’s post about feminism at # 4 . And Steel bears NO responsibility for any gender conflict that took place after post # 11.

Veronika

A mish-mash of responses, I’m afraid, as I’ve some ground to make up (most recent first) …

‘It’s a strawman belief — no one actually holds it’

‘No one’ is a bit of a stretch. But, yes. Most people do not subscribe to complete censorship purity – as in ‘no boundaries’. It’s a straw belief in degree rather than essence.

‘… isn't [hours of fruitless exchanges] exactly what you ended up doing, in your squabble with Col Rouge?’

No. After my initial stance, I wrote a couple of brief retorts. Instead of hours, this only took about a minute. I cut my fruitless OLO time by about 99 per cent. However, the exchange with R0bert WAS fruitless and long but in my opinion necessary, as I was misrepresented.

‘… but I can't see that [the art world]’s "heavily restricted"

True. That was a slip of the pen. I tend to overstate the conservatism of the art world because it carries an aura of being progressive, which I believe is only partly justified.

‘— pornography and art are different things. Or do you argue they're one and the same?’

No. Not at all. However, explicit sexual imagery is part of the mainstream artworld now more than ever and is also making inroads into mainstream entertainment. I believe this to be a symptom of the social issues I talked about before.

Re ‘Jew on the Cross’, I’ve no idea what MTR would say about the pic. Maybe she’d take issue with the ‘Only women bleed’ part as being some commercial affront to menstruation (a million tampon ads notwithstanding).:)

‘But is your ultimate goal a matriarchy, SJF? Doncha know that's what we're all gunning for.’

Yeah … Like if we don’t have a patriarchy, then the only alternative must be a matriarchy. The concept that both halves of humanity can actually control a roughly 50-50 share of the world’s power, wealth, resources and cultural space is one that many people just can’t get their minds around. It’s so alien, we don’t even have a word for it. (Gynandry? Androgynacy? Gynandrarchy? … Justice?)

SJF,

'The concept that both halves of humanity can actually control a roughly 50-50 share of the world’s power, wealth, resources and cultural space is one that many people just can’t get their minds around.'

Fractelle,

'All my life I thought that feminism was acknowledgement of and a fair go for all humans, not just men.
'

Ah, so funny. I love it how feminists somehow believe that the rich powerful men in the world hold their power for all men, and all men then hold such power by proxy, to keep the women folk downtrodden, as per order of 'the patriachy'. And you're laughing at matriachy conspiracies...

I have been following with interest the argument about art and naked children. I am curious as to what makes naked children more 'artistic' than clothed ones. Or is it just that the artist needs nudity in order to be seen as 'artistic'.
There is no doubt that children are not legally able to give informed consent to their nude public display, however it is interpreted and used by the viewer. Their rights should be protected ahead of adults' rights to prurient consumption of sexualised nude child imagery.
Henson said he had parental consent for his depictions of naked children, and Olympia's parents gave consent - but of course grooming parents to provide access to their children is part of a skilled child sex offender's stock in trade, so that doesn't make it ok. Using your own children for sexual gratification and exploitation is another avenue for child sex offenders to gain satisfaction and enrichment, so that doesn't make it ok. But of course this is ART and it seems therefore that makes adult voyeurism of naked children cool, sophisticated and legal. Toss me some emporer's clothes.

Usual Suspect: "Ah, so funny. I love it how feminists somehow believe that the rich powerful men in the world hold their power for all men, and all men then hold such power by proxy, to keep the women folk downtrodden, as per order of 'the patriachy'. And you're laughing at matriachy conspiracies..."

Huh? Which feminists believe that? And how does this absurd idea of downtrodden women folk relate to the quotes from Pelican and SJF?

The debate is about art, but I feel as if I have walked into a pre-existing and intractable argument about feminism. I found it very weird, US, that you called one of Pelican's posts "propaganda". This is a heavy-handed claim to make about a post that certainly argued its point, but read to me like deeply held personal belief. It seems the template for posts, ON BOTH SIDES, is to trivialise/exaggerate/distort someone else's ideas, then insult them.

To what end though? No one seems to change their mind. No one is honing their argument because they're not actually listening to the others.

Bah! Sorry for the frustration. It just came a'tumbling out. SJF, you raise interesting points, but I'll have leave y'all to it.

*cue inevitable "thank god she's gone" style comments*

Veronika

Apologies, I was dangling a line, simply because I have said all I have to say about the Henson/art/porn debate on other threads. The link below sums up my POV:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1831&page=0#36430

Anyway, I dangled a line and I caught the Usual Suspect. Too funny.

SJF, "the exchange with R0bert WAS fruitless " - hope not. I'm having a think about your comments and I can see that there is another meaning possible to them. I've not managed to work out where the "same old avalanche of tedious tanties about wowsers trying to spoil everyone's fun/hold us back/keep us holy" occurred.

If I've misread you it is unintentional. I accept that I may have interpreted your comments based on my perceptions of past disagreements with you - not a grudge but a perception which is impacted by different styles. Frankly I'd rather be wrong, if I am that gives scope for better dialog in the future.

R0bert

Veronica,

'Which feminists believe that?'
The ones who still bang on about a patriachy in a society where men and women have equal rights and opportunity. Patriachy is a "straw man" feminists use to paint all men with one broad brush to trash them by bringing up actions of men long ago.
It's the concept that any & all male power is a bad thing, and that men will use their power to oppress women. ALL men... ALL bad... ALL acting with some supposed collective mindset.

'And how does this absurd idea of downtrodden women folk relate to the quotes from Pelican and SJF?
'
I didn't even quote pelican in the post you are referring to. As for SJF, see...

'And if you really want a taste of extremist totalitarianism, try living as a feminist under a patriarchy'

'very weird, US, that you called one of Pelican's posts "propaganda'"
I called the phrase 'equality for women' propaganda. Pelican happened to use it, and then posted anyone who doesn't agree with this is anti-women. I rightly pointed out the flaw in this argument.

'pre-existing and intractable argument about feminism'
That's because the author is a feminist, and these topics always bring out the women as victim brigade, and the men sick of hearing it brigade. The absence of discussion about naked boys ensures feminist overtones, as does MTR past form.

'*cue inevitable "thank god she's gone" style comments*'
That's a lot more 'weird' than citing propaganda in slogans used by feminists. Passive aggressive, persecution complex, attention seeking or seaching for validation. Have your pick, I wont bother to work out which applies.

Usual Suspect, this author is more than a feminist. She's apparently a catholic pro-lifer who leads a women's forum in Australia. In other words, she represents with her opinions and articles here, the essential point I've been trying to get people to realise. Religious extremists have a close alliance with feminists. Both shield the other from association and this author chose not to reveal her links to extreme pro-censorship politicians of the past in her profile description. This is very telling. Australia is being compromised by dual ideologies of feminism (what you're saying here is correct) and the religious who want theocracy. Unwitting women and men -as you can see here-are finding themselves defending these damaging agendas and the people who deceive and use them.

Be afraid, be very afraid......

We are in danger of a Catholic Feminist Conspiracy, bent on world domination. Eeeeeek.!

I've started digging my bomb shelter now. Can't be too prepared.

Fractelle you are a card - any more room in your bunker. :)

Veronika you are correct this thread seems to have got side tracked a bit.

"The answer, clearly, is no — their rights and responsibilities are exactly the same as for rest of us. Those of us who support Henson and the artists that appear in Art Monthly argue that they have not reneged on those responsibilities."

Veronika you do put forward some well reasoned and rational arguments but I disagree in part with the statement above. From what I have read in various media is that (some) artists have argued that art should be or is absolved of any of the usual hindrances or responsibilities merely for the sake of art itself. Or put another way, artistic freedoms as the 'first freedom' above all other rights,freedoms or responsibilities. Not all artists of course would hold that view.

I am a bit like Fractelle in that my arguments have been repeated in many other threads on this issue so I am now desisting so as not to sound like a broken record.

RObert
No problems. I thought that might be the case as you are generally a calm and rational male voice on these issues. You always appear to look objectively to see many things from more than one side of the debate, even if we disagree at times on some issues. :)

I'm bowing out of this thread too.

As a parting comment ... the thing that I have found sad about the thread is that hardly anyone actually addressed MTR's central argument - that is, that the Art Monthly editors were sending mixed messages about child nudity and dignity, when seen within the context of the rest of the issue.

After all ... if you are trying to give dignity to artistic portrayals of female child nudity, then it's a bit counterproductive to include features elsewhere in the same issue about artists who portray women as trussed up schoolgirls with exposed genitals. (I haven't seen the issue. I'm taking MTR's word for it.)

And R0bert...

Your contrition is noted. However, please use your trusty little truth scalpel more sparingly in future. If you can't do that, then please apply it more evenly to both sides. Your crusade seems to be more about exposing feminists who distort, rather than exposing those who distort feminism

SJF, "Your crusade seems to be more about exposing feminists who distort, rather than exposing those who distort feminism"

I'll take that observation on board. I do try to be even but I do not always succeed. With HRS marking the extreme on the anti-feminist side everybody else has a tendency to look somewhat moderate. I find it frustrating how much crap feminism in general cops from some.

As for engaging in the topic, I suspect that most are somewhat over the whole issue and MTR's take looks just like another spin on it (although the desription of the other feature sounds more like kinky porn than art).

R0bert

No one has distorted feminism in this thread. No one (well unless I missed some posts...). We are all used to being taught it's all fine and it's all harmless. It's not and we have been seeing the effects and policies over the last few years particularly. MTR is a pro-life Catholic who advised a rabid pro-censorhip senator. She conceals this in her profile. Ask yourself why.. This is extremely relevant to the article and it's intentions. No normal person would have given any of this a second thought, unless you are an ignorant philistine and then it's reasonable. But in that case it would also be reasonable and normal to be a homophobe, or a racist. Feminists who are moderate and exist in the ether of society are not relevant to the political situation, except to be used by people like MTR to support their activist (often hidden) agendas.

Steel, to some extent moderates of anything are not well represented politically. Where we make the difference is when we stop letting the extremists hold the day. When we talk across the fences (or even pull down the fences) and get some understanding of the other side of the picture.

Continued attacks on feminism hinder dialog with the moderate feminists. It reinforces perceptions of men who are concerned about issues impacting on men as being anti-female regardless of how it seems to the men involved. You may consider the moderates irrelevant, I consider them vital.

When people are under attack they generally go on the defensive rather than listening. If you have concerns with the extremes of feminism you are not going to get the moderates to trust you enough to listen and try to understand while you continue to attack feminism as a whole.

Most of the feminists on OLO do really work hard to listen and understand, most are quite up front in admitting that there are areas where men cop a raw deal. It's so easy to get trapped in a cycle of attack, where we take the worst interpretation on comments by the other side, we look for the slights and focus on the errors more than the truths. Possibly thats what I've done with SJF's comments.

MTR should declare her motivations more fully, those who've read her writing and seen the odd TV appearance over time propbably don't need that to get the picture. I doubt that many of the feminists around here consider her a voice that represents them particularly.

If you want to ensure that moderate feminists are awake up to the MTR's of the world then talk to them about concerns rather than just attacking feminism.

R0bert

oh hello.

I just had to come back to this thread because, since I left it, I got hold of a mate's Art Monthly for a squizz. I also found an excellent comment on Art Monthly here: http://artsjournalist.blogspot.com/2008/07/art-monthly-editor-plays-into-hettys.html

After having seen it and read that comment I appreciate your point SJF.

As to the rest of the comments, I'm one of the moderate feminists you talk of, and I agree that this is a forum to avoid.

MTR is an odd person. She's a pro-life feminist who emphasises the feminism rather than her religion it's more likely to appeal to young pregnant girls than Catholicism is. She's very sincere about her beliefs. I agree she should be upfront about her associations, but most people who know something about her know she staffed Harridine.

MTR has a bit of power. She can get an op-ed in The Australian and she gets invited on Lateline. But I know a lot of people who can get an op-ed in The Australian, and a couple who get invited on Lateline. She is invited to represent her particular point of view. Senator Harridine was an independent — she doesn't have the ear of government. Her agenda is primarily to eradicate abortion. That's fine, it's a free country and she exercises her rights to lobby for the end of abortion in various ways. But she's NOT going to win. The so-called moderate feminists won the abortion debate long ago, and the status quo will prevail.

Getting the message out about her agenda is important, and my feminists mates have been trying to point out MTR isn't one of us for a long time.

Steel, you are of course free to believe that feminism and the religious right have formed an unholy alliance. But I'd encourage wider research in this area. http://unbelief.org/ is a great website dedicated to opening up the religious right to scrutiny.

I've never met a feminist who things women should advance at ANY cost to men. But if they exist, I will fight them with you.

Pelican

You are welcome in my bunker anytime - we agree on much that we'd feel comfortable and disagree on enough to make our time interesting.

Veronika

I agree completely with your take on MTR - I don't think any woman who believes in her own autonomy and reproductive rights is hoodwinked by her.

Steel - you continue to alienate an intelligent group of people who actually share your views on many issues, but your rants on feminism are too hostile and tend to neuter any credibility you have.

Veronika>"Steel, you are of course free to believe that feminism and the religious right have formed an unholy alliance."

That's not the impression I was trying to give. They're not allied, but they certainly share a common goal (or goals), which is heavy censorship. For the division of feminism that has great political influence and activism, it's a fact.

Veronika>"I've never met a feminist who things women should advance at ANY cost to men. But if they exist, I will fight them with you."

Sometimes these things happen as unintended consequences or as side effects of policy/debate frameworks. The whole debate/policy is skewed by the debate around feminism, rather than an equal debate. Feminism should no longer exist, unless there is a balance to the scale, or if it were merged into a single consideration about "human affairs, or something".

There several key areas which show this all to be true. One of which is the circumcision debate.

Don't get me wrong, I am not opposed to some feminists at all, just like I think Steel Mann is a shining example of a true Christian (though no doubt I will disagree with him on something), he is an insignificant minority when it comes to policy and lawmaking.

Veronika

"Getting the message out about her agenda is important, and my feminists mates have been trying to point out MTR isn't one of us for a long time."

I too consider myself a moderate feminist, and while I don't support Melinda's views on abortion or religion, I agree with her stance on other issues. It's just part of the natural give and take of living in a pluralistic society. There's no agenda. I have to say you're sounding as paranoid as Steel!

I particularly applaud Melinda's strong advocacy on the premature sexualization of young girls. To me, this is an obvious feminist position to take and not a religious, conservative or moralistic one at all.

Feminism is and should be a broad church and with respect, Veronika, I think Melinda has as much place within its ranks as you and your 'feminist mates' and anyone else who wants a fair go for women.

Bronwyn: "Feminism is and should be a broad church and with respect, Veronika, I think Melinda has as much place within its ranks as you and your 'feminist mates' and anyone else who wants a fair go for women."

So do I, which is why I called her a feminist, and emphasised her right to free speech. But I don't like the way MTR and her organisation exert pressure on young, vulnerable girls to continue with pregnancies they may not really want. (I'd feel the same way if I saw an abortion clinic encouraging girls to have abortions, rather than give women as much info as possible and help them make an honest, independent position.)

She also calls for a moratorium on research into cloning with which I fundamentally disagree.

At the same time, I believe MTR very sincere in her beliefs, and she's an intelligent woman. I'm really not a conspiracy theorist and I do understand how far MTR's cultural and political influence extends. As I said earlier, she won't overturn abortion law in this country, but she keeps the religious/conservative home fires burning and she's lighting sparks for a new generation.

In short, I strongly disagree with her, but I understand she's a feminist and I'd defend her right to say whatever it is she's got to say.

I probably sounded a bit ridiculous talking about my feminist mates, so you're right to call me on it. While I'm making concessions, Usual Suspect was right to pick me up on "*cue inevitable "thank god she's gone" style comments*". The earlier part of my post was honest frustration and annoyance, but that did come across passive aggressive. So forgive me on both counts

Veronika and Bronwyn

I agree with the points you have raised regarding MTR and her right to free speech.

However I am disturbed that you feel you should 'qualify' your belief in feminism.

For example Bronwyn: "I too consider myself a moderate feminist..."

This is similar to the position that many Muslims feel themselves in, that they have to qualify themselves as moderate in order not to be regarded as a terrorist or fundamentalist.

I am a feminist because I believe in equal opportunities for all regardless of gender. That is the starting point. From there we (feminists) may be religious or atheist, Liberal or libertarian... whatever. But I am not going to be forced to qualify myself because of the sniping by some who have a chip on their shoulder regarding feminism.

As you say feminism is a very broad church, and as such, MTR has her place.

However please consider the following excerpt:

"Now, perhaps, as the Feminists for Life literature says, it is possible to oppose all forms of legal abortion -- even those that would save the life of the pregnant woman -- and still be a feminist.

But if one were to take such a stance and consider oneself a feminist, one would certainly believe that women should have access to contraception, right? Apparently not if one is a member of Feminists for Life, an organization that refuses to take a stand on whether or not contraception should be legal. (Note that few, if any, Protestant denominations take issue with the use of any kind of contraception, although some religious-right anti-abortion organizations regard the morning-after pill as an abortificant.)

When Feminists for Life has chosen to address the issue of contraception, it has invariably been to point out the health hazards posed in particular forms of birth control"

From :
http://www.alternet.org/rights/43241/the_stealth_%27feminists%27_who_oppose_abortion/

Do 'Feminists for Life' remind you of anyone?

One thing I do know, the price of freedom is constant vigilance as a result I tend to view MTR's concerns for women, in a very circumspect manner indeed.

Bronwyn>"It's just part of the natural give and take of living in a pluralistic society. There's no agenda. I have to say you're sounding as paranoid as Steel!"

In this case it's just take. You are taking the liberty of these girls and replacing it with a sexist ideology. There is no paranoia here as everything I've said is a fact. The "x is paranoid" card is simply stained and dirty.

Bronwyn>"Feminism is and should be a broad church "

Now how interesting...I presume other feminists may question politely, but not attack the "priests" or the church and it's teachings. I suppose this is why you have chosen to correct Veronika and assert the authority of this 'priest'.

Bronwyn>"I particularly applaud Melinda's strong advocacy on the premature sexualization of young girls."

This really is looking like a key slogan. And any targets deemed suitable are used for the agenda,which is sickening. You cared not a jot for the young boys in an exhibition held in support of Henson. And this proves that this whole campaign was extremely sexist and nothing about the children at all. It was about your church. Your ideology. The models involved have disagreed with you 100%, as have their parents. They did not appreciate people like you speaking in their place and exploiting them. You've sought to drown out their voices.

Bronwyn>"To me, this is an obvious feminist position to take and not a religious, conservative or moralistic one at all."

It's both.It's a feminist position and it's all three of the above. How interesting that you should reveal this. You can read BOAZ' article about skimpy *clothes* to know it's religious and also see Melinda's hidden extreme religious views. It's certainly a conservative one. And moralistic? It's greatly moralistic. In fact it's so moralistic that the models involved have been abused by media agents and exploited for Hetty's and Melinda's agenda and your "feminist church", demonised and characterised as sluts/revolting by these people for openly, tentatively, exercising their freedom and free will.

Fractelle, before you start throwing around phrases like "chips on shoulders" to legitimate criticisms, I would first consider that the whole league of feminists have them, including yourself. No more so than those feminists who despise women's success in the fashion industry.

Fractelle>"I am a feminist because I believe in equal opportunities for all regardless of gender."

That is nothing but a rationalisation of your sexism. You are certainly an extreme minority, as 99% of feminists would disagree with you. Also there is no reason for feminism to be called what it is if it's about both genders. The level of baldness in such a stance is amazing, considering your support of Bronwyn whose only concern was for the "premature sexualisation of young **girls**", and only girls. It's like seeing a racist describe their love of all peoples, no matter what race. If you support both genders you can lose the title and send a memo to the rest of the feminist population.

Fractelle>"That is the starting point. From there we (feminists) may be religious or atheist, Liberal or libertarian... whatever."

This is another great description of your ideology and indoctrination. In your "broad church" of feminism, you think you are feminist before all else, even athiesm, which is the natural birth state of man..... Are you reminding feminists that their priorites are first and foremost to the "broad church" of feminism? If this is the case, you have just revealed how closely you identify with this, as if you associate it with your gender alone...it would be strange for a man to be a feminist before all else, wouldn't it?

Fractelle>"One thing I do know, the price of freedom is constant vigilance"

Are the general population vigilant? No. Are feminists who are part of The Church? Of course not. I find the necessity to use religious symbolism (and it has been noted) to describe your relationship and support of feminism to be egregious. Religion requires faith, not reason or facts. Hence your choices here are corrosive because of this reliance on faith above reason and logic.

Veronika

"I probably sounded a bit ridiculous talking about my feminist mates, so you're right to call me on it."

It's always refreshing to see posters willing to make concessions. Much appreciated! It's also good to see another strong and articulate voice picking up the feminist baton here on OLO. We've lost a few such voices lately, so your presence is very welcome!

"But I don't like the way MTR and her organisation exert pressure on young, vulnerable girls to continue with pregnancies they may not really want."

I agree, if this is the case. I'm not sure how much pressure Melinda actually exerts, but I don't follow the abortion issue all that closely so won't attempt to defend her on that score. Like you, I too believe that all women should have the right to choose abortion if that seems the best option to them in their particular circumstances. Some of Melinda's criticisms on both abortion and cloning though do resonate with me to some extent, particularly those relating to medical control and long-term health issues.

Fractelle

“However I am disturbed that you feel you should 'qualify' your belief in feminism.

For example Bronwyn: ‘I too consider myself a moderate feminist...’

Good to see you back again!

I agree entirely. We shouldn't need to qualify our position.

Declaring myself a 'moderate feminist' was purely a response to the following phrase of RObert's - "If you want to ensure that 'moderate feminists' are awake up to the MTR's of the world..."

I mostly try to keep my tone 'moderate', but I've never cared whether or not I'm hugging the middle ground in any debate!

Hi Bronwyn,

Sorry to take so long to reply, but with regards your comment of "When I see intelligent people like yourself though, denying we even have a problem,", and with many of the subsequent posts:

With many of the issues in the world today, there will always be a negative to most situations, and in trying to put it right one has to ensure that the cure is not worse than the disease. This will depend largely on the background of each person.

For example, I consider that abortion is tragedy, however, the consequences of banning it are even worse. The only real option is to find a middle ground to try and exclude the excesses of either extreme.

Likewise, I am not happy with the sexualisation of children, but the brave new world that some are advocating where I need to self censor myself in case I might cause some minor offense, is even worse.

The middle ground where child porn is banned, but artists can still be controversial is where we are right now.

Bronwyn

I am so glad that you didn't take my comments personally. I enjoy all your contributions here whether or not we agree. You always make me think and re-evaluate my position.

I am so fed up with having to justify myself before so many judgemental posters like Steel or Usual S, BEFORE even getting to writing my opinion
on a topic. That we have to declare ourselves as a type of feminist is really appalling.

I don't see Steel justifying HIS position, yet he feels free to even question what I as a woman, believe feminism to be. And the ultimate irony is that we actually agree on our distinctions between art and porn. But you wouldn't think so.

With people like you, Pelican, Foxy, R0bert we can communicate and agree to disagree - that is soooooo encouraging. What a boring world if we all thought the same.

Keep up the thoughtful and well reasoned contributions. I do understand where you are coming from in this debate. My issue is that because we are so uncomfortable with sex and sexuality, that it (and us) continues to be exploited by our advertising media, hard-core pornographers and misanthropes in general.

Despite that fact it is an uphill battle I still strive towards an ideal that we can accept each other as valid individuals rather than capitulate to those who are trying to force a dogmatic cap on human endeavour.

>"I don't see Steel justifying HIS position"

This has been ongoing. I can't post all the justifications for my position every post, but I certainly did hint at it a couple back.

>"yet he feels free to even question what I as a woman, believe feminism to be. "

I may have been a little harsh but I used your own words, and those of others. You said there can be no distinction between feminists, hence MTR's views (and those of others) must be taken as part of the whole. Also more than one of you described feminism as a church. I never made this description.

Feminism could never have been conceived as a permanent movement, or at least it was never going to be one. All these activist movements will one day be obsolete. I think that day has more than arrived with the bias in our legal system and lawmaking (not just here, but in the US and Britain). I've learned of many incidents but one perfect example which I mentioned earlier (and which you did not pick up on...not really surprising to me though) is the institutional view of feminists that circumcision, specifically....only female circumcision.......is to be outlawed. This position shows extraordinary sexism and callous disregard for male children. This shows us that it is about sexism. Without feminism or in a truly gender neutral society or movement, these activists would not ignore a child about to be violated merely because he has the wrong gender.

I spoke about the non-permanence of movements like feminism and their increasingly frequent harmfulness. This corrosion and entropy can be seen in such small examples as this, for the racial equivalent (of feminism... don't read this analogy too literally as i consider them slightly differently, however the harm caused and the entropy is the same): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oc1zGRUPztc

Steel I think I brought the term "broad church" into the discussion (borrowing from little Johny). It's a way of saying the feminism covers a lot of ground with widely differeing views/beliefs in many areas and some common ground as well. It's not meant as a full scale parallel with religious faith.

I get there from time to time as well so I may be in a house which contains quite a lot of glass but one of the problems with harsh words when gentler ones will do is that they become fighting words rather than creating understanding.

It's sometimes easier to be stuck in a cycle of conflict than to try and step back and see the other side or to be the one to step away from the conflict and try and turn it to something else.

R0bert

I get really lost in these 'I'm a feminist, but I have defined for myself what feminism is' kind of debates you people throw up. A couple of things are clear.

Feminists on OLO all have a different definition of feminism.

Feminists who have actually been published, have quite often had lots of derogatory things to say about men.

Men who reject feminism based on this or on particular disagreements with feminist lobby groups, are thought of by these OLO feminists as anti-women at best, or really just misogynists.

OLO feminists see any attack on feminism as an attack on women, or on the principle of gender equality, or on their values which they somehow feel they are being forced to justify.

But they somehow cant understand men seeing feminism as an attack on men, when all the words like feminism, patriachy, misogyny, are so loaded with anger, resentment and hatred of men from gender inequity of the past.

It gets to me that men brought up with ideals of true gender equity, in a society that goes pretty close to achieving it, get cast off as some kind of woman hater because they don't agree with the unquestioned persuit of 'feminism'; the exclusive, open ended furthering of women. It's somehow thought they have a chip no their shoulder, not the women who are brought up with equality, yet still bang on about past injustices from before they were born.

The men who critisize feminism, shouldn't have to justify/qualify their position by prefacing that they believe in equality, don't hate women and don't want to wind the clock back 50 years.

Usual Suspect. That seemed like a very honest expression of what you felt, so thanks for that.

There are many different definitions of feminism. Like Fractelle, I enjoy that, it means its culture is dynamic. I disagree with Melinda Tankard Reist on pretty much everything, but she's not the devil incarnate and if she thinks she's breaking down gender barriers then fine. I will argue with her. Similarly, if you think feminism has had its day, I disagree, but I do get what you're saying — you're clearly smart enough to have a frank discussion about it.

As I said before, what I dislike about this forum is when posters misrepresent others' positions, then just pay out of them. That's dumb.

I haven't seen all any instances of the men of this forum being called "misogynist". I actually did a search of old threads, because, in my nosy fashion, I wanted to know which posters were using the term and what prompted it. I can't find any — BUT I actually found the word "misandrist" a couple of times. (Including in this thread.) Having said that, I didn't trawl through every post, and you say you've got it so you've got it. So, out of interest, which OLO feminists have called you misogynist?

Good question Veronika.

U-Sus

Maybe the lyrics to an old song will help you:

"Some girls will, some girls won't
Some girls need a lot of lovin' and some
girls don't
Well, I know I've got the fever but I don't
know why
Some say they will and some girls lie
So here I am in front of you
Not really knowing what to do
My heart is feeling something new
Nervously I turn away from you
I see the looks you're sending me
Is this the way it's meant to be?
It's something we should talk about
Just give me time to work it out
Some girls will, some girls won't
Some girls need a lot of lovin' and some
girls don't
Well, I know I've got the fever but I don't
know why
Some say they will and some girls lie
I find your company to be
Something completely new to me
Now that I know you socially
Obviously I'll fall heavily
I've seen those looks you're sending me
This is the way it's meant to be
There's nothing left to talk about
Oh, how I wish you'd work it out
Some girls will, some girls won't
Some girls need a lot of lovin' and some
girls don't
Well, I know I've got the fever but I don't
know why
Some say they will and some girls lie."

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=RCykn0_Fh6A

Enjoy

Veronika>"haven't seen all any instances of the men of this forum being called "misogynist"..I can't find any."

Not all of these are directed at specific posters, but there it's a core part of feminism to use the term.
-=-=-=-=-
"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."-TurnRightThenLeft, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 5:35:31 PM

"But once again, we shouldn't let mere facts get in the way of a good misogynist rant :)"-mahatma duck, Wednesday, 12 October 2005 11:28:02 PM

"Song lyrics have always been filled with sexual innuendo and pushed society's boundaries but this in-your-face mainstream misogyny is relatively new."-Dannielle Miller - posted Tuesday, 8 April 2008

"If someone even questions why 1 in 4 pregnancies results in a visit to an abortion clinic, then that person must belong to the religious right, they are misogynist........."-HRS, Sunday, 27 July 2008 9:59:08 AM

"feminists *do* protest loudly against female genital mutilation. western feminists work together with feminists within the relevant culture to bring an end to this misogynist practice"-jocelynne, Friday, 22 June 2007 4:20:24 PM

"Whether it is caused by................, boys are taught to look on themselves as flawed, anti-social and misogynist."-Kevin Donnelly Monday, 8 September 2003

"Also why haven't you called C.J Morgan a misogynist, after saying several negative things about wives."-HRS, Monday, 30 June 2008 10:52:38 AM

"pelican: "The only thing that I don't like about OLO is it is very anti-female at times"-pelican, Saturday, 2 August 2008 6:11:29 PM

"John E. Carey's typically misogynist attack on Plame says much about the damage done to his (Carey's) US Republican causes."-plantagenet, Wednesday, 21 March 2007 11:16:18 AM

"It’s a very complex issue that misogynists like HRS and Stickman deliberately trivialise, and treat the issue as if the women make these choices out of free will and then spin it into a men’s issue."-Celivia, Tuesday, 17 June 2008 1:49:14 PM

"HRS was a fine case in point, when he was simultaneously stating that a)...... and d) this isn't misogyny."-TurnRightThenLeft, Friday, 1 August 2008 12:12:59 AM
-=-=-=-=

Steel, this list made me laugh. HRS was the first person I encountered on this forum, and to see him used as an example of a feminist using the word misogynist is hilarious. To find out why, read a couple of his posts. You've quoted him twice — three times if you count TurnRightTurnLeft quoting him, but you'd better believe he would have been claiming feminists were calling HIM misogynist rather than using it as an adjective to describe men. Kevin Donolley is also talking about boys being called misogynist. Pelican made a distinction between anti-female and misogynist in this thread.

There are four genuine examples, although I note one is three years old. I really disagree that female genital mutilation is misogynistic, because it is practiced by women. Like most feminists, I condemn both female and male circumcision, but I think both are culturally-based, not evidence of a hatred toward the gender.

Anyway, I just raised this because a couple of posters seem to imply that it's common for feminists to call men misogynist. I'd certainly say that if you can only find four real examples since 2005 it's certainly not rampant on this forum. As I said earlier, I found two examples of men calling women "misandrist" in threads that are currently ongoing. (Including this one, when Col Rouge calls SJF "a misandristic troll".) Not that I'm suggesting it's a competition. Or if it is, both sides are losers as far as I'm concerned — cliche thought it is, I think it's true that name-calling usually tells you more about the name caller than person who has been called a name, and it doesn't interest me as a tactic. I just wanted to be clear about who, if anyone, was bandying "misogynist" around and why.

What's this Veronika - do you mean that HRS isn't really a feminist?

Take that back immediately, or s/he'll set Timkins on to you :O

There are more examples, I can assure you. That was page one only.