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.