Houellebecq, I don't recall casting the debate into good feminist's vs bad feminist's although that may be semantics (or poor memory). Sometimes it may get that way in practice but amongst the OLO contributers few who stick around are quite that one-dimensional.

As for comments about SJF's posts, try a couple of posts which I recalled http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2968#68581

"The Family Law Acts of the 1970s only really introduced no-fault divorce, while leaving the mother-dominant child custody laws intact. On this basis, I believe the more recent introduction of 50-50 child residency legislation in some countries is a progressive move.

Ironically, feminism, which has brought so many positive benefits to the family is lagging behind in accepting the 50-50 laws – mainly because of the old pressure on women to be primary childcarers. But I do notice feminist attitudes are softening on this."

You could try several post's down in the same thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2968#68583
"Women are no more or less progressive, racist or democratic than men. As for being more sensitive, that’s more a matter of female conditioning to fulfill the caring role – rather than any inbuilt biological imperative.

I know you mean well, but women are no better or worse than men as people. It's just that they are valued less than men in socio-political terms."

R0bert

R0bert(quoting SJF):"women are no better or worse than men as people. It's just that they are valued less than men in socio-political terms.""

And that neatly sums up why I reject SJF's arguments. Women are not "valued less than men" in australia or any other Western country. they are certainly valued for different qualities, but it is only the career feminists who see those things as less valuable than the things men are valued for. The question is then: why?

They are happy to link women with their children when it suits, such as post-divorce and they're happy to push for massive social spending on matters that disproportionately affect women and they even recognise that most women can't have their cake and eat it in terms of career/children without massive social support, preferably provided by the State. However, they then turn around, after dmanding all of this special treatment and say "the State doesn't really value women's contribution".

If we look at the amount of money spent by the State on specifically female issues, from health care to legal assistance it is vastly greater than that spent on men. If we look at the Anti-discrimination Act, it is almost solely intended to advantage women while ignoring men in similar situations. If we look at Parliaments, every one has a Minister for Women who does bugger all other than being female and handing out money to other women to form associations that exclude men.

Our Universities are dominated by women students 3 to 2, our professions are now primarily women, our schools have policies specifically designed to assist girls, but nothing for boys except ritalin. in Victoria it is soon going to be policy to encourage employers to specifically discriminate against male job applicants for no reason other than their gender. Guess what gender the Minister who suggested that was?

All in all, the only thing missing from the feminist parade is a band at the head of it, playing an appropriate dirge for the sackcloth and ashes girls to work themselves into a frenzy over.

Nina Funnell: ”… it’s worth noting that violence against women and children costs this country an estimated $13.6 billion a year. These are sobering facts that all women should be aware of.”

The only sobering facts that I am aware of in relation to official figures on violence against women is the shabby practices used to arrive at such figures. Access Economics in its 2004 study in its calculations of what domestic violence costs the nation (reckoned $8.1billion p.a.), it had to estimate the number of AVOs issued across all jurisdictions since jurisdictions do not disclose meaningful information despite the incessant noise and vast government outlays propping up the domestic violence industry.

Excerpts from report on DV

“In the short time that was available to the jurisdictions to respond to the data request, some indicated that the data may be available, while others indicated that this data was not public, nor able to be released.”

“In a similar manner to the incarceration and police call out estimates, the national figure for the number of AVOs was constructed to give an estimate of 56,262.”

http://www.accesseconomics.com.au/publicationsreports/showreport.php?id=23&searchfor=2004&searchby

No estimate was made of how many of the estimated 56,262 AVO’s were founded on lies and exaggerations.

The fact that there is no honest attempt at proper national data collection on domestic violence, is something that should be very sobering.

Robert,

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9364#149646

That's more her usual form.

In a Far, Far, Away Galaxy on the planet Autofemta, the prime directive for a population of Fem+ computers is to REPRODUCE, to make little computers and nurture them to full size and capacity.

A crisis has just emerged. There are more computers now than potential future resources can sustain. As a result, the Fem+ breeder computers are more selective as they know the Computer WAR is nigh and want the best offspring to fight it for THEIR survival. The Male-> computers are in an uproar and quite naturally abuse the Fem+ computers for this new aloofness and self importance.

The governing computers see the problem not as 'computer overcrowding' but as Male-> computer violence against the fair and lovely Fem+ and seek to empower Fem+ computers in the belief that this will allow them to defend themselves, feel better, stop the violence, have fewer baby computers, stop the overcrowding, provide better governance with their fair nature, stimulate compUeconomic growth with their bigger carbon footprint & their voracious buying power and thus provide better living standards for every elite computer on Autofemta.

But alas, in the still of night, despite all the changes, a quickening! The Fem+ machines awaken in a sweat and on their cold blue monitors appears:

"PRIME DIRECTIVE ... MAKE LITTLE COMPUTERS, NURTURE THEM, MAKE THEM STRONGER & FASTER FOR THE WARS THEY MUST FIGHT"

~ TIME WARP 200 years:

What news from Autofemta?

The cockroaches report that they are at last developing a business in acquired tastes for the mounds of dead computers ..... and business is good.

They inform us they have a new name for their planet ...

.... ROACHFEMTA

On & on & on & on

Across the Universe.

Nothins gonna change the Thermodynamics... except KAEP

pelican

'Regarding the book - I am not sure if Germaine was trying to make a particular point but if it was a man writing a book about naked girls there would probably be a Royal Commission.I have not seen the book, so I don't know how old the 'boys' were or if they were consenting adults.'

I strongly advise you to have a look at the book. You're taking Hooley's ignorant comments as truth. It's not at all a book 'about naked boys'. There are hardly any naked boys in it, and the ones that are have a reason for being there. (In fact, I can't recall any total naked shots but it's a while since I read it).

It's a book that discusses the iconographic history of 'the boy' (pubescent to early adulthood) in mainly Western culture. It looks at how film-makers, writers and artists have approached the 'boy' in symbolic, metaphorical and philosophical terms, covering works such as 'Death in Venice', Michelangelo’s 'David', and historical issues such as the use of young boys to play women’s roles before women were allowed to perform on stage.

She also makes the important ‘male gaze’ point that for centuries the culture has celebrated the beauty of the young female form but the celebration of the beauty of the young male form (by both men and women) has been condemned as a perversity. After all, admiration for the male form was prized in Greek, Roman and other pre-Christian cultures, but was discouraged under Christianity and after the Reformation, the female form became the main object of our cultural gaze.

I don’t always agree with Germaine – especially her nasty bigotry to transgendered women – but she has a stunning and powerful intellect. Also, she is first and foremost a literary academic – and ‘The Boy’ is really a literary analysis, not a dirty book for feminists, as Hooley would like us to believe.