Iran could be a feminist state in reverse.

Typically, the feminist author has not mentioned all the males who have been killed in repressive regimes such as Iran.

While the author believes that feminism is the voice of women, it definitely does not speak for men, with no academic feminists to my knowledge ever saying a single positive word about the male gender.

When every word being said about the male gender by an academic feminist is negative of the male gender, feminism now represents the highest levels of bigotry, discrimination, prejudice and myopic thinking in our education systems.

No wonder so many women do not call themselves a feminist.

All hail those women who refuse to call themselves a feminist. There may be hope yet.

Nice to see HRS/Timkins spouting the same old drivel under his new moniker of 'vanna'.

Did you actually read the article, HRSkins? If you had, you may have noticed that it's an article about women and how far they have to go to achieve equality in most of the world.

Interesting that when the US and Australia go to topple Saddam Hussein the violent left are visible everywhere. When it comes to the women oppressed in places like Iran, Saudi Arabia etc they are nowhere to be seen. No doubt like the terrorist Arafat the left are happy to be friends. When it comes to democracies like the US and Australia they cant wait to vent their anger.

C. J Morgan (The academic feminist who has yet to say a single positive word about anyone except feminists).

Iran is a good example of what happens when large groups of people start calling themselves an "ist".

Same thing has happened many times elsewhere.

Same thing, different "ist"

I really have to wonder how much world attention would have been paid to the tragic death of this one Iranian woman, if she weren’t such a stunner.

While I’m as keen as the next feminist to eliminate the howling gender inequality inflicted on the people of Iran by the Mullahs, I’m nervous about Western feminism taking this on board as an issue. Opinion polls have revealed at least 85-90% support for gender equality among the Iranian population, so interference from Western feminism into Iranian gender politics – as with any Western interference in Iranian politics in general – could well end up becoming counter-productive.

Also … The heavy restrictions placed on those who can qualify as candidates for elections do make the Iranian electoral system grossly unfair. However, it’s very unlikely that the election itself was actually rigged or stolen. Any serious scrutiny of the outcome fails to give any credence to the stolen election theory.

These Tehran street protests almost certainly emanate from the same skullduggery HQ as has the coup in Honduras, and the ongoing civil unrest being fermented in Venezuela and Bolivia. This latest Iranian chapter is just another ‘movement’ of well-heeled, pro-Western middle and upper classes against anti-Western, left-leaning, thoroughly demonised demagogues much loved by the rural and urban poor – who also happen to have the numbers necessary to achieve the kind of election outcomes that the West doesn't like.

Nice article Dannielle!

SJF, if you feel wary of supporting the women of Iran, there are lots of other opportunities in Australia where the courage and strength of women need to be supported, as Dannielle notes at the end of the article. Or Aung San Suu Kyi needs to know she is not alone, that is, if she is not too much of a "stunner" to merit our support.

Helen

As one going on 89 whose wife has passed away, must say my experience of both marriage and partnership was such a loving and wonderful experience, I could say I am kind of glad my own days are numbered.

And though I must also add that both my wife and I had the good fortune to have been of Western stock as well of having lived a Western existence, one feels as a historian that Iran is one Islamic country that with its earlier Hellenist influence will itself become more democratic but without the American-style pressure that both illegally planted the fake Shah, as well as with Britain planted in the Oil Co camp followers.

I only hope that Obama has the wisdom and understanding not to use the old American Way that could have Iran look East towards Russia and China rather than towards the West.

To be sure any knowledgable historian could say that Iran is already looking East, by having Russian engineers design and build her coming nuclear facilities?

Thus in truth it is not just faith in his political salesmanship that Obama needs, but a sincere Hope based on historical Wisdom and Understanding.

Part of which in truth must honestly include using US power to have both herself and the rest of world be free of the cursed militarily nuclear

Isabel berners (That’s a sweet first name for a feminist).

You could have stumbled upon something there. If someone is opposing an oppressive regime, then should other people be supporting them based only on their superficial looks.

Other people shouldn’t be supported them based only on their superficial looks one would presume. However, academic feminists continuously won’t to classify someone as being a man or a woman, and I have even heard a university lecturer classify something they didn’t like as being “male” (a completely discriminatory, bigoted, prejudiced and unprofessional practice I might add).

So, how does an academic feminist classify someone as being a man or a women?

Does an academic feminist classify someone as being a man or a woman according to their looks, name, dress, hair style, genitals, attitude or something else?

A very fundamental question to be answered by the academic feminist industry.

Vanna asks "So, how does an academic feminist classify someone as being a man or a women? ... looks, name, dress, hair style, genitals, attitude or something else? A very fundamental question to be answered by the academic feminist industry."

Oh dear Vanna, you need to get out more.

Haven't you ever heard of Queer Theory? Third Wave Feminism? Gender Studies? Transfeminism? Lavender Linguistics? A quick Google search on any of these will reveal a host of contradictory schools of thought. Don't expect you'll find an "answer" to your question though.

Frankly I think there is far too much intellectual effort devoted to gender. To suggest that the topic has been ignored is just willful blindness.

JohnJ

I do get out. In fact I have been to about 20 different countries.

You are very lucky to live in this country.

However, the myopic and feminist author states “her head covering is loose, she's wearing makeup ... and those fingernails she's holding up in a victory sign? Oh, they've definitely been manicured. This is an ordinary woman”

So the feminist and myopic author categories people as being man or woman based on their superficial looks.

Academic feminists have established quite an industry based on gender, but when all is said and done, their industry is based on superficial looks.

The fact that the myopic and feminist author teahes children is definitely a cause of concern.

Vanna, I don't understand your point. The whole damm human race judges if you are a man or a woman by the way you look. If you are meaning that the woman shot in Iran is only getting sympathy because she was good looking. There is probably a lot of truth to that.

That is the issue though isn't it? That women are shot for looking attractive in the streets of Iran. It is probably also why this woman was singled out and shot because she had the misfortune to look attractive. Once this no longer happens in these muslim countries I'd say a lot of the injustices and the efforts to control women will be on the way out as well.

vanna complains that Danielle pays close attention to appearance when she says "This is an ordinary woman, but this is also a brave woman." Why does Danielle say she's brave? Because the morality police "can punish women just for wearing fingernail polish." Appearance as political statement? You'd better believe it.

Myopic? Who's myopic?

JohnJ and Sharkfin,
A number of regimes currently in power in certain countries seem to want to divide up the world according to religion.

The author seems to want to divide up the world according to gender, with a woman being defined as someone who has a “loose head covering”, wears “makeup” and has “manicured fingernails”.

The author is a teacher apparently, but the situation of feminism in education has reached such extreme proportions in this country that recently a high school teacher in QLD held up a large photograph of teeth marks in a chocolate bar and said that the photograph represented “men’s violence against women”.

When asked by a student in the class “How do teeth marks in a chocolate bar represent men’s violence against women”, the feminist teacher said that they “didn’t know”, but the feminist teacher still continued to hold up the photograph in front of the class and later stuck the photograph on the wall of the classroom.

Iran could well be the feminist state in reverse.

Re:Our reality here in the industrialised West is not 'the reality of all women' 'Our reality?'

You must mean our public reality? In fact. aren't even almost all 'civilised countries' places where women have few real rights (real rights - not supposed rights) if they are victims of violence, particularly in relationship violence? (and for the gender squirrels - so far male violence against women is still a major issue but not as severe as male violence to men)

Where the rights of an accused are important but the victim's rights are not? Where the victim cannot have a lawyer or barrister but the accused can?

Where state agencies cannot respond to the workload so dont?

Where therefore the evidence is a mishmash and result is more pain for the victims? Where in death by violence, the rights of an accused reign supreme (unless they are very 'broke').

So cut this boring crap about gender, and get some equal human rights for the people of this country. Then perhaps we might inspire the women of Iran and elsewhere to get legal equality with men, and even justice for all. Until then, I am ashamed that we are so arrogant as to assume that our 'democratic way' is sufficiently pro decency as to be a model for anything. If they model themselves on what we have achieved they will be very sorry.

Vanna <a number of regimes currently in power in certain countries seem to want to divide up the world according to religion.>

As I said once before on OLO I have never seen a religion yet that did not want to control the fertility of women. The power base of these religions is created by their control of women. They want as many children born as possible who they can indoctrinate at an early age and so maintain control of the minds of whole countries.
This keeps priests in positions of moneyed power and makes them the rulers of countries.

People working in countries for the equal human rights that you speak of, that is human rights for men and women have noted that when women are educated the whole of these societies change for the better. If the men only are educated, nothing changes, the injustices and human misery don’t alter for men,women or children.

I have my own disagreements with the views of some feminists on different issues but I do believe that the empowering of women in oppressive societies has been the one thing inextricably linked to more humaneness in those societies.

Sharkfin,
Applying a logical question if I may (if logical questions are not too "male"). How do you define a person as being a woman or a man?

There is no scientific way of doing it. Gender testing was dropped at the Sydney Olympics, and has never been carried out since at any major sporting event (too much variation in the genes within the X and Y chromosoms to scientifically determine who is male and who is female).

So if there is no scientific way of determining who is male and who is female, then how does an academic feminist decide who is a woman and who is a man (and which one needs to be supported and which one doesn't).

<"The author seems to want to divide up the world according to gender, with a woman being defined as someone who has a “loose head covering”, wears “makeup” and has “manicured fingernails”.>

Since it's only women who are requied to wear head covering and so on; it wouldn't seem to me that it's the author or any "academic feminist" (whatever the hell that's supposed to be) who is dividing up the world by gender, but the dominant society of Iran ie: a masculinist state, just as elsewhere.

Are you saying it's AOK with you that women are forbidden from dressing and grooming as they judge appropriate?

(You sound like a nut)

Also, very good article - thank you.
Also, I think that Feminism not only needs to continue in the West, but that it must remain vigilent to any erosion of recently acquired (formally but not necessarily practiced) human rights for women. Thankfully, I think that many men are appreciative of the benefits of feminism to society as a whole; but there are still many men andsome women who will do whatever they can to take us back to some idealized vision of the 50s.

Pynchme,
So how do you define who is a women and who is a man? (considering there is no scientific way of doing it).

I would define an "academic feminist" as someone who preaches feminism in the classroom. Maybe they should be preaching feminism (or any other "ism") somewhere else.

Pynchme: << (You sound like a nut) >>

You may not have twigged, but "vanna" is just the latest sock puppet ID of the misogynist troll formerly known as HRS, Timkins and Timithy. "Nut" is putting it kindly.

Vannakins - you never answered my question. Are you still banned under your "HRS" pseudonym?

Vanna .<How do you define a person as being a woman or a man>

I agree that there are some broad variations in the degree of X and Y chromosones in groups of men and women in most societies. Take Margaret Thatcher, one could suspect her of having a bit less of the Xchromosone and a degree more of the Y male chromosone. However in a country that oppresses women she would be treated as a woman because she has the body of a woman. If she refused to act and dress like a woman in a public street she would be taken by the male religious police to prison or shot by a militant or something. That is the issue, how humans with the outward appearance of a woman are denied proper justice and human rights in male dominated societies. You could argue until you were blue in the face with the Ayotollahs that poor old Margaret was entitled to walk around the street without being covered in a sheet because she had male tendencies but they would judge by her outward physical appearance. Not having a lab immmediately to hand to test chromosones that would be all they had to go on. Societies that are this intolerant of sexuality would be even more likely to kill you if they found out you didn’t fit the mould of being one sex or the other.

Gender benders don’t have any chance of any kind of rights until male dominant societies can accept the equality of any sex that isn’t male. After all by and large it isn’t the women who persecute people with differing sexuality(homosexuality etc.) it’s the men. How do you judge which are women and men when you’re out in public Vanna?

G'day CJ:

I recall seeing the IDs HRS and Timkins but didn't become familiar with them so I wouldn't recognize them. Gee another one of the 8th C Menz crowd. No wonder I sparked.

Vanna - Sharkfin has already explained the issue. From my personal perspective, I think individuals should define their sex. I don't presume to classify anyone.

CJ Morgan,

What does HRS mean?

Sharkfin, (Now that’s a more suitable name for a feminist. I get very suspicious if a feminist calls themselves something sweet and nice such as Isabel).

I think the question of who is male and who is female has now become very fundamental. For example, the myopic feminist author teaches children she judges to be girls, but not boys. So she must have a feminist and myopic way of dividing up the population into girls and boys.

There is no scientific way of determining who is male and who is female (and never will be), so judging someone’s gender is all subjective. In the myopic feminist author’s case, she judges someone purely by their superficial looks.

vanna/HRS/Timkins et al - are you a man or a woman? How can you tell?

CJ

According to his own logic, as Vanna/HRS/Timkins is not "sweet and nice" he must be a feminist.

Fracetelle,
Do you think it good that the myopic, feminist author only teaches children she considers to be girls and excludes those she considers to be boys.

She defines someone as being a woman if they have a “loose head covering”, wears “makeup” and has “manicured fingernails”.

So I wonder how this feminist teacher defines girls and boys?

vanna, I'm still trying to work out what you hope to achieve here. Do you enjoy the conflict? Do you expect Fratelle and others to take you seriously, to reconsider their own views or to bother with reasoned responses while you use the posting style you are using. I think that you are capable of far better so why go at it this way?

Do you have a serious question about gender ( or the authors treatment of it) you think should be raised? If so please put it in terms that can be answered.

R0bert

Robert,
Well the situation is “There is no scientific way of defining who is male and who is female”.

Throughout the history of the Olympic games, they’ve tried interviews, inspections, urine tests, hormone tests and then DNA tests. None of that produced a definitive answer regards who is male and who is female, and since the 2000 Olympics, they have given up trying to scientifically determine who is male and who is female.

However, the whole of feminism is based on defining someone as being male or female, but there is absolutely no science attached to feminism at all.

Feminism is totally subjective, and in the case of the feminist author, someone is defined as being a woman according to their dress, makeup and state of their fingernails.

Maybe the author should get a real job. The author is just another bigoted feminist in the education system.