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.)