"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.