The problem with this article isn't the message, it is the messenger. WTF? and myself cannot be the only two readers who see the problem with Nina writing this article.

I don't know how bad the "define consent" Facebook page really was, its title makes it sound more like a legitimate debate about points of law. However, boorish behaviours amongst far too many males in our society is a real problem.

On the other hand, Nina has described herself as a "sexual libertarian" and written in praise of women who behave in a way that is similar to these blokes (see "Don't Patronise Ladies who Raunch"). She looks like a total hypocryte who can only damage the reputation of the feminist causes that she wants to champion.

It's pretty obvious really.

Some bloke at college, knocked poor nina back, & she has never got over it.

Come on love, get on with it.

Liberty is a word and a concept that can only go so far. My freedom and your freedom can collide. What then? There is an obvious tension between claiming a liberty and claiming that another person's behaviour limits or diminishes a liberty. This is a very difficult area.

In any case, there is nothing inconsistent in claiming a liberty to be, among other things, sexually promiscuous while at the same time admonishing others for taking their liberty too far with sexual behaviour that is violent and oppressive.

I see nothing wrong - in terms of sexual politics - with girls or boys wanting to binge drink, be sexually promiscuous, be raunchy, etc. But this behaviour can cross a line.

It's this line that Nina appears to take issue with and the fact that boys more than girls cross it because it is more socially acceptable for boys to do so. Not so clearly in a broader social sense - the media does appear to sometimes take such behaviour to task - but most definitely in a local "boys club", "rugby club", "high school footy team" etc sense.

I often wonder why picks the teaser for articles.

"men who hold misogynist and sexist attitudes can come from any class, community or culture."

The teaser sort of fitted the article but maybe what Nina's arguments really demonstrated was that people who are treated as priviliged and constantly told that they are a cut above the rest can easily develop a remarkable lack of respect for others.

I'm guessing that some feminists won't see any need for Nina to be more even handed in her writing, I have a different view. If Nina had said that "people who hold mis.... and sexist attitudes can come from any class, community or culture." she might have had little objection.

Continuing to focus on the wrongs of men as though men hold the sole rights to hurtful behaviour and a lack of respect for others is getting very old. It might make Nina and a handfull or others feel better but I doubt that it does much else.

R0bert

I wonder if some women just get upset because they are not in control of the silly little games they play. Often they want to dress as sex objects and then whinge when men perve on them, they want to speak filthy language until someone speaks back to them, they want to be the boss but play the victim.

NIna writes

'Clearly, men who hold misogynist and sexist attitudes can come from any class, community or culture.'
Also clearly women who have never been taught to be ladies come from any class, community or culture.' She would do well to speak out for her Muslim sisterhood instead of harping on about a lot of the problems created by women who want to act loose and be treated like ladies.

There is research into female bullying techniques.

Part of the female tactic is to tell bad/false stories, spreading rumours, writing nasty notes, gossiping and revealing others secrets.

I think it was Daphne Patai or it could have Hoff-Summers who wrote about how feminists stoked their anger, it is similar to the techniques by football clubs prior to a match, where the other side it put down, and have bad, nasty things said about them.

Basically by focussing on the all bad things that a small number of men have done to some women, there by taring all men with the same brush.

It colours and distorts perceptions in a similar way that if a person only associated with criminals, it would be easy to beleive that everyone was a criminal, even though the vast majority are or attempt to be law abiding citizens.

Someone once wrote that when a feminist uses the word, misogyinistic, it means "How dare you disagree with me". Another wrote that it was a waste of energy trying to have a rational arguement with them,