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.