<nevitably end up constructing themselves in terms of male ownership. Rejecting one man, by identifying oneself as the spoken for property of another man, is hardly empowering and merely reduces women to the status of chattel. Moreover, this line does not encourage men to respect women: it merely reinforces the “brotherhood code” that says that you “do not touch another man's property”.>

As far as I know there aren't any slave markets in Australia where men can purchase women, and besides there are laws against slavery in this country.

So it not possible for anyone to lay a legal claim that another person is their property.

Although I do know that some women do assert their claim over what they regard as being their property.

Nina this article says more about you than the issue you purport to raise.
The issue of ownership is in your mind.
As for the ‘brotherhood’ you must be kidding. That only applies if at all only to partners of close friends more an issue of loyalty/respect a mates feelings rather than ownership.

When I’ve heard that comment I simply assume that the woman in question is simply indicating HER commitment to someone else or alternatively she doesn’t fancy me.

Given people tend to make opinions in the first 15-30 seconds they are often subject to error. Consider this hypathetical I see a stunning woman who interests me; I’m a little shy so I have liquid courage, stand and ponder then after some time, controlling my insecurity I approach you… and am dismissed with a look and ‘no thanks’. I am deflated, embarrassed, insecure and momentarily offended.

If this article is a fair example of your true nature you seem to be egocentric, more concerned about your insecurities and projecting your flawed judgements on to others. While demanding they know and respect your feelings. I can see how you would get “stuck up bitch” from lesser (or drunk) males. Not everyone shares your robust attitudes.

Now consider the reverse. As a ‘liberated assertive woman’ you overcome your innate discomfort at being vulnerable and approach a ‘perfect’ male. He dismisses you with “no thanks” (be honest) how do you feel? Embarrassed, insecure, rejected etc?

There is a time for the brutally honest approach and with strangers it should be entered into with great trepidation unless you are prepared to accept the consequences. e.g. Your local dirty dancer. Boorish behaviour is the same regardless of gender and you are in your rights to tell him of your discomfort.

The real difference between being liberated and not is you, not your assumptions of someone else’s abilities and attitudes.
I think you need more 'generous' thought about this issue (?)

What an offensive persecution complex on show from the examiner, expecting women to be apologetic and conciliatory with regard to their social interaction. Perhaps when women stop being subject to the constant risk of sexual assault, alcohol-fuelled or otherwise, you may have reason to consider your ego bruised by those uppity females.

Why in god's name should a woman possibly feel compelled to utter an honest statement "with great trepidation" just because your fragile bourbon-soaked ego is too delicate to deal with the possibility of rejection?

Given your sarcastically quoted "liberated assertive female" and the ominous warnings of "accepting the consequences", I feel that perhaps your mysoginist and faux-victimised mentality would be more at home in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

Oh wait, you couldn't even get any "liquid courage" to help you out there, looks like it's the end of the gene pool for the examinator clan!

:` (

Isn't this issue more about manners and generosity of spirit rather than gender equality?

A man, not wanting to offend, can equally argue that he is with someone else without losing his individuality or independence. Women are no different.

We all make choices about the way we behave towards others. We can choose to be kind if we think it is the best option in a given situation without losing any sort of independence or strength.

Strength can also be observed in restraint

Too much rhetorical propaganda and ideological projections to say anything meaningful beyond personal psychological narrative masquerading as rational observation.

Quite revealing of the authors ego defenses (delusions). Which l find useful as a sounding board for my own non-sense.

Men do the same thing. That the author makes no attempt to acknowledge nor discuss reveals bias. Women, particularly once into their un-inhibited (or less inhibited) thirties can be very slow at taking a hint. Maybe its the whole 'womens empowerment = good, mans = bad' thing that makes womens equally tawdry tendencies socially acceptable or much less unacceptable.

We too say we're taken, getting over a break-up or divorce, are single fathers, living with parents, have a low-status (low income) job. We beg off, playing emotionally dumb. Women resent not being let into your head, it offends their egoes. A bit like men and sex. They'll become pushy, insistent, inappropriate, slighted, indignant oblvious and ignorant to their own behaviour... like men and sex.

We say things like we're gay (believe it or not), dont wanna marry or have kids. Great way to fend off the real pushy one's. Amusing how women will 'ask' passive-aggressive leading questions like 'are you gay' when they feel invalidated or you are a happily single guy. The currently or hopefully coupled women seem to take personal offense at the 'happily single.' Such a man is a perceived threat to the social order in general. Eventhough women rebel against partiarchy, they unconsciosuly reinforce it.

A batchelor deprives a woman of family and support. Anything done/not done to/for a woman, is generally taken by ALL women as a reflection upon themselves. Women tend to band together as a psychological unit or mental meme in the face of mans overwhelming advantages. Prolly why they tend toward consensus, bullying and ostracising those that dont validate the group objective.

Golden rule... only initiate if assured of her interest, meaning clear, unambiguous verbal cues. Makes for a lonely, but clear life when interacting with the feminine minded (including most males), prone to plausible deniability and vaguaries as they tend to be.

The bottom line is that we are all human beings. Not only should we have respect for each other as such - we should also be compassionate and considerate in our relations with each other. Sometimes it is just the case that one person is not attracted to another...

But the bottom line is as such: even someone you do not know is a human being.

Be honest - If you're interested in a relationship, sex etc: then you may have to make the point one way or another... But do so within boundaries... Try to be as considerate as possible. This goes for all relationships. It is the difference between selfish amorality as regards relationships, and the kindness and generosity we should all have for each other. (regardless of gender)

If the other person is oblivious to your position or needs - then there may be need to be more blunt and overt... But where possible, keep the above in mind...

And never forget that the other is also a human being. All human beings are of value - and the innocent especially should not be subject tp degradation, humiliation etc - which often comes when relationships turn sour...

And finally - sex is not everything - always be open to friendship which is genuine and sincere...

Dr fresh.
You should read Pelican's response his was more succinct.
When you read my posts I would advise read them properly before you comment.
I said >> "When I’ve heard that comment I simply assume that the woman in question is simply indicating HER commitment to someone else or alternatively she doesn’t fancy me."<<
Then I said before the example >>"Consider this HYPATHETICAL"<<

In essence I was offering an alternative views to the same events.
Didn't you learn the golden rule as a child?
'do unto others as you would have done to you.'

Have you heard of body language an freudiian slips?
Usually what you think will show in your wording and mannerisms. Hence I said that Nina should show a more generous spirit and perhaps consider that she doesn't know what he's thinking.
Not every male is a potential rapist the same as not every female is polite, thoughtful wise and/or mature. I would advise ANYONE BE WARY NOT ALARMED. If all you are attracting is thugs and hoons then perhaps you need consider how you're baiting the hook.

Just fixing an error from my last post:

The following passage:

Be honest - If you're interested in a relationship, sex etc: then you may have to make the point one way or another...

It should read "NOT interested"

Although I guess the point is made regardless of this error.

re: "Do unto others" - Indeed - I think this is a good 'golden rule' as well...

It just might be a good idea for woman not to hang around pick up joints in the first place. It might also be a good idea if you are hanging around these joints not to lead men on in anyway. I know this sort of thinking is from the 50's (not that I was born then) but it just seems simple if you don't want to play the game don't wear the uniform and find somewhere or some people that share your values. If you don't like being whistled at when walking past the drunkards at the cricket don't go there. Ooops I think I am arguing the same case as those who don't want any censorship! Just a thought from a different angle. It is simple though that one plus one equals two. Woman encourage men to think the way they do because they want to play the game to.

Ever noticed that when you're shopping for something, there seems to be a lot of that thing about?

Author is so focused on the trees, the forest (wider perpective) disappears, as does the wood (her own psyche). The wood makes the tree, the trees make the forest. All she sees is trees and nasty people who might weild chainsaws and axes, in order to secure the wood.

She pretty much penned that article to point in a very specific direction, namely sexual assualt (forcing the wood from the trees) and a climate of fear around that (anyone who looks like they could weild an axe is a potential logger).

The thing about fear, is that whilst it may be well founded, the irrational nature of the contradictory thinking that drives that emotional construct has a way of infecting all of one's thinking and distorting perspective. If left unchecked it will lead to behaviour that compounds the fear. Flawed and damaging behaviour.

Her bio provides pointers to what informs her bias.

The subject is an interesting one and if handled with balance, insight and clear thiking could go some way into helping us understand each other and more particularly look beyond our own selfish insecurities and take the time to empathise with the opposite sides of life.

But, alas, it seems that this tedious gender snore and the battle of the exes is doomed to rage on.

Ever noticed how OLO only publishes one-sided accounts of gender politics, replete with stereotype and incessant projection/transference medleys. lm starting to think they do it deliberately. It gets a lot of hits and gender political contributions seem to be the most popular amongst posters. Not surprising now that l think about how intimately gender identity drives insecurity.

Pelican said,
"Isn't this issue more about manners and generosity of spirit rather than gender equality?"

Well said, I thought the same thing. I don't see a gender equality issue.

Before I married, I've mostly been very sensitive and respectful in 'rejecting' men because most behave respectfully. And sometimes it just takes a lie or excuse.
When married, there is a real excuse, of course. I don't feel inequal when saying I'm married, my husband happens to be married, too.

There have been a few occasions in my life when I let my stuck-up bitch out to handle the difficult or arrogant guys- you know, the type who is convinced that he's God's gift to women.

Trade,
I smiled when I read all of the excuses you listed :)

And Runner,
Someone doesn't necessarily have to be all dolled-up or hang around in a 'pick-up points' to be approached.
The whole world is potentially one big pick-up place except perhaps tool sheds and kitchens.

It's better to learn how to handle unwanted come-ons and be able to go places you like than it is to avoid going anywhere because you might be approached.

This is not rocket science stuff. As Tristan stated we are all human beings. As such we do better in groups when we treat each other well and with respect.

Like Celivia, I have never been rude or hurtful to a man who made approaches to me prior to (or after) marriage. If a man or a woman has the courage to approach someone is it not better to act in the way that you would wish to be treated.

Even if the response is obviously untrue it is still better to be rejected politely than with overt hostility.

[PS I am a woman - I note a few people on this form refer to me as a 'he' - not that it matters of course but given this thread was written about gender I thought I would mention it].

I agree totally with Pelican and Tristan. Its simply another "Do unto others...scenario".

Actually, I was quite enjoying reading this article which was was written giving both sides of the equation for the first two thirds - a situation that many people, both male and female - have had experience with. The sudden gender-swing took me completely by surprise.

Though I guess this thread may develop into yet another gender-bashing excercise, I guess, sadly, that must have been the point all along. Pity: I was hoping it would turn into one of those threads where everyone gets a chance to tell of their biggest whopper, or the one that came back to bit them on the bum,or their most embarrassing/surprising encounter. THAT would have involved everyone equally and not led to another skirmish in the interminable gender-wars.

p.s. For the record: my most desperate attempt with one who wouldn't take the hint was finally to say regrettfully "Look, I'm sure that would be lovely but, unfortunately I have a raging STI". Without missing a beat my suave companion took a relaxed sip of his Scotch and said coolly "That's o.k.: I'm not allergic to penicillan". Bluff well and truly called!.

Celivia You write

'Someone doesn't necessarily have to be all dolled-up or hang around in a 'pick-up points' to be approached.
The whole world is potentially one big pick-up place except perhaps tool sheds and kitchens.'

You make a valid point but I am sure that many women like the game of playing naive and then get upset when they can't control the rules. This is especially true at pubs/nightclubs etc later in the evenings. If you continue to hang around dogs it is a bit rich to complain about getting fleas.

I agree that 'ethical interaction between the sexes' has a loooong way to go... but feigning an earlier connection, to avoid hurting another's feelings, is not going to be a big part of that new dawn of deep ethics and human consideration

Sadly “gender equality” is often an issue hijacked as a coverall for a range of personal issues as is the case of this article. Being fair in today’s hedonistic, instant answers world some people genuinely have difficulty discriminating between objective principle and emotional self interest.

It appears that many women view men as being a possessive dirty mind one end, dirty boots at the other and obsessed with what is in the middle. Another permutation of this stereotyping is the attitude all men are potential rapists et al. A whole unsubstantiable assumption. One can then reasonably ask isn’t sexual stereotyping that is an anathema to feminists, or does it only apply when its directed at women? Equality demands that a complainant must also give the same, the above views clear don’t.

What many lose sight of is that equality in relationships doesn’t mean both the same (unisex) rather an OVERALL accommodation/acceptance between two people where dominance/work load isn’t fixed to one person.
Individuals have different needs, abilities and preferences that need to be accommodated (a contextual balance). Within personal tolerances why not maximize these strengths?

Outside of personal relations gender inequality is when a person is denied opportunity solely or largely on the grounds of their gender. Clearly the issue is fundamentally is discrimination and ABHORRENT.

The problem with pressure groups is in order to remain relevant it tends to extend its aims beyond the founding principles and seek to make their cause more important than all others. That in its self creates reverse discrimination and inhibitors. Merely replace one discrimination with another. As a manager I have had first hand experience with how much such emphasis has/is being abused to the detriment of others.

Objectively analysed many of the arguments made in the name of ‘gender equality’ can be arguably viewed as dominance realignment rather than equality. Seeking to justify one’s lack of manners/sensitivity by stereotyping males is clearly an abuse/misuse of the principles. Tragically I believe Nina’s flawed emotional reasoning and attitudes are common adding to the disconnect between people.

Unfortunately for some of us, the prospective partners that we want to discourage at 8:30 when we arrive at the bar feeling relaxed and hopeful are often the only ones left by 11:30 when we're still alone, drinking steadily and getting increasingly desperate. It simply doesn't pay for us to piss someone off too thoroughly.

Pelican.
Oh dear, It would appear that my words were prophetic. They did say more about me than the topic. Indeed the offerings on this topic weren’t up to my usual over thought ofering.

Your generosity of spirit towards my unintentional verbal gender reassignment does you proud. I apologise.
It has given me food for thought.
On re-reading I see the need for clarification.
I am not on the make. I simply tried to protect my point by feigning currency. In hindsight pointless.

I do have an expectation of professionalism from authors which isn’t necessarily applied to commenters
I do accept feed back in fact I seek it providing if negative it attacks what I actually say or isn’t simply ad hominem.

Runner,
It had to happen at some time I actually see (qualified) merit in your point about fleas.

Celivia,
I agree that sometimes giving like for like is appropriate. Objectionable behaviour is just that objectionable behaviour. Not your perception of ‘The god’s gift to women’ you may be wrong. It’s a bit like ad hominem comments on line judging a PERSON not the act. In different circumstances….
Clearly this changes if you know the person.
Why the seeming pedantism? A number of years on Lifeline picking up the pieces taught me to be careful about dismissing people on limited perceptional information

Trade
Well said

Jon J,
Perhaps you need to either cut your losses earlier, move onto somewhere else or perhaps choose your moves more carefully(less desperation would help).

All
Psychological research some years ago discovered that if you were to maintain a positive attitude or stopped a negative action for just 30 days continuously it would become a habit and then internalize and become part of you… after several years I’m still working on the continuous bit.