I think it's just about respecting position.

White people respect President Obama not because he's black but because he is the president. Everyone must respect the law even the president. Just ask Nixon.

The professor obviously tried to intimidate the officer by saying he was a well connected Harvard professor. I'm glad the police officer was not intimidated and arrested him.

But, what about my Aunty Nellie, the Rocket Scientist?

Gender is a figment of the feminist's, fevered imagination. Gender had nothing to do with her education, her parents could afford to send all six of their children to exclusive private schools.

When the second world war started she had already been to university and become a mathematician. During the war she worked on top secret weapons research. Afterwards continuing to work at the Woomera rocket range on leading edge research.

But also after the war she could not take part in the baby boom. She had no choice, but to have a career. There were not enough men to go around. Small matter of the 2nd world war. You see many men her own age were slaughtered, while protecting the opportunity of women to engage in a debate about gender privilege.

Has it not occurred to you fools that she might have wanted to be locked up in a fifties style kitchen, with all those labour saving devices like a washing machine? That she might have wanted, to make some cousins, i never got to meet?

"Often, men get angry. They don’t like to be put down. There is no forgiving or collaboration to avert a fist-fight or hissy fit of sorts."

and "This is not to say that a black woman might not have been furious and angry at the unfolding events. There could have been screaming, and anger. But in the end, one or both of them would probably have found some middle ground."

In the context of the authors focus on how people are perceived by race and gender how should I read the above comments?

When I read it I get the impression that the author thinks that as a male (and a white one at that) that I won't regularly do forgiving or collaboration or if I do most of the males around me don't. That my world should be full of fist-fights and hissy fits. I'll agree that I don't like to be put down, mostly I get over it, I'm guessing that few people do like to be put down regardless of their gender.

Is the comment in context with the article the sexist misrepresentation of men that it appears to be or is there a whole other meaning that I'm missing? For the record I think that forgiving, collaboration and the ability to try and step back and see things from another perspective are part of the day to day lives of most of the men and women I know (admittedly privilged compared to some but not especially so).

Fractelle and Pelican I'd be very interested to see your respective take's on this.

I've not followed the story the author's piece uses so I can't currently comment on that.

R0bert

R0bert

'Is the comment in context with the article the sexist misrepresentation of men that it appears to be or is there a whole other meaning that I'm missing?'

There's a whole other meaning that you're missing. However, I don't expect you to find it as virtually every post you write is in denial about the way in which power is structurally distributed and maintained across the genders. So you have no choice but to take personal offence whenever anyone attempts to analyse it.

I don't expect you to reply to this post because we both know you have been giving me the silent treatment for some time now. So make of it that you will.

So why did Condoleezza Rice go on a shopping holiday for new clothes during cyclone Katrina?

It is something I’ve never heard a bigoted, myopic feminist ever mention.

SJF:"There's a whole other meaning that you're missing."

What is it?

I get it. No women were involved, so you twisted yourself in knots trying to make it about women and gender.

As Marx says...

The Constitutional Feminist is a new creature. Germaine Greer was not a Constitutional Feminist, for she could be relied upon to provide opinions that caught you by surprise, or no opinions at all on matters involving women which she believed to be insignificant issues. She didn’t cheapen her beliefs by bringing them to bear in silly barneys between mangy cats and backyard dogs. By contrast, the Constitional Feminist feels it her duty to stick her stupid beak in wherever a woman is so much as a bit player in the game.

(Or not even a player at all here it seems.)

Routinely passing herself off as a "researcher", an "academic"� with a "special interest"� (that special interest being “women"), she is much the same as a horny teenage boy - just not interested unless there are girls involved. Had she been moved to write anything at all on, say, the events of September 11, it would probably have been a lament for all the dead women, along with a wag of the finger at al Qaeda for not trusting females to carry out the hijackings. She views the tale of humanity as nothing more grand than Adam vs Eve

R0bert,

Man you're funny. That sounds like....

'I feel really offended by that, but I don't want to be labelled a misogynist by the powerful feminist posters. Please pelican and Fractelle validate my opinion. I really want to please.'

SJF,

Not being funny, I would humbly like you to attempt to spell it out for me how a racial incident between 2 men is all about gender.

Or what the meaning robert's missing is? Or how the use of sexist stereotypes is fair play in this case?

Or why you and robert are fighting and you're not giving him the validation and affirmation he so obviously needs? Don't be shy.

I felt quite exhausted reading this piece. It is not that I don’t get the main thrust of the author’s meaning (I think) but keeping together all the threads in the article, to make sense of them left me exhaling one big breath when I finally reached the conclusion.

The story the author refers as much as I can glean, is the arrest of African American Professor Gates by white police officer, Crowley. Police had responded to a call about a break-in and on arriving had observed the Professor in the foyer. The Professor had jimmied his own door open to gain entry to his house. What ensued was a heated exchange of words where the Professor had accused Crowley of racial bias. Crowley arrested the Professor for disorderly conduct in what appears to have become a pi**ng contest between the two.

If it were two women the outcome might have been different but put two different men in the scenario and the outcome may also have been different. Men might become aggressive in the face of humiliation or disrespect . This is reflected equally as well in street gang behaviour but here the author’s argument about economic privilege comes into play and the greater the economic privilege the least likely aggression is to occur.

Women, as nurturers do in general try and seek the middle ground or win-win but in the field I work in so do men with only one or two exceptions and I could probably find one or two female exceptions as well if I looked hard enough in my male dominated work environment.

You cannot blame the white officer for doing his job as much as you cannot blame the Professor’s natural assumption of racial profiling given that nation’s history.

I think this case is more a matter of personalities and a situation once snowballing is difficult to go back to finding some common ground.

SJF no silent treatment. I'd quoted one of your posts elsewhere (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9225#147838) which I really liked. I did notice late last night that I'd missed one of your out of context misrepresentations of my posting re ChazP's anti father stance. I decided that it was so far back in the thread and really unlikely to help the discussion so I left it alone.
I don't like the way you misrepresent me but no deliberate silent treatment on my part.

I agree that I think some of the standard claims about power and privilege made by feminists are either fundamentally wrong or miss big parts of the picture in a way. I don't see how that makes the plain meaning of the quotes I listed any less sexist.

The question still stands, if you know another menaing I will make a genuine attempt and try to understand it?

Houellebecq, I asked two feminists who I have a lot of respect for their opinions about the quotes. I'll also be interested in SJF's opinion if she cares to try and explain the alternate meaning. I chose to try and not create offense by the way I phrased it. You may prefer conflict and strife, I don't.

R0bert

Houllebecq

‘I would humbly like you to attempt to spell it out for me how a racial incident between 2 men is all about gender.’

Because, when power is distributed vertically, people settle into positions on the hierarchy according to various horizontal demarcation lines – the most common being gender, class and race. Because two men occupy the same gender status, they then defer to either class or race to establish superiority.

And BTW … You? ‘Humbly’? … Gimme a break.

Antiseptic

‘SJF:"There's a whole other meaning that you're missing." What is it?’

I explained it in my post to R0bert, but only in brief. When you are in denial that a patriarchy of any form exists, all gender discussions by and with feminists can only be perceived as a personal interaction between men and women. In the mind of a patriarchy denier, any feminist analysis of power distribution based on gender automatically morphs into a perceived personal attack on men, which then double-morphs into a personal attack on women as a defence against a perceived attack on men.

The inability to distinguish between gender relations and gender politics is the major stumbling block on virtually all of these gender threads.

Now go away and laugh yourself into even more exquisite patriarchy denial ... and take Hooley-Dooley with you.

SJF:"these gender threads."

erm...where was the gender issue in the original article? The only link with feminism I can see is that it's about the abuse of power by a petty bureaucrat acting on preconceived notions informed by misdirected resentment. Is that what you're referring to?

The article was interesting in that it brought up all the issues of race, gender and class all at once.

The author did not seek to have a go at men, but merely wondered what would have happened if it was 2 women instead of the male professor and the male policeman.

I don't believe it was a case of racial tension, but rather a case of male ego and too much testosterone in the air!
The professor was angrily saying he shouldn't even be queried about a possible breakin, given he was a professor at Harvard and therefore above all that.
The policeman bristled at that and angrily asserted that he will arrest someone no matter what their standing in the community.

If the professor was a woman, she probably wouldn't have thought to jimmy the door open. She would have had a spare key somewhere!

What does anyone think might happen in Australia if there is a complaint of a possible break-in in progress and the police turn up to find someone with a pinch bar jimmying the door and causing actual damage? Then instead of immediate co-operation the suspected offender abuses the police?

Hands up all those who would expect to be staring down the barrel of a Glock until they had dropped whatever was in their hands and assumed the position. Hands up again if you think you would probably be arrested for being a right nuisance and bl**dy fool.

Police are scarce on the ground, they are frequently in risky situations and they have a right to be treated with respect. Fact is, abuse a cop and s/he is duty bound to arrest you.

The real story here is that a high powered senior academic dumped on a 'dumb' cop who was supposed to cower and touch his forelock. This is a common enough event for police and the offenders come from all walks of life and yes, women notables do it too. Yes, women police might arrest them just as smartly as a male officer. That such arrogant twits are sometimes not arrested has more to do with how busy police are and the amount of paperwork that is required. However, make it worth their time and bang, into the Peter you will go (and a good thing too).

Professor Gates was the bully and he was gutless playing the racist card. Police have every right to be treated decently, especially when responding to a possible crime where their lives are at risk.

This article is a beat-up.

SJF,

'Because, when power is distributed vertically, people settle into positions on the hierarchy according to various horizontal demarcation lines – the most common being gender, class and race. Because two men occupy the same gender status, they then defer to either class or race to establish superiority.'

But why is that interesting? To me the article is talking about what is not there. It's like a sports reporter going to the art gallery and talking about the football that isn't being played.

Hence my constitutional feminist post...

It's quite laughable really. For some reason I would think that since most feminists seem to be able to sniff out some chauvinism or sexist stereotypes at work from 15 miles away, they would be able to identify when men are being stereotyped.

Imagine if we changed the phrases around....

'Often, women nag. They don’t like to be ignored. There is no un-emotive logical reasoning to avert a hissy fit of sorts.'

I can imagine if the author read something like that, she'd be fuming about the dismissal of women as being unable to be logical and rational. Sexist stereotyping. And I would agree with her.

So you can say that's not the point of the article. True.

You can say the same posters are guaranteed to find something to take offence about whenever a feminist article comes up. Doubly true.

But that doesn't change the fact that those two quotes robert picked out are sexist.

>> Police have every right to be treated decently

yes

>> Fact is, abuse a cop and s/he is duty bound to arrest you

no

Zillah writes:

"It is not totally clear to me that if Gates were female, and/or if the officer was as well, that once it was clear that Gates belonged in the house, that there would have been an arrest. This is not to say that a black woman might not have been furious and angry at the unfolding events. There could have been screaming, and anger. But in the end, one or both of them would probably have found some middle ground."

I not so sure about women being more likely than men to find "some middle" ground. Women, generally, may be smaller physically than men, but when it comes to ego I see little difference between the sexes.

Therefore I disagree with the author's proposal that gender played a part in the events as they unfolded. In fact, I'd go so far to say that because there are still so few women in positions of power, there are some women who really let this feed their egos - to the detriment of all women. As we know (and is frequently demonstrated on OLO) the behaviour of one woman is an indictment on us all.

Police stand up for each other because they are cops - not necessarily due to "male bonding", particularly as more female police enter the ranks.

But race? Oh yes, a major factor. Caught breaking into one's own home while being black, by a white cop - if we saw this incident on a TV cop show we'd comment on how stereotypical the narrative. But it was not fiction, it happened and continues to happen to non-whites. Personally, I don't blame President Obama for his outburst; whites just don't realise how much privilege they take for granted. He was far more justified in his complaint than Kevin and his airline food tanty.

First point, this is an awfully written article and I couldn’t agree more with previous comments to this effect.

In addition to this the article is illogical and indicative of the patronising attitude of the left towards… well, anyone who isn’t in their rightful place (or a straight white male).

My favourite points are:

“this is not to say that a black woman might not have been furious and angry at the unfolding events. There could have been screaming, and anger. But in the end, one or both of them would probably have found some middle ground”- this has been discussed so I will let it go.

The second is “Given white privilege, the apology, the generosity of spirit, the willingness to avert a confrontation was Crowley’s responsibility”... excuse me, this is the condescension of the left epitomised. Sure you are the wealthier, more educated and pals with the president but your black so are therefore the perpetual victim and we will do our best to baby you, if you want to say “I’ll speak with your Mama outside” (he actually said this) and throw a tantrum because a white officer asked to see your ID following a report that someone was jimmying open the front door of the house that you are in (and who hasn’t been pulled over for reasons less than that!) then that’s fine… now would you like a cup of hot milk and a blanky.

The most hilarious thing about this is that in this town you have a white police officer who arrested a black Harvard Professor only to have the black Mayor, the black Governor and the black President all point to power inequity!!

The Irish, the Jews, the Welsh, the Italians, the Poles, the Chinese have all been discriminated and oppressed- thank God (as a man of Irish background) these people were oppressed at a time before there was a left culture telling them to blame the system instead of fighting as individuals to succeed.

Bringing gender into this is unnecessary.
Far more relevant is the attitudes that people take due to territoriality (At home you rank higher), and the clash of policeman's assumed power vs one's right to feel in control in ones home. Add in some startle factor, fight/flight invoked and things get messy.
Given the US history it is not unreasonable to assume racist intentions, but it is also not unreasonable for the policeman to not accept abuse whilst doing his job. Police should be wary about commanding people in their own homes unless a crime is definately in progress (drugs, weapons, etc). Home as castle is built into us and needs to be accounted for (unless a violent confrontation is the desired effect).
Gender is relevant *everywhere* to certain minds I guess.

'Fact is, abuse a cop and s/he is duty bound to arrest you'

bushbasher, "no"

Sir Garfield Barwick, the former Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia held that a police do not have the discretion not to charge where they are of the opinion that an offence has been committed. Otherwise police would (wrongly) assume the power of courts. If you are aware of a contrary opinion, please advise. Abusing police is an offence.

Where some offenders are fortunate is that in the interests of efficiency and (usually) more immediate and pressing demands, police sometimes disregard some relatively minor offences.

The power and authority of the uniform is about all that protects police in many circumstances and where abuse and disrespect towards police are commonplace, that power is lost with predictable results.

"The meaning of white privilege shifts and changes depending on economic class and gender while each intersects with the other, so a black male has different gender privilege than a white privileged male; and this gets more complex alongside class."

Agreed but then I get to "Given white privilege, the apology, the generosity of spirit, the willingness to avert a confrontation was Crowley’s responsibility." and I'm left wondering how the determination is made that Crowley's white privilege outweighs what appears to be Gate's class, wealth and intelectual privilege.

I'm also left wondering about demanding actions and choices by people based on stereotypes or perceptions of group based privilege (or disadvantage). What happens to society when we demand that individuals act on stereotypes both of themselves and those they deal with. Who gets to decide which sereotypes are Ok and which are not?

If we required people to treat others as though some sterotypes about ourselves and the other are true then we could quickly undo a lot of progress which has been made.

R0bert

The issue I have most with the article is not the musings about 'what ifs' in relation to gender, class and economic privelege but that it does exactly what most feminists rebel against and that is stereotyping.

We all choose our behaviours at any given time just as Gates and Crowley did and we can all be wise in hindsight.

The recent incident where a mother of a teen encouraged a catfight between her daughter and another girl would seem to be in contradiction to the authors offering that two women would necessarily have made a difference.

When we get away from stereotyping we make it possible for women to be both rocket scientists and homemakers or for men to choose nursing as easily as mechanics etc etc.

pelican, well said.

cornflower, with all due respect to barwick, i doubt his statement has much to do with the practical realities of low level crimes. (i would like the context in which he said that). sometimes it may be a question of too busy, sometimes due to bias, and often i would suggest it's due to plain common sense.

in any case, i'm not sure what exact crime you're referring to as "abuse a cop". gates wasn't arrested for the crime of abusing a cop, he was arrested for "disorderly conduct". this is the classic example of an offence where the cop has huge discretion.

I thought this was a dog of an article - the kind of pomo flummery that gives humanities academics a bad name.

Having said that - and I know the laws are different in the US - how the hell can anybody be arrested for 'disorderly conduct' in their own home? I think Ozandy's pretty close to the mark here.

I wonder how the police would handle such a situation in Australia? I imagine that if, say, Prof Mick Dodson locked himself out of his house and the police found him breaking into it, once he'd identified himself that would be the end of it.

This was obviously a very American storm in a teacup, IMHO. I bet it turns up as the basis for a 'Law and Order' episode before long.

CJ,

'the kind of pomo flummery that gives humanities academics a bad name.'

Haha. Yes it does! And there's many, many an example.

pelican,

Maybe you can explain it to SJF.

robert,

I'm glad you stuck to your guns. SJF will never give you the approval you seek, but there are nice birds like pelican. It sticks in my throat, but Fractelle has shown more common sense here than I knew she was capable of.

which brings me to

formersnag,

Oh, I've got such an arsenal ready to explode, there's so much material to work with. But in the end, ah, it would just be too easy. I'd feel bad. Let's just enjoy the show. Keep up the great work!

Oh, WOW! Gimme a break. Gimme a Kleenex. Make that 2 Kleenexes.

I just cannot get over the unbelievable outpouring of hurt masculine feelings, wronged masculine integrity and outraged masculine pride over this female author's audacity to make a negative emotional generalisation about men.

How dare she! My goodness. They must have been able to hear the collective chorus of masculine bottom lips trembling as far away as Indonesia.

To requote the author: 'Often, men get angry. They don’t like to be put down. There is no forgiving or collaboration to avert a fist-fight or hissy fit ...'

Well, now. A quick scan of most of the above posts written by men in response to this uppity woman's negative stereotyping of them shows that:

1. Men get angry.
2. Men don't like to be put down.
3. Men don't forgive or collaborate.
4. Men have hissy fits.

The only thing missing was the fist fight. How about keyboards at dawn, behind the cathedral?

Look on the bright side, guys. Women get this negative stereotyping all their lives. Consider yourself lucky that it happens so seldom in your lives that you've never learned to view it as 'normal'.

SJF

You forgot to add:

5. Men are condescending.

Houllie: << but Fractelle has shown more common sense here than I knew she was capable of. >>

Oh My Gawd, if women exhibit any of the 5 above behaviours, the entire universe is threatened by feminazis.

"When a man gives his opinion he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion she's a bitch."
Bette Davis

Pelican,2, getting better, but you still, "somehow", (take note fractelle), managed to twist Aunty Nellie's life into a mention of stereotyping, instead of an admission that her life, along with those of millions of other women, from her generation disproves some of the foundations that feminazism stands on.

Houellebecq, 3, clever work, some of it was even honest, but we still managed to avoid talking about Auntie Nellie, didn't we. BTW her 2 brothers were not sent to university, They, had to go jackarooing, in the school of "hard knocks/work", instead of the life of privilege that their sister, enjoyed. Also no mention of why she was deprived, of the opportunity to engage in the baby boom, and don't try some sarcasm, about her being "left on the shelf" because she was ugly or fat. I never met my Aunty Nellie until she had retired and moved to Brisbane, but she was quite attractive in her day. Perhaps you would like to collaborate with me on a scholarly, academic book/phd thesis on how, her existence, destroys, feminism?

BTW, What about all the other stuff, you had to say?

1, We are not having a verbal conversation in a pub/cafe, If you try to ignore what any of us "evil patriarchy denier's" are writing on the Internet for all the world to see, then your silence is approval?

2, If you try sarcasm, with 1 line quoted out of context and just more ignoring of the facts, then everybody will see that as well.

"Pelican,2, getting better,..."

Formersnag I didn't realise this was going on my report card.

I don't post on OLO for your benefit or to seek your approval, like everyone else I am just stating an opinion. I don't really give a toss about your Auntie Nellie.

Houlley
I don' think SJF needs me to explain anything, she is more than capable of forming her own conclusions.

Wedge politics doesn't really work unless you have a dumb audience.

R0bert

I've only just realised I forgot to address your response to my ‘silent treatment’ comment …

Sorry if there was a misunderstanding. Perhaps it was my guilty conscience, as my posts to you had been getting progressively grumpy.

Please, R0bert, can’t you lighten up a bit? NO feminist can - or will - ever behave with the requisite amounts of integrity, consistency and decorum you seem to expect from them – even the infinitely patient Fraccy and pelican.

Fractelle

"When a man gives his opinion he's a man. When a woman gives her opinion she's a bitch." Bette Davis’

And when a bitch gives her opinion, she couldn’t care less what anyone thinks of her.

Pelican

Excellent comebacks - especially to Hooley.

SJF:"'Often, men get angry. They don’t like to be put down. There is no forgiving or collaboration to avert a fist-fight or hissy fit ...'"

And often, they don't. Glad to have cleared that up.

Take me, for instance: haven't been in a fist-fight since I was about 13 at an all-boys boarding school. Part of living in that environment is learning conciliation and modes of negotiation to avoid the potential for violence, especially given the vast power imbalance that exists between an 18 year old young man and an11 year old boy. I very rarely throw hissy fits, although I do get angry and sometimes express it. Do you know a single person of either gender who does not?

I suspect that the story is the same for all of my friends, except perhaps a couple who don't take drink well. You'll note that it's the drink, not the masculinity that causes the problem.

SJF:"Women get this negative stereotyping all their lives"

What some women get is what some men get who choose or are pushed by circumstance to step outside middle-class mores - pat critiques in the form of stereotypes.

They aren't always the same stereotypes, but some are certainly shared betwen the genders.

SJF:"NO feminist can - or will - ever behave with the requisite amounts of integrity, consistency and decorum you seem to expect from them"

Then why the hell are we letting them into positions of authority? It's nice to see that you're finally starting to acknowledge there may be a problem with the whole notion of promotion based on adherence to an ideological standard.

SJF, thanks for that response. Appreciated.

I don't really want to lighten up to tollerate sexist stereotyping in what seems to be a serious article. Feminists have not changed attitudes to negative stereotypes of women by lightening up about those stereotypes when they are put seriously. I don't want to swap perceived power inbalances, I want to see them gone. Letting this type of stuff go by because women have had to put up with similar for a long time does not remove discrimination, it just shifts the target.

Most men rarely need to resort to fisticuffs or hissy fits in their day to day lives, the authors contention is simply wrong and should be easy to reject. The authors assertion about responsibility is different, I don't like it because it relies on stereotypes and subjective judgments about perceived privilige then wants to apply that to individuals.

Feminists who won't stand against negative stereotyping of men or who mock men for standing against discrimination against men are perpetuating the very divides that feminists often claim to be trying to stop.

R0bert

robert,

'Feminists who won't stand against negative stereotyping of men or who mock men for standing against discrimination against men are perpetuating the very divides that feminists often claim to be trying to stop.'

I think you're the one who's being too patient.

SJF,

All that bluster. A simple 'yes robert, you were right. That is a stereotype' would have sufficed.

Aunty Nellie.

Aunty Nellie was a wonderful woman. She came from a time when men were men and women were women. She so loved the feeling of soap suds on her finger tips. Bouncing around the house listening to the latest AJAX jingle, she waited for the love of her life, Gerald, to come home. Oh what a time they had in those days. The days were endless, so they never went to sleep.

But that meant Gerald sometimes got angry. He'd put on his nasty face, something Nellie didn't like. But she'd clean away that frown with one hitch of her skirt, something Gerald had become accustomed to. All the while she had two brothers, whom she liked to go jackarooing in that old school of hard knocks. Being 'deprived', many people thought she would have noticed her nephew, who thought she was quite attractive. But when she finally retired and moved to Brisbane, it was too late anyhow. By that stage, her very existence was starting to have the effect of destroying feminism.
This made her a dangerous woman!

Around this time, another young lady called SJF was just finishing her own studies at the university of confounding feministing principles. It was a large building built in the shape of a Doc Martin with a half testicle on either side of the heal. She was quite well versed on the power dynamics of the world, and decided Auntie Nellie was a threat to her entrenched view of how women were victimised. This would not do, a woman happy with her lot in life, happy with her gender roles, and happy with her husband. 'This cant be!' said SJF. 'Cant she see the husband she loves is oppressing her!'. But Nelly just winked at her and also laughed at her ridiculous dress sense. 'I know what you need m'dear!' she laughed, while pointing at the butcher shop window, with all tose tasty sausages in full view. And SJF was left to feel bitter about it to this day.

And that was how feminism was destroyed.

R0bert

'Feminists who won't stand against negative stereotyping of men ... are perpetuating the very divides that feminists often claim to be trying to stop.'

YOU are the one who seems to be stuck in this paradigm that feminists are trying to bridge gender divides. Leave that sort of thing to Relationships Australia - it's neither feminism's role nor responsibility.

Feminists are not out to stop stereotyping - either positive or negative. Rather, they examine the entrenched power structure inherent in gender stereotyping in an effort to raise awareness in women of how it has traditionally kept them disempowered.

For example, virtually all negative stereotyping of men relates to their having power – i.e. being aggressive, violent, crude, ruthless, sexually predatory etc. By contrast, virtually all negative stereotyping of women relates to their NOT having power - being nags, manipulative, petty, demanding, hysterical, sluts, teases etc.

These can also work as 'positive' stereotypes, e.g. male aggression is encouraged in business, sport and war, and women are encouraged to manipulate men's egos through flirtation etc to get what they want rather than coming across as too demanding if they simply assert their own needs.

I think what the author said was fair in the circumstances. Men's social conditioning to assert their power over other men creates a higher probability to inflame the situation described than women's social conditioning to conciliate and to please. Instead of considering this important point, everyone here - some feminists included - threw themselves into yet another 'feminist hypocrisy' beatup.

Houllebecq

‘He'd put on his nasty face, something Nellie didn't like. But she'd clean away that frown with one hitch of her skirt ...’

Yep. Women’s innate carnality is their weapon of 'power' over men! Thank you, Hooley, for reminding us why the public identity of women in most countries is reduced to that of either a scantily clad siren or an anonymous walking tent.

"YOU are the one who seems to be stuck in this paradigm that feminists are trying to bridge gender divides" - I'm not feeling all that alone here although it appears that most of the anti-feminist posters agree with you. If I belived you and the anti-feminists on that front I'd be joining the anti-feminist crowd.

There are certainly some feminists obsessed with power and much of the analysis/belief stuff which I disagree with is the one sided intepretation of power and privilege issues. There is a whole lot of semantics in there I could get tripped up on but in the end I don't think the power issues have been as clear cut as some want to make them out to be. We are unlikely to agree on that anytime soon.

I support the type of feminism which works towards equality even when I disagree about what the starting place was. I don't support the type that tries to achieve it's ends by putting men (or non compliant women) down or by plying off stereotypes to get an dishonest advantage.

R0bert

Pelican, 3, This may come as a shock to you, but this is, going on, everybody's report card. We are not having a verbal conversation in a pub or cafe. This is all in writing on the net.

1, If an allegedly antifemanazi, male/right winger, etc, writes an article, posts a comment which is in plain, simple, logical, polite, English, contains no stereotyping, labeling, sarcasm, condescension, etc, as most of them don't, and you completely ignore it, leave it unchallenged? Then everybody reading it all, (whether they leave a comment or not) will, interpret that, as being agreement.

2, If you, try to, twist the words, (play mind games in public) to mean something different? Then any reasonably, intelligent person will see that as well.

3, If you also, having done numbers 1 &/or 2, then, launch into, repeating the same, tired old propaganda, that, almost, all of your, "sistas in da hood" have been lecturing us with, for 40 years now? Then again, plain for all of us to see.

4, If you try the old, lame, quote 1 line out of context? Then proceed on with any combination of the above, then, that too will be equally obvious.

My first encounter with OLO was the article, "when not to negotiate", bobtwat left a comment alleging that "all" men/fathers were abusers and "all" of their groups were "abusers rights/apologists groups".

You ladies, may wish to consider, your, "bitch, and i don't care", what, anybody, thinks, positions, before you destroy, femanazism with your own words.

"Then everybody reading it all, (whether they leave a comment or not) will, interpret that, as being agreement."

I don't agree Fomersnag. If we posted directly to everyone that posts on OLO we would soon run out of word limits. It is enough to just state an opinion and offers some rationale and reasoning behind the statement. Obviously sometimes we might refer to a particular post in reference to a point or theme within a topic.

"...bobtwat left a comment alleging that "all" men/fathers were abusers and "all" of their groups were "abusers rights/apologists groups"

One person's comment does not a movement make. Your understanding of what a feminist is very different, obviously from mine. All you have done in your posts to date is to denigrate women as feminazis without any evidence or rationale.

What is a feminazi? Is it the same as a masculinazi?

"If you also, having done numbers 1 &/or 2, then, launch into, repeating the same, tired old propaganda, that, almost, all of your, "sistas in da hood" have been lecturing us with, for 40 years now? Then again, plain for all of us to see."

You make statements like this but do not explain what the message is that the "sistas" have been lecturing for the past 40 years. It is just ranting at women for the sake of it.

I can see no argument or rationale in your postings - it is hard to comment reasonably at a rant.

'I don't agree Fomersnag. If we posted directly to everyone that posts on OLO we would soon run out of word limits.'

I agree pelican,

But the rules of engagement as set by these threads differ.

I remember one odious poster roscorp or something said some pretty weird/nasty stuff, and good 'ol Fraccy decided it was up to every male poster to 'denounce' this guy or else we must therefore agree with him.

Obviously being male and all we must agree with every other males' post in her head I dunno.

'I can see no argument or rationale in your postings - it is hard to comment reasonably at a rant.'

I was curious as to why you thought it best to use rational logical thought to converse with formersnag. I think you have to try and relate to people on their own level.

R0bert

'I'm not feeling all that alone here although it appears that most of the anti-feminist posters agree with you. If I belived you and the anti-feminists on that front I'd be joining the anti-feminist crowd.’

I consider you ARE part of the anti-feminist crowd. I always have. It’s just that you hide your anti-feminism behind a veneer of pseudo-sympathy and good-feminist/bad-feminist wedge politiking.

My meaning in the quote was clear but you have deliberately twisted it to imply that feminists are proactively trying to divide the genders. In this regard, you are making an equivalent ‘sexist misrepresentation’ that you accused the author of in your first post here.

‘There are certainly some feminists obsessed with power…’

More sexist misrepresentation and more wedge politics. As a feminist I find this statement truly offensive – and the use of ‘some’ does not soften its intended message. I went to a great deal of trouble in my previous post to explain the importance of social and psychological empowerment to feminists and you took those words and changed them to portray ‘some’ feminists as being greedy for power.

How would you like a movement that you believe in described in this way? But, of course, that’s not really an issue, is it? Because I’m a ‘bad feminist’, I’m not assumed to have any feelings – except greed and megalomania.

Haha.

Go SJF:-)

'I consider you ARE part of the anti-feminist crowd. I always have. It’s just that you hide your anti-feminism behind a veneer of pseudo-sympathy and good-feminist/bad-feminist wedge politiking.'

Man that's really gonna hurt. Actually maybe to much. That's cruel, you know how much robert wants to stand apart from that crowd. Coming from you that's like a stake through his heart!

'I think what the author said was fair in the circumstances. Men's social conditioning to assert their power over other men creates a higher probability to inflame the situation described than women's social conditioning to conciliate and to please.'

I still don't agree with you. The author didn't say

'Men's social conditioning to assert their power over other men creates a higher probability to inflame the situation described than women's social conditioning to conciliate and to please.'

She said

"'Often, men get angry. They don’t like to be put down. There is no forgiving or collaboration to avert a fist-fight or hissy fit ...'"

If she'd have said what you said nobody would have cried sexist stereotyping. See, just because you agree with the point, doesn't take the sexist stereotyping away. Also I'll be watching from now on (as I do) for the next time you object to any sexist stereotyping.

Pelican, 4, You sound, just like my first wife. "i can see no argument or rationale in your postings" Everybody else can. At least Pynchme is attempting to have a sensible conversation about DV and child abuse. That kind of head, #$%*, mind, game, may have worked, when i was in my early 20's, and a relationship, with a woman, i loved, whom i also "thought" loved me. (men fall for these childish games at first, because we are simple, honest, creatures, easily, pleased, and it would never enter our heads, that the woman who is supposed to be your, "life partner" would be involved in mind games, because of some strange neurosis or femanazi, social conditioning, until it happens, and you see your children being abused as well)

When a sociopsychopath has no rationale (because they are just plain wrong) and still wants to win the argument, one the first rules is to deny or argue everything, without exception, 24/7, the aim here is to wear your opponent down, thereby fooling them, into questioning their own integrity.

Not one, of my postings has ever, denigrated "ALL" women, i have always said that moderate women are the "silent majority", not interested in femanazism, having always, clearly spoken about a minority group of radical, extremist, femanazi's. If you are not aware of that fact, then you have not been reading, my postings at all, or are lying, which is it?

If you don't know "ANY" of your own, femanazi propaganda AT ALL, then heaven help you. Here is a hint, why don't "YOU" name just "ONE" of the feminist "ten commandments" that is true, or ONE SINGLE positive achievement for women/girls as a result of, 4 decades of feminism.

houellebecq, You sound just like my third wife, she too, was always, "taking the words right out of my mouth", i have written postings, just like RObert's, but have done more, of them at your level, lately. Your "comebacks" are a lot more "intellectual" than those of pelican or poor old, SJF, but still?

SHF, thanks I think. Now maybe Houellebecq can get over his theory.

I completely disagree with your post, am bit hurt by it but it tells more about where you are at than where I'm so I'll try not to dwell on it. Maybe a little less outrage about the idea that someone may have taken your words differently to the way you intended them.

I do think some of you are too obsessed with power, you seem to want to evaluate everything in terms of perceived power (using filters of your own choosing) but my experience is that the large majority of people care little for it other than the power to maintain control of their own choices.

Those who rise to the top might be very concerned with it along with those who wish they could but most don't really care about it unless the lack of it starts seriously impacting on their lives. To evaluate everything in terms of power imposes a false stereotype on the lives of a great many people.

R0bert

Former Snag

So you’ve had at least 3 wives, huh? Gee, I really can’t match that. You see, I’ve been married only once, happily, for more than 20 years, and to a man I consider my best friend.

If you ever want some advice from a sociopathic femonazi on how to make a good marriage last, you only have to ask. Don’t be proud.

Houllebecq

I can’t keep up. All that rigmarole about you-said-this and the-author-said-that and if-you’d-said-this and the author-had-said-that, then we-wouldn’t-think-this and we-wouldn’t-do-that …

Is there some point to all this? … That is, other than to show that you seem to have serious control issues about how good/bad feminists should/shouldn’t say things that might/mightn’t directly affect how men feel/behave.

R0bert

‘… most don't really care about power unless the lack of it starts seriously impacting on their lives.’

That’s why feminists are concerned with it, because they see how the lack of it seriously impacts on women’s lives in a way that does not impact on men's lives. If you don’t believe the lack of power impacts on women’s lives, then you can never understand feminism.

'...the large majority of people care little for it...'

I might have thought that once, but life and experience has made me completely reconsider that paradigm. Power is like a two-way mirror – those without it see right through it, while those with it see only their reflection. I notice that the overwhelming majority of the male posters here – yourself included – look at women but don’t see them. All they see is their own reflection.

SJF,

'Is there some point to all this? … That is, other than to show that you seem to have serious control issues about how good/bad feminists should/shouldn’t say things that might/mightn’t directly affect how men feel/behave.'

Yes there is. As I said earlier, a simple 'yes robert, you were right. That is a stereotype' would have sufficed.

I don't believe in good and bad feminists, just common sense, practical, gender equity seeking men and women, and neurotic chip on the shoulder humanities department conspiracy theory feminists (constitutional feminists).

'I notice that the overwhelming majority of the male posters here – yourself included – look at women but don’t see them. All they see is their own reflection.'

Maybe the view is better.

Yeah like you see men! Come'on. Pot, let me introduce you to kettle. You cant even see that a lack of power impacts on ANYONE (male or female).

You're Marx's Constitutional Feminist in my post above. Not interested in any topic unless it's about women. And if it's not, you'll say it should be, and you'll find an angle to make it about women as this author has done.

I'm so glad you made up with r0bert I was getting quite worried.

"If you don’t believe the lack of power impacts on women’s lives" I believe it to a degree but I think that the power available to most men is massively overstated by some feminists. Perceptions are built around convenient stereotypes and miss much of the reality of peoples day to day lives.

We've been over it before, I doubt that we will change anything about that in a hurry. Women have been denied formal power at the top end of town, they have been denied one set of options (as men have generally been denied the other set of options). I suspect that views about the balance in that will depend on social conditioning, family history etc. I support changes which open up opportiunities to both genders.

Do you understand why supporting a blatently sexist comment about men on the basis that it's a "feminist analysis of power distribution based on gender" and describe feminists as "they examine the entrenched power structure inherent in gender stereotyping in an effort to raise awareness in women of how it has traditionally kept them disempowered" it's somewhat rich to be all bothered by a comment that some feminists are obsessed with power or for that matter to get upset with men who point out places where men have and sometimes continue to suffer because of gender.

You post "Because I’m a ‘bad feminist’, I’m not assumed to have any feelings – except greed and megalomania" after the sarcastic attack on men for not liking some blatently sexist remarks about men http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9288#148468 .

We apparently don't have feelings or if we do should never mention when something bothers us.

R0bert

Houlley
You asked - "I was curious as to why you thought it best to use rational logical thought to converse with formersnag. I think you have to try and relate to people on their own level."

I really don't know...

Formersnag
I think it says it all that you perceive moderate women as the "silent" majority. Silent being the operative word. You still have not defined what you mean by a feminazi.

"If you don't know "ANY" of your own, femanazi propaganda AT ALL, then heaven help you. Here is a hint, why don't "YOU" name just "ONE" of the feminist "ten commandments" that is true, or ONE SINGLE positive achievement for women/girls as a result of, 4 decades of feminism."

Formersnag, I don't define myself as a feminazi. I tend more to the humanist mold. That is why I am asking you to define it as I really don't know. What are the ten commandments of feminazism? I suspect it might be similar to misogyny but in reverse.

As for positive achievements of feminism - there are many - equal pay for equal work, womens' refuges for victims of DV who prior to feminism basically had to suck it up, women being viewed less as sex objects but as real people with feelings and contributions to make to society. And most importantly for men the opportunity to have meaningful relationships with a 'real' person on an equal-ish footing.

R0bert

'Do you understand why supporting a blatently sexist comment about men …’

THAT is the sort of manipulative comment that really gets up my nose. It’s the kind of comment that pretends to be inviting discussion, when it’s really slamming the book shut on it.

Basically, the only criteria for any discussion of the original 2 quotes you raised are (a) that the quotes are blatantly sexist, (b) because you say they are blatantly sexist, they are, and (c) anyone who dares to examine the quotes in any way other than as blatantly sexist comments must be supporting sexism and (d) is so is so is so.

What you don’t even begin to consider is that to a lot of people, these quotes were NOT sexist comments at all – blatant or otherwise. They were comments that shone a spotlight on how the different social conditioning between the genders (and races and classes) could create different responses to the same situation. Go back and read the context and you will see that this was almost certainly the author’s intent.

I believe these comments were both justifiable and worthwhile. The fact that only a tiny handful of people here picked up on their merit – e.g. Suzeonline – does not detract from the important issues they raise.

If you want to respond to this, I'll read it but won't reply. I'm worried about the damage to my wall being caused by throwing my head at it.

Hooley

‘I don't believe in good and bad feminists, just common sense, practical, gender equity seeking men and women, and neurotic chip on the shoulder humanities department conspiracy theory feminists (constitutional feminists).’

Ah … don’t look now, but you just explained why you believe in good and bad feminists.

And … please. Do we have to keep on hearing about these Constipational Feminists all the time? If you are really so concerned about these dreadful women, dob them in to the Tax Office or something.

pelican,

'women being viewed less as sex objects '
Ya sure?

Hey I'm really liking formersnag. First post I slam feminists but not Greer. formersnag decides I'm a femanazi. (actually that post disappeared?)

Second post I slam him. formersnag says I'm improving but shouldn't have avoided talking about Auntie Nellie.
; saying 'Perhaps you would like to collaborate with me on a scholarly, academic book/phd thesis on how, her existence, destroys, feminism?'

(One of the funniest proposals, actually the funniest I've ever encountered. ever.)

So I took up the challenge. I couldn't really decipher his response to that one. I thought it was a nice story though, maybe he liked it.

You gotta laugh.

If not you'd cry:-)

SJF,

Now now, steady on, I'm a feminist sympathiser you know.

Not like robert, he's a fifth columnist.

Or am I a fifth columnist? You better watch out, we're all really working for the patriarchy! Waltzing around in the corridors of power. Hahaha!

'you just explained why you believe in good and bad feminists. '

Not good and bad. No. The former is widespread and generally unremarkable, the latter is a small group of fascinating sideshow alley performers. So, one's boring and one's entertaining really. All good.

Actually I love all airy fairy arts students and their whimsical sociological theories. The feminists are just a particular favourite because they have the one simple scapegoat for all the worlds ills. Maybe that's why they fill the rest up with so much fluff. When you start with a simple answer and work backwards to lots of complex problems, there's so much scope for entertaining justifications.

Constipational Feminists is maybe a better word. I know there's something stuck up there!

'women being viewed less as sex objects '
Ya sure?

Actually Houlley, you have a point - don't get a big head.

Maybe not quite there yet but there was some progress until sexualisation saturated the media.

SJF, I don't want you self harming.

Would not it have been so much easier to do what Houellebecq suggested and admit that the comment is sexist, that it could have been phrased so much better. Perhaps you could have taken Houellebecq's suggestion 'Men's social conditioning to assert their power over other men creates a higher probability to inflame the situation described than women's social conditioning to conciliate and to please.', fixed it up a bit and put it out there.

Instead you have stuck to the amazing idea that the original comments are fine. I really doubt that either you or the author are unable to see how factually incorrect and sexist the chosen wording was, I think it's a deliberate choice to use inflamitory language.

As for using Suzeonline as a second opinion to decide if something is sexist - after "If the professor was a woman, she probably wouldn't have thought to jimmy the door open. She would have had a spare key somewhere!" maybe better to get a third opinion. suzeonline if that was a joke and I missed the joke I apologise.

Me I keep a spare key around outside, most of the women I've known well enough to know about their keys have not done so. Some because they don't see the need, others because of concerns that someone else will use it.

R0bert

Oh come on r0bert of course it was a joke.

At one point I thought SJF's argument was that yeah it's sexist, but so what, the point it makes is good and who says feminists have to never use stereotypes, women cop it all the time.

I would have agreed with her angle that you lot are just itching to find something derogatory about men to whinge about, and never even look to take anything away from the article other than that.

But as valid as that is, why then would an author wanting to make a point use that kind of language to allow it to happen? If I was a feminist trying to explain to men about power differentials, and wanted them to listen, I wouldn't cloud my main point like that, and say Na ni na ni na na, you guys are all aggressive numskulls itchin' for a barney!

Anyway, now she's just looking dogged, trying to 'win' I think. Oh well.