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