1)

This is a bit out of sync because I've lost a few days, but time flies when you're having fun....
_________________________

"It might not suit the drivers of the women's victim industry" (Quote:Cornflower).

This bloody irritates me, and more so from a female! Because it typifies the male attitude to a female complaint;-AND the cry of feminist/feminazi/blame game/playing the victim--if she then objects to that categorisation.

It is an absolute heads I win, tails you lose scenario. It is designed to shut women up;-and here it is put up by a female!

Don't get me wrong.Fallacious accusations DO occur, and I abhor them, just as I abhor this,-because it makes it harder for women who HAVE been genuinely abused.
__________________________

" That's hardly consistant with your rejection of Foxy's calls for posters to moderate their own behaviour or you response to me in defence of Foxy's position"
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2718#61979
(Quote: R0bert: Refer post 26/5/09)

For a moment you had me worried. I went back to check. I do not see you point. NO individual on OLO has the right to moderate the opinions of fellow members;-male or female. That is what I said, and Foxy agreed. Spinning it won't make it any different.
______________________________

"Now now Ginxy, there you go, playing the "I am a grlll, so I am a
victim" thinggy. Sorry, no tears for Ginxy lol. Go on admit it,
you were right at the front of the queue when it came to hurling
abuse around, calling Belly and others names etc. You seemingly
enjoyed it, I personally have no problem with a bit of light hearted
banter, a bit of mud slinging, all meant in good humour." (Quote: Yabbs.

'I am a grlll(??), so I am a victim'. Hurling abuse or victim? A bit inconsistent don't you think?

A bit like:'I am a man so I am innocent'....After some of the replies on this subject!!

As the Americans say: 'right back at yer'.
__________________________

Continued-hopefully today.

2)

1) "...It would seem from what you have said, is that the only form of acceptable discussion to you, is the type of discussion that agrees with your point of view, supports your point of view,

Any discussion that seeks to challange or try to put forward an alternative point of view is unacceptable.

So basically what you are asking for, is for posters to support your points of view......

2) .......A phrase that has appeared a little bit recently is "She was asking for it!"

Asking for what?

A cup of coffee?

A new dress?

A new car?

Virtually every individual will have a different interpretation of what "Asking for it!" means." ( Quote:JamesH)

1) Wanting you to agree with my point of view? Well I'm not having much luck am I?
No JH. This is a discussion forum. Yet again, I'm surprised YOU put that, because it could apply to any one of us-and you know it.

And THIS:-

2) Asking for it could = cuppa/dress/new car.

I'm too tired to even bother with this.

__________________________________

I am perfectly happy with the previous post I made a couple of days ago. I haven't changed my view.

Cornflower: Of course women like sex. If men as described by Yabby and Antiseptic and co. stopped making themselves so readily available then women would have to initiate more often or more obviously than they do. They don’t have to though; it doesn’t take any effort to find a random penis. Law of the market: abundance of anything reduces the value.

However, for the girls and women who chase prominent men; I would guess that the majority would not be aligned with any version of feminism. There have always been women whose sense of self and worth is vested in whatever man they’re attached to. I doubt that if Hugh Jackman or other famous men were local yokels slugging it out on minimum wage or unemployment that they’d need to worry about being mobbed at the pub door. (I might make an exception for Johnny Depp ) The point is that men and women should be able to have the sex they choose and be treated and regarded in the same way – if she’s a slut for sleeping around; then men who sleep around are sluts too, and so on. If men are not regarded as sluts; then there is no reason why she should be condemned as such.

cont'd

You also say that feminists have expressed prejudice against homosexuals (do you have a link?).

Like others, I believe that gang banging is homoerotic and that the woman only serves as a conduit for male-male sex – seeing and experiencing each other’s erections, ejaculate and so on. The woman isn’t present as a participant in sex; she is there as a prop – a non-entity. The point is the objectification of the person; it’s also that along with such displays of hyper-masculinity goes contempt for homosexuality. They are in denial. It’s the same sort of mindset I suppose that underlies gay bashing. The problem isn’t that they may be homosexual or bi; it’s the denial of it which the bravado of hyper masculine behaviour disguises. Even that would be neither here nor there if people weren’t being hurt as a consequence.

I see a later post too referring to male rape. I don’t know why there’s the comment “feminism is as feminism does”.
If it wasn’t for the work of feminists/the influence of feminism, male rape victims still wouldn’t be able to make a case. Even now, few can make a case (just like female rape victims) and many suicide or cope with their PTSD with drugs and alcohol and various self-harming behaviours (just like females who experience gross trauma). It’s feminist analysis that uncovered these issues – and only during the quite recent ‘70s - such as child sexual abuse, DV and males being rape victims. Males are raped by both men and women, but perpetrators are overwhelmingly male. So while you rabidly oppose feminism (as if you understood it or even knew what it was); at least give it it’s dues.

Ginx perhaps then we have both misunderstood the others position re online behaviour. I'm not sure how but it seemed that your complaints about male behavior on OLO were an attempt to moderate the behaviour of other posters just as those who are tired of the prominance of nasty posts can rightly suggest OLO would work better without that stuff.

Pynchme, I appreciate those last two posts of yours. I think that feminism is often blamed for the actions of those who don't care at all about feminism. On the other hand many feminists often give the impression of sticking up for females in almost any given situation involving men regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation.
It's rarely one size fits all.

R0bert

R0bert

‘… many feminists often give the impression of sticking up for females in almost any given situation involving men regardless of the rights and wrongs of the situation.’

Fancy that! Feminists sticking up for females.

I always find this all to common criticism of feminism incredibly strange. Why should a movement that is by women, about women, for women – one that exists to raise awareness of women’s viewpoints, women’s existence, women’s realities, women’s needs, women’s problems – be criticized for ‘automatically’ sticking up for women?

After all, that’s what advocacy groups do – they automatically stick up for their members, regardless of the rights and wrongs of a situation.

The Football Federation of Australia automatically sticks up for footballers who come under negative scrutiny – the AMA does the same for doctors, the BLF for builders, the Chamber of Commerce for business people, the Teachers Federation for teachers. Children’s advocacy groups look after a child’s rights regardless of whether or not the child is a proper little brat. All these groups look after those whom they represent, regardless of the rights or wrongs of a situation.

The issue of advocacy is not about who or what is right or wrong. It’s about allowing those for whom you advocate the opportunity – among other things – to be heard, to give their side of a story and to know that they have support. It’s also about analysing and understanding the role played by the wider society in the lives of those for whom you advocate.

Standing up for a certain side does not render you automatically incapable of seeing the full picture. On the contrary, the reaction to the Johns scandal from feminists and conservative women's advocates has allowed the rest of society access to a viewpoint that might have otherwise gone unaddressed.

If non-feminists choose to judge feminists harshly for automatically sticking up for women, then that is not a problem of feminism. The problem lies within those who are doing the judging.