Gender related threads on OLO always seem to produce a high number of posts. Therefore, I take it that there is broad agreement to the key idea of Nina's article, that there should be more discussion of feminism's role in Australian society. The key omission from Nina's article was exactly what information people should be given.

I'm happy for Nina to have her say, as long as counter-arguments are always presented. The 'do whatever you like and play the victim if that doesn't work out' stream of feminism seems to have completely taken over much of the media, because it is easier to tell your audience what they want to hear. It would be nice to hear from other feminists who have dissenting ideas, such as refusing to play the victim. It would also be nice to hear from the men's movement more often. Much of the media rarely presents the full picture on issues like domestic violence or the pay gap.

Have your say Nina.... just learn to accept the views of others with good grace.

Firesnake

I had a lot of trouble trying to follow your rambling style. However, I assume you are saying that women are often the biggest impediment to women’s equality. If so, then I couldn’t agree more. This fact is only a surprise to those who invest in the false paradigm that feminism is all about – and only about – women versus men.

Cornflower

‘If white men are are numerous, influential and dangerous as believed by feminists…’

It’s an endless source of fascination to a feminist like me to read the weird and wonderful things that anti-feminists insist are believed by feminists.

They remind me of an old comedy sketch called ‘Frontier Psychiatrist’, in which an Austrian-accented psychiatrist of the Wild West keeps asking a cowboy why he hates his horse. The cowboy’s continued insistence that he doesn’t hate his horse is, or course, futile. The psychiatrist simply has his own agenda – which has nothing to do with either cowboys or horses.

Houllebecq

If Germaine Greer’s ‘The Boy’ is just a book about naked little boys, then the world’s art galleries are just buildings full of naked women.

Benk

‘It would be nice to hear from other feminists who have dissenting ideas, such as refusing to play the victim.’

Lovely little piece of paternalistic, good feminist/bad feminist pontificating there. And tell me – oh, Objective One, who gets to define what a ‘dissenting feminist idea’ is?

Well for blokes there is always an option, as this poor bloke
in China finally decided :)

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25912783-5013016,00.html

.

I'm concerned that this thread seems to be dominated by men's men or female fence sitters. Feminism appears to be a spent force, or worse; rather than the sexes retreating to their neutral corners we've reverted to the old power structure--patriarchy propped up by "independents" (female traitors). This is merely apparent, however; men have been castrated of real power (we're not talking about the corporate gods here); the bravado is merely the dying echo of male supremacy. On the women's side, though, it's a crushing defeat that will leave the fairer sex languishing until a political obverse can once again be found (not in neutered men). But that's just playing the game, making the system stronger. The real challenge for emancipation that Women are now faced with is overcoming capitalism, of transcending a system that patronises and demeans for no other reason than the fundamentalism of growth. Rather than seeking equality, women should rise up and overthrow the whole rotten system--and liberate men in the process!
But first they have to break the addiction.....

SJF

Irrelevant as ever, but at least you are consistent in that.

You mentioned horses and here is a free gift for you courtesy of the Navajo Indians:

"The rider, upon discovering his (her) horse is dead, should immediately dismount."

Your half-baked 'take' of Eighties radical feminism sees you continually flogging a dead horse. However much that old victim feminism suits your personality it is time to move on. Many before have tried to give you that hint.

Rather than indulge yourself with yet another undergraduate femrad rant out of the Eighties, what about drafting some comment on the meanings of 'equal', 'discrimination' and 'stereotyping'? You might like to use the example given previously along with the linked articles concerning the proposed positive discrimination against 'white men'. Here it is again for you:

"The CEO of the Victorian Equal Opportunity Commission supporting the legalising of discrimination against white men would take the cake."

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/a_licence_to_despise/

http://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2008/12/herald-sun-columnist-time-to-get-rid-of.htmlhttp://ozconservative.blogspot.com/2008/12/herald-sun-columnist-time-to-get-rid-of.html

SJF

My point is that much of the media only promotes a particular stream of feminism that focusses on choice/independence and self confidence/self esteem. "Dissenting feminists" are those feminists who think outside this particular box.

I believe that this model of feminism was chosen because it is so convenient. Choice means do whatever you like and don't care about the rest of us. Self esteem is boosted by telling others what they want to hear.

In addition, once a line of argument is labelled 'feminist', many people see any deviation from it as an attack on everything that feminism has ever achieved. I would like to see more acceptance that there are different ideas about the issues that feminism deals with.

As for paternalism, positioning women as victims is paternalism. Treating women as if they are unable to take responsibility for their actions is paternalism. Treating women as though they have fragile little egos made of ticky-tacky that might shatter if they hear any message that they dislike is very, very paternalistic.