Oh, and here she is again “poor little blossums”….the woman who epitomises the ugliness of feminism…and I ain’t talking only in terms of aesthetics…in today’s (2.1.09) letters section of the SMH:
“Emasculated females (Letters, January 1) get punished for not having balls in the first place, rather than by losing them.
Eva Cox Glebe”
Check her out on YouTube folks: http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=JYTCYWsmuyk

Spikey

You gave a link to an article in The Age where Victoria's Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission chief, Helen Szoke, was upbraiding the Athenaeum club for its membership policy which Ms Szoke herself admits is lawful.

It is also lawful for the Girl Guides to exclude boys (and male leaders), but women's groups waged a relentless and successful campaign to require the Boy Scouts to admit girls, change the programs and become simply, Scouts. There are, as you very well know, many women's clubs and associations that exclude men.

Also, you did not mention 'Anti-Bias Chief' Ms Szoke's support for 'positive' discrimination against white men.

“DISCRIMINATION against dominant white males will soon be encouraged”

“Let’s open it up so everyone can have a fair go.”

Nothing discriminatory or racist in that is there?

This is reminiscent of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking Glass:

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone,' it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master - that's all.'

Still, Victoria's proposed discrimination against white men is

Now Cornflower, it's not a very honest debating tactic to pass off a quotation from a Herald-Sun journalist as if they were the words of the Equal Opportunity Commission CEO. As you well know, Dr Szoke said nothing about "DISCRIMINATION against dominant white males" being encouraged - rather, it was a typically inflammatory opening paragraph from a tabloid journo.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24771759-2862,00.html

It's an old news story anyway, in which all the evident racism is found in the words of the journalist, rather than in the proposed changes to Equal Opportunity Act.

Why do so many wingnuts at OLO apparently feel they have to tell porkies in order to make an argument?

No one ever 'got' a right. Rights are given.

Women, nor the non-land owning masses of men before them, got the vote. The ruling elites gave us that right. And there's no way in hell that the ruling class ever does anything to undermine their power. They only ever seek to expand it. They're very clever about it too. Take democracy. Its a fanastic ruse for getting us to 'invest' in the process and 'own' its outcomes, all of which are carefully selected and vetted before being put foward to us.

Thats one take on it.

Another one may simply be that the ruling class have periodic moments of reasoned enlightment and are capable of acting fairly. Heaven forbid that any feminist should ever acknowledge that many (most?) of us men are capable of seeing beyond injustice and righting its wrongs. And that this may well be what caused the ALL male parliament of the past to give women the vote. But in this day and age the concept of men supporting women is so passe, its almost considered mysoginistic to do such a thing. Even so, many of us will still come to your defence and protect you, notwithstanding personal danger or decades of your derisive projected hostility. Thankfully for you, some of us can step outside of our egoes, not let emotions cloud our judgement, put aside petty ressentiments and do the right thing.

Trade,

Ah yes, the privilege of compulsion is a powerful gift.

So are you saying that men prepared to give up their lives for damsels in distress, are simply exercising their male privilege and just reinforcing patriarchy? Or are you implying these pathetic guys are consciously entering themselves for Darwin awards while expecting no more than a snicker from those very damsels? Either way, very dark. Even for you.

trade215...
I'm actually interested in your post... I think this comes down to a really interesting debate about what human rights are. To me, human rights are inalienable. In other words, women have always had the right to say no to sex, and, as long as we've had a voting system, they have always had the right to vote, its just that those rights were not recognised for a f--king long time. I don't think women were 'given' the right to sit on a jury or to vote, I think they always deserved and in a sense had that right, it was just a really bloody long time until other people recognised it, and when they did recognise it, it wasn't becasue males decided to be generous and share the power... it was because women fought for and demanded their rights to be recognised. In the same way I think that Aboriginal people have always had the right to be land owners/ jury members/ citizens etc. etc., its just that white fellas abused and ignored those rights (and continue to do so in many areas) for a really long time...

go on anticpetic... hit us with some of your ignorant vitriol... it's providing me with amusing quotes for my university lectures... I think you could become something of a weekly running joke... :-)