ninaf,
In view of your definition of a feminist. Instead of writing about frivolous matters such as this article, would it not be far more productive to use the space to lobby for lessening of the oppression of women in some of our ethnic communities and to seek enforcement of our laws regarding FGM and forced marriages that are taking place in Aaustralia.

The article you wrote here belongs in a magazine in a hairdressers. What I have suggested would benefit women much more.

Cornflower.
Yes I can vote. Yes I can get an education, own a bank account etc. etc. But as it turns out, not all women in the world live in the sunny suburbs of Sydney. When I say I'm a feminist, I don't mean that I don't shave my legs or wear a bra. Nor do I hate men. I love them in fact. (though I admit that I don't care much for men or women who support archaic ideas about gender roles). The reason why I'm a feminist is because there are women in the world who are still being stoned to death for being raped. That's right. there are women who, after being raped, are accused of adultery and are stoned to death for it. Sure, not in Australia. But unlike some, I have the capacity to see my own politics through as being global. There are also women around the world who still cannot vote and cannot gain an education. More to the point, even in western countries some of our primary rights as women are being challenged. I'm sorry this makes you so uncomfortable, but suck it up.

Nina's latest post here on OLO found above provides us with a good example of your average, typical feminist who guides opinion with their propaganda pieces (yes this type of person is published...). The one that wrote the above has been published and teaches at a university according to the profile.

Nina Furrel,

1) Women are physically weaker than men. In fact it would be accurate to say that they are pathetically weak by comparison (yes this is a generelisation and there are exceptions outiside of this rule, ie when a strong female is up against a weak male). Why would you think this applies only to physical, and not mental capabilities or emotional spheres (which can't easily be observed and measured)? It's illogical to pretend that real differences are only skin deep, isn't it? This could mean women have advantages, but it also might explain why they are unable to perform in certain areas (that feminists go scrounging around in the base of the barrel for excuses to blame men like the bigotted sexists they are). It also might not. But it's something to keep in mind as a plausible explanation with a high degree of certainty.

2) Again, your comments above indicate how superficial you are. Why would you ignore the history of civilisation? As men were sent to their assured cruel and bloody deaths from the age of ten. The amount of blood men have paid through history is so staggering feminists like you will never comprehend it and will only dishonour and tread on the legacy. Lets pretend for a minute women were drafted to war. How does the idea of a whole generation of your "oppressed" women, in a single war, being killed and spilling their entrails appeal to your sensibilities? Now this happens century after century in hundreds of wars...millions of women would die in wars from the age of ten. Do not ignore history. The way human civilisation evolved was a process that was highly successful and required the support of both genders, with women benefitting from the relationship in many ways.

Banjo: The last para of the article says, "Of course realistically, the feminist movement has much bigger fish to fry than the surname debate. Still, as a young woman, it's worth thinking through why these debates exist, where they come from, and where we might want to go to from here."

One of the annoying things about the mainstream or dominant culture is the way in which people belonging to it assume the authority to dictate to others how they should put their case for equality or any sort of change. So, we often hear things like,

"If Aborigines would get their act together and agree on what they want... " / "The trouble with feminists is that they are all saying something different"/ "The trouble with gays is that they make such a spectacle of themselves."/ "The trouble with Aborigines/feminists/gays/women/whomever is non-mainstream/ is that they can't put a coherent case/lie/differ/complain/selfish ... and so on.

I think it begins from the premise that all people already have equal rights (or human rights) and that they want more. Instead there is no recognition that some people are positioned well behind the starting line in life's obstacle course.

Nobody reflects on the fact that if mainstream people differ in their needs; wants and preferences and the ways in which they express themselves.

Also, it's ok for feminists to have a sense of humour you know - and a light touch as well.

CJ Morgan: Sadly that isn't so unusual. I think for some women it's still the highest moment of their day to get that warm and fuzzy feeling of approval from traditionalist males. I think also that it's worked for them all of their lives so it's never questioned. I can understand that (like I understand why so many men refuse to question their entitlements - the world works for them, in a way.) It takes a certain kind of intelligence and empathy to see into others' lives and to understand what they experience - and some courage to step out and acknowledge what needs to change.

Thanks for your comments.

Spikey

You used a couple of totally irrelevant Aunt Sallys (straw man arguments) to misrepresent my question and added a dollop of personal abuse.

Rhetorical trickery and abuse do not assist your credibility at all.

Returning to my question for Nina, who cited a number of areas of discrimination as though they were enduring and self-evident, "Are you prohibited from voting, having a bank account and so on?"

I could have said instead, "Drag yourself into the future, it is already 2009."

(Last post refers to pg8 post by Nina.)

3)Your reading has obviously extended only to feminists that support your false conceptions and general ignorance, that are derived from the peer pressure exerted upon you as you were 'educated' by all these 'facts' (little more than propaganda in reality) that you splurge out as though you are a Christian talking about the Sins of Man.

As an opinion writer and teacher, your ignorance will be pressed into the minds of gullible, well-meaning listeners and students without a counterpoint.

Nina,"But as it turns out, not all women in the world live in the sunny suburbs of Sydney."

I'm going to simply bypass the gut feeling of stupidity I got at reading this comment with a straight answer that tries to ignore the sensation: Nor do all men...duh. why be so sexist?.... How many women for example are slaves in coal and diamond mines that collapse? How many women are conscripted by the thousand and sent to die?

The crap you read or are sent via emails are cherry picked and usually based on half-truths. They are effectively lies. You can see this rubbish printed when you look at any major politicised event that occured in recent years:

-last year Georgian-Russian conflict was a lie in that all blame was placed on Russia immediately
-Iraq War Fraud
-the current Afghanistan War is a Fraud also.

Stop reading the news and emails that feeds you this biased s!@#. The entire premise of your position is a Western one. It's not objective. For all the crimes that Mugabe and Hussein have done, the West has caused a million deaths in Iraq, and probably the same or more in Afghanistan by deliberately starting and continuing the wars.

The same people you say stone women for rape, did not kill tens of hundreds and thousands of men, women and children (as the west have done). Before you can even begin your rant against the Taliban you should accept that your country is part of a war that has killed more women than the Taliban. Period.