Antiseptic I do share your frustration that the moderates are conspicuous by their absense in rebutting the more extreme views put to support women or to attack men. They will say some great stuff on their own but I've rarely seen moderate feminists taking issue with the excesses from the female side of the debate.

I don't know if that is one of those differences in the way men and women are wired, that's not my impression in other area's but it does seem to be a factor in public discussions around gender.

I do strongly believe that the moderates exist, I don't always agree with them but generally hold the view that it's about which evidence we consider is more credible than a difference in overall views. Both Pelican and Fractelle have written some great posts recently (and over a sustained period). Likewise with Foxy and others who have been part of OLO over a sustained period.

I understand that they will say things I disagree with and I understand why they fire up at times when all of feminism is attacked (or when they personally are attacked). Most of us are not our most moderate when under attack.

I think that we would be far better served by discussion of specific concerns (and points of agreement) than by broad attacks on feminism.

Have a read of the attacks on the the motives of those involved in mens groups at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9151#146366 my impression is that the feeling I get from that vile stuff would be similar to that experienced by feminists when all of feminism is attacked. That and some of Chaz's comments on that thread are ones which I'd hoped some of the moderate's might have taken issue with but then I didn't often respond to HRS's posts.

R0bert

Antiseptic: “What all of that has lead to is the current situation in which male behaviour and motivations is examined solely in terms of how it fits with Feminist doctrine.”

So true. Here’s a recent example which should be of interest on a number of fronts, possibly even as a rebuttal to more extreme feminist views. I think.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/judge-feels-the-heat-for-acknowledging-human-behaviours-shades-of-grey-20090724-dw2z.html?page=-1

“By all means, women's advocates should feel entitled to condemn Sloan for what he did, but let's not interfere with a judge who is clearly working hard to deal with the nuances of a difficult case in a way which is fair to both perpetrator and victim.

And let's not forget that judicial discretion, which allows judges to acknowledge shades of grey in human behaviour, has been incredibly important in protecting women's rights. Without it, it would not be possible for battered women to avoid jail when they freely admit to killing their abusive partners.”

Houlley
Excellent points about seeing things from both sides. Unfortunately the world has become a circus of lobby groups and the sad fact is it became the norm, it is now percieved as vital for others to join so they do not miss out on the spoils. It is a pity commonsense cannot be harnessed to achieve the best results.

RObert
Thanks for you comments and ditto. We need to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of debate which can be difficult but not impossible with rational input.

Antiseptic
I think most feminists (I can't speak for all) have redefined feminism to include equality for men as much as equality is achievable.

I spoke recently to a women's refuge director about feminism and what we thought in terms of relevance to the modern age. Despite her exposure to battered women on a regular basis (her group also supports homeless women) she shared her view that feminism has morphed into a discussion or movement about fairness particularly for the most disadvataged. It has in essence become more egalitarian. I tend to agree.

Although I can only say about the SMH link is that if I was having sex with a man and he passed out I would stop as a matter of respect and courtesy. Maybe physicall the act could not continue in any case?

Consensual sex implies two people and I guess we can argue about the fine detail such as - does consent mean up to and including the sex act itself? If a woman says no at the last minute (prior to penetration) it is considered (in law) to mean the end of consensual sex.

If she is unconscious she can no longer make that call and I don't think many women would say "look mate if I pass out feel free to continue in my (spiritual) absence". Not going to happen. What about dignity. Whether or not you can be jailed for being a thoughtless jackass is another matter.

But I can see why this would be one of those difficult grey areas.

<James your comment proves to me that you will twist the meaning to suit your own purpose.

Think about it for a minute: if there are more men in the workforce than women then the GFC will probably (but not definitely) mean that more men will lose their jobs. Coupled with the fact that in general there are usually more women than men who remain in the home to raise children the probability is that more men will lose their jobs.

Now, do you understand what I am saying in relation to your statistic?

Posted by pelican, Sunday, 19 July 2009 1:56:54 PM>

Pelican it is not about twisting the meaning, I do understand the assumption that just because more men are employed than women, it easy to assume that more men will loose their jobs.

However if one looks at where the jobs were lost, the jobs were lost mostly in male dominated fields, such as mining, fianance and constuction. Female dominated jobs tended to be protected from the effects.

<It's no secret that men have been hit hard by the recession. From November 2007 to November 2008, the U.S. economy lost over 2 million jobs -- 82% of those losses were male jobs and only 18% female jobs. The reason is because men are concentrated in the sectors devastated by the downturn: manufacturing and construction.

This employment gap prompted University of Michigan economist Mark Perry to dub the downturn a "man-cession in the lipstick economy>
http://www.ifeminists.net/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.516