Us blokes have been given a huge collection of rules to follow, most of which looked unimportant to most people of both genders. Therefore, it takes little deliberate effort to get in trouble with these particular feminists. It may also explain the why these stunts appeal to people. I thought the racehorse article was hilarious.

We have created an atmosphere where most young blokes think that the rules about sex and relationships with women are for suckers and that it is ok to break the rules. This is alright to a point, but many blokes seem to have trouble knowing where that point lies. We are told not to harass random women in nightclubs, but many women like (some) men who flirt with them. We are told to leave women alone when they act disinterested, but many women like (some) blokes who work hard to win them over. When we are told about important rules, like those about rape, there is a culture of cynicism. Creating rules that were meant to be broken has created a climate where sexual assault is still too prevalent.

Hilarious that even feminist don't really believe in evolution (that we came from monkeys) when the practical outworking of such a myth threatens their dignity.

Good article, I will support Benk points here as well.

Women's magazines publish airbrushed photos of objectified women. Men's magazines publish airbrushed photos of objectified women. Yes, there is a problem here. And the answer is not objectifying men.

floatinglili: I agree absolutely.

Feminism's general intent has been to change the systems and structures whereby power and authority were/are gained and maintained at the expense of others, especially women and children, not to buy a controlling share in the idiocracy.

Our intent must be to value all people; not just swap roles as oppressor and oppressed.

<As a young woman I know how difficult it is to make a complaint and have it properly considered. If feminists want to be taken seriously, they must come up with ways to make others, particularly young men, more receptive to their views.>

For starters, stop the male bashing.

<Feminism still has a long way to go, and feminists can only do so much. But if attitudes towards women are really to improve then young men need to be part of the solution. And sports editors need to grow up.>

I'll let this article do the talking.

<commentator Nancy Levant came out with a book titled “THE CULTURAL DEVASTATION OF AMERICAN WOMEN: The Strange and Frightening Decline of The American Female (and Her Dreadful Timing).“ In it she said many things that American men had been saying for decades, against very pervasive and systematized resistance to, and denial of, their message. Men’s criticisms had long been dismissed with accusations of “misogyny” or “backlashing” or claims that the men were just “angry” or “bitter” or “threatened by losing their power.”>

http://www.the-spearhead.com/2009/12/12/the-cultural-devastation-of-and-by-feminist-women-tell-your-stories/

James H, I don't believe that the author was male bashing all men at all.
She seems to be mainly upset at the people (? men) who write the men's sporting magazines. If they really had some female horses mentioned as female sports stars of the year, then I don't blame her!

There are also many women's magazines who concentrate on the physical attributes of some male sports stars too however. I see nothing wrong with people of either gender admiring some fine forms of the opposite gender in magazines.

While most men are not chauvanist, most young men take enourmous pleasure in the reactions of humourless, self important figures (or bodies) when prodded. Unfortunately for the feminist movement they are heavily populated with puffed up militants who can be counted on to give the desired response on cue, which is money in the bank for the perpetrators. Anyone who has watched the chaser would know this.

If these vanguards of womens' rights were simply mature enough to give a measured reply such as "This is too stupid for a response" the taunting would die from lack of oxygen. Their often radical responses generally means that they are the ones ridiculed and losing credibility.

Most men as SM states are not cretins but I would imagine if one wanted to seek out a cretin the sporting fraternity would be the ideal starting point.

I tend to be a bit defeatist about the type of behaviour that Nina described. You are always going to get nongs in society and nothing feeds a nong more than the reaction they were seeking - you can just see the gang together giggling and guffawing at the responses they incite. Probably followed by the Who can do the Biggest Fart competition or how many hot dogs can we eat in one sitting - haw haw haw. Nary a brain cell to be seen between them.

I disagree with SM that it is the feminist responses that invite ridicule only the fact perhaps they responded at all. The only ridicule would come from the nongs themselves - which is almost a compliment when you think about it.

Words to the effect of providing someone with a sporting chance, kind of implies they will loose anyway.

As they are already at a disadvantage anyway.

I kind of had visions of feminists giving young men a hundred yard head start, before they start shooting. ;) ;)

Silly James. your link was seriously scary. I worry for you, and for those close to you.

@Funnel,

I haven’t seen the poll results. You say two of the top 10 were horses and that Serena Williams came first and a horse came second. Don’t you mean an ass came first and a horse came second? Serena Williams besides having a big ass, she carries on like an ass: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DO_jlXjgxN8. I guess she has to behave like she does to compensate for the fact she only has to play the best of 3 sets to win a match whereas men have to play the best of 5 sets to win a tourmament and equal prize money. How does that appeal to your acute sense of gender inequality?

Until women acknowledge inequalities that don't only apply to their own gender, they deserve not to be taken seriously.

Yes Roscop,Sarina could do with playing a few five set matches.

@benk,

I’m not suggesting that Serena should be playing five set matches. After watching her foul mouthed verbal abuse of a lineswoman, I’d suggest she should not be playing any matches at all.

If you read Funnell’s articles you’ll notice that she is only concerned about male behaviour. She makes apologies or excuses for those of her own gender like those referred to in the tale about ladettes.

It is not surprising how the hypocrite that wrote the article takes offence at horses being included amongst the top 10 female sporting identities and overlooks the fact that the disgusting Serena Williams, who should be an embarrassment to her those of her gender, is at the top of that list. The emotional violence that Williams heaped on the lineswoman, threatening to kill her if she could, would equate to something right up the scale of domestic violence offences.

My disappointment with the polling results including two horses comes from that taking the spotlight off the person who is at the top of the list