Yesterday I went to the local video shop.
I was chatting with the chick serving.. asking 'Any plans for the weekend'? She responded.."nothing major.. going into the City for some car show thing"....

I asked "Oh..there's a car show on" ?

Then.. she looked puzzled.. and asked the 'bloke' nearby.. "Hey (name).. there's a car show on in the city 2morrow right"?

Then..I said..(Smiling) "wow..that was a pretty sexist question" then she admitted.. "Yep.. we do expect the guys to know these kind of things"

Then I got to thinking... what the heck is WRONG with it being a 'bloke' thing to be into cars..and a 'chick' thing to be into 'girl stuff'.. what is wrong with 'bloke stuff' and 'girl stuff' ?

What is wrong with having cultural norms that we all know..and by which we establish and know our place in society....

By 'what' authority did feminazis and social engineers get the idea that it is 'sexist' (implying it is a bad thing) for girls to look to boys for certain things..and boys to look to girls for others ?

To me..its simply culture. I resent to the uttermost that a present to a girl of some utensil for the kitchen or anything related to what is normally considered 'girl' stuff is wrong. I absolutely love the idea of a new cordless.. I don't consider that 'sexist' -rather an affirmation of my role.

Time for some cultural healing of our very sick society I reckon.

Boaz,

What are you talking about? Who says it's wrong to have girl's stuff and boy's stuff? While think it's a great idea to challenge ideas about gender, and while I don't think anyone actually fits neatly into their gender, I also don't know of any feminists who say that women and men aren't allowed to have different interests. If there are, they're pretty fringe. How have they impacted your life?

Or is this just one of those ideas, like PC culture, when everyone talks about how they're getting silenced, but have no actual examples of it ever happening?

"Feminazi." Until I started posting on these boards, I had no idea people still used that term. Thought it died in the 80s.

Boaz

I don't know anyone who has a problem with this. I agree with Vanilla that Feminazi is a somewhat outdated term and I've never met one of those either. I am not sure what is meant by a Feminazi and I only ever hear the term now (seldom) when it is being used to put down women who might just have the audacity to argue for equal pay or other such despicable acts.

I am one of the lucky ones that has been married to the same person for 22 years and we quite readily accept differences in interests and sometimes they even overlap. :)

Er, Boazy. The "chick" knew the car show was on and you didn't.

What sort of bloke are you anyway?

If you look, you might see a large hole in your foot :)

Did I read this right? BOAZY told the video shop chick that her question was sexist because she asked a guy about a car show? And somehow this translates into a sick society that a comment like that even came to mind? Even when it came from Boazy himself(prompted by his own feminazi upbringing presumably)? Weird.

Keep 'em coming Boazy, these are starting to get really funny.

Well... I'm encouraged.

I must be living in a time warp :)

Looks like all that time watching Fox retro movies (Magnum,Nanny,Frazier) and listening to Air Supply has kept me in the 70s :)

Well..its refreshing to hear the voices of protest from those I would normally associate with the lefty/feminist mob.. hurray ...

Now.. that hole in my foot.. sheesh.. I deserved that one.. but the thing is.. I don't fit the mould of 'blokey' things..like Car shows, Utes, Booze etc.. not the stererotype anyway.

Seems like most of us are on the same page here..even with the 'evil' snide comments from the dark side :)

If most of us can agree about this, then I'm greatly encouraged.

Ok.. now that we have made some notable progress.. can we take this a step further, and suggest that such gender roles should be promoted as 'complementary' and mutually fulfilling at the education and training levels ?

I'll live dangerously here.. "Is there really a problem with teaching girls Home Ec. and cooking, and blokes 'machine shop/woodwork' as long as they can still persue other careers also"?

It seems that there is a vacuum in many young and old lives, a vacuum of values and meaning.. exacerbated by what appears to be an absense of moral compass in education.

I wonder if there would be value in contrasting some values in other cultures with ours ?

The classic example I use these days, is the 2 contrasting photo's from the Australian war Memorial.
1/ showing a Japanese soldier with raised Samurai sword, about to behead a kneeling blindfolded digger POW.
2/ Then there is one of 2 diggers, with a Jap POW, one digger is supporting his back, the other is feeding him.

Personally, and rightly or wrongly, I link this historically to the spiritual heritage of "Love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you" which of course comes from Christ.

Can anyone think of any other origin for such differences in values in the West, compared to those of the "East"?

No problems with girls doing Home Ec or boys doing workshop as long as the electives are open to girls and boys. Some of the best Chefs are male. :) If boys gravitate to one and girls to the other well so be it. We are different, us girls and boys.

It is interesting that you use feminist as a negative term - I think your definition must vary from (some) others on this forum Boazy. Personally I think there are enough gender wars and we should consume ourselves first with human rights wouldn't you think?

As far as the War Memorial photographs Boazy, this is a bit of a selective pick to suit your argment. Values in the East and West are different because we have different cultures but you cannot generalise about either Western or Eastern values because there are many differences between the US and Australia as well as between Taiwan and Japan. I am not sure what you are inferring.

I got lost in Tokyo once (early 1980s) and a lovely elderly gentleman took me back to the train station and paid my ticket and saw me safely on my way. As it happens he was an ex-pilot in the war and his English was pretty good. He was one of the nicest and most humblest gentleman I have had the pleasure to meet.

Boaz wrote: "It seems that there is a vacuum in many young and old lives, a vacuum of values and meaning.. exacerbated by what appears to be an absense of moral compass in education.

I wonder if there would be value in contrasting some values in other cultures with ours ?

The classic example I use these days, is the 2 contrasting photo's from the Australian war Memorial.
1/ showing a Japanese soldier with raised Samurai sword, about to behead a kneeling blindfolded digger POW.
2/ Then there is one of 2 diggers, with a Jap POW, one digger is supporting his back, the other is feeding him.

Personally, and rightly or wrongly, I link this historically to the spiritual heritage of "Love your enemies, do good to those who persecute you" which of course comes from Christ."

Yes, you definitely link "wrongly". However, I agree that your rabidly prejudiced "comparison" does, as you point out, demonstrate a vacuum of values and meaning. It's deliberately manipulative and despicably nasty.

Oh, let me guess Boazy. You think I'm being "PC", right?

It happens every time......

Boazy derails his own threads. Do they teach you "bait and switch" in missionary school? It's really annoying.

Bugsy: "Do they teach you "bait and switch" in missionary school? It's really annoying."

I'm sure they do. Boazy does it all the bloody time here - and you're right, it's annoying.

No wonder nobody with a brain takes him seriously.

Pelican... yep..I tend to agree there. Electives open.

Interestingly, your experience of a helpful former pilot is one of the richest of human experiences. I do the same for people from other countries in trouble here. It would be quite wrong to generalize 'Asian' cultures or Eastern..on every level of behavior. Limiting the discussion only to behavior in war would also be a bit restrictive.

Vanilla, somewhere in the midst of that invective and abuse, there are some notworthy points, pity you had to camoflage them to well with all the personal attack.

Yes of course my pics/examples were selective. But they are quite valid on the issue of war conduct. The differences in approach between Japanese and Allies to enemy soldiers captured could not be more stark. Even the Germans tended to take a more humane approach than that Japanese. The Germans again, have that Western historical link to Christian tradition.

Japanese Military culture, goes back to the Samurai times, and its values. Our Military culture (The West) goes back to the Knights.. Chivalry, and of course our religious history and associated values.
There have always been incidents of brutality when people become unhinged from their historic values. (Brits in India, Crusades)

The Battle of Gate Pa in NZ also demonstrated this value 'Love your enemies' where the Chief (a She) of the Maoris being attacked by the British/Whites, went about serving the wounded, dying soldiers with water while under attack. The Maori's considered themselves Christian.

BACK TO THE TOPIC... of culture and complementary gender roles.

The term "feminism" is by nature 'sexist' in a negative way. Suggesting a promotion of the interests of only one gender. Far better to embrace a term more inclusive and less confrontational.

Simple answer - when it comes to most of these things, it's not right or wrong.

I get your point - why should it be wrong for a bloke to like blokey stuff like cars, and a girl to like girly things?

It isn't. It isn't right either. It just is. They can like whatever the hell they damn well want.

There are of course, limitations. We tend to treat transvestites pretty strangely because they push the gender roles a little further than usual. I don't tend to have any problem with it, it's their business, but I do wonder why they bother when they're going to cop unnecessary flak in many places.

So, in the case of transvestites, there probably still are issues with gender roles.

Your point however, boaz, is the reverse. You're implying there's a perception that there's something wrong with having stereotypical gender roles, and that isn't right.

Well, I don't think that attitude exists at all and it seems like more of a trojan horse to reassert traditional gender roles, but that's just my take on it.

Errrr... Boaz?

>>Even the Germans tended to take a more humane approach than that Japanese. The Germans again, have that Western historical link to Christian tradition.<<

Auschwitz?

http://www.pbs.org/auschwitz/

Belsen?

http://www.scrapbookpages.com/BergenBelsen/ConcentrationCamp.html

Dr Mengele?

http://www.auschwitz.dk/Anker/Mengele/

Boaz, do you ever actually read what you write?

Perilous.... the SS and its ilk is rather different from the "Germans".

Those who ran the death camps were completely deprogrammed from their culture.. you should know this.

TRTL.. Your point about 'it just is' needs further exploration.

It only 'is' because of how we humans organize ourselves in the light of our physical and emotional differences. If traditional means a closer reflection of 'function follows form' or.. each according to his ability and natural inclinations..then I don't see why 're-asserting traditional roles' is a problem.

There is really something very enriching with a large gathering of men and women where everyone knows their place and what is expected of them.
We had a family re-union yesterday. If some problem was encountered.. lets say the little bridge needed to be re-inforced. Sure.. it 'could' be all hands on deck, but how much nicer if the blokes all jump into it with their needed strength while the girls make a nice meal for them ? It just seems so natural. I've found that traditional societies.. tribal.. inevitably work this way.

"There is really something very enriching with a large gathering of men and women where everyone knows their place and what is expected of them."

Enriching to who? Enriching to the transvestites, homosexuals or even wiccans who are likely to be ostracised by those who "know their place and what is expected of them?"

Expected by who? Who is to be judge?

It's all well and good to speak of that, but I find a large gathering of people who are accepting of others regardless of harmless things like sexual or dress preference to be much more enriching than one that judges, by "knowing their place."

Provided I'm not hurting you or anyone else and treat others with respect 'my place' would be whatever I damn well define it as.

"Those who ran the death camps were completely deprogrammed from their culture.. you should know this."

Interesting. I note the use of "you should know this" to cover up the fact that you didn't really have an answer and have had to resort to deliberately vague tosh.

"We had a family re-union yesterday. If some problem was encountered.. lets say the little bridge needed to be re-inforced. Sure.. it 'could' be all hands on deck, but how much nicer if the blokes all jump into it with their needed strength while the girls make a nice meal for them ? It just seems so natural."

If it's nicer for you, do it that way. It's simply a matter of suppressing your male AND female family members' natural talents, strengths, individuality and creative impulses in order to keep it traditional and, as you say, "nice". I'm sure they'll thank you for it.

Pericles, apart from newsreels and so-called witness statements, how do we really know what happened at Auschwitz etc.?
We all know that history is written by the victors. Revisionist authors have been presenting other versions of the subject over the last few years. If their work is a lie, why are they banned in many countries?

I visited Auschwitz in the late 70's and was not convinced of its authenticity given the condition of the buildings that were supposedly 40 or so years old.

also see http://www.rense.com/general53/aauz.htm

As you can see, there are two sides to the story. I wasn't there when the events allegedly happened so I can't know the truth. I do have my views and opinions on the matter.

Boazy you said:

"The term "feminism" is by nature 'sexist' in a negative way. Suggesting a promotion of the interests of only one gender. Far better to embrace a term more inclusive and less confrontational."

Feminism does not promote the interests of women as superior to men. Feminism grew out of inequality, there was a time when women were considered ineligible to vote. Feminism is a movement that lobbies for equal rights and treatment for women in a world where men still make most of the decisions.

Feminism is sometimes distorted for spurious reason into some sort of man-hating movement to deflect from the real issues.

Jack the Lad: "how do we really know what happened at Auschwitz etc.?"

Why am I not surprised at this contribution from Jack, nor at the link to notorious frootloop conspiracy site Rense.com?

Yes, Jack the Lad, it is your absolute right to believe whatever you choose.

However, having read your link and those similarly inclined, I prefer the approach taken by these guys.

http://www.auschwitz.org.pl/html/eng/aktualnosci/news_big.php?id=563

And Boaz, you really are beginning to scrape the bottom of the barrel.

>>Those who ran the death camps were completely deprogrammed from their culture.. you should know this<<

That's really your total answer to everything, isn't it?

If a priest is convicted of kiddy-fiddling, in your opinion he's been "deprogrammed from his culture" of being a Christian.

When Crusaders hacked to pieces the population of Jerusalem in 1099, they were "deprogrammed from their culture" of being Christians, right?

When Catholics and protestants of Northern Ireland spend decades bombing the cr*p out of each other, and blowing up innocent civilians in restaurants and pubs, they were presumably also "deprogrammed from their culture" of being good Roman Catholics and Protestants, right?

But at the same time, you would obviously have us believe that if you are Japanese, you must perforce be driven by "Japanese Military culture", or if you are Muslim, by that single verse, Sura 9.29

I have mentioned this before, and I am highly likely to mention it again, but this smacks very much of double standards, if not wilful blindness.

TRTL.. behind your comment seems to be the assumption that the only way other people are 'hurt' is by physical_violence? Or did I misunderstand?

Then you seem to be of the view that society must cater for ALL types?
How can that be? If you have established social norms...and someone decides to go against them.. why should such be accomodated? Is it not possible that for one to go against the established norms, it can 'hurt' the society as a whole ? Imagine if some dillbrain felt it was ok to have public sex.. dare I say with an animal! err.. something tells me 'society' will draw a very quick 'line' on that one.

Of course that's an extreme example, but it makes the point. You might counter "that's illegal" but what about nudity? who does that 'hurt'?
yes..its illegal in public places but how does it 'hurt' people ?
I think your argument is a bit weak there.

On the subject of gender identity. Fox reported a 2nd grade boy who wishes to dress like a girl at an American school. This has divided the school into 'pro/con'. Can a 2nd grade child be allowed to cross dress and does this not 'harm' in ways you may not think ?

The very nature of 'soceity' involves norms. Anything challenging those norms is a threat.

PELICAN.. you said 'feminism' grew out of inequality. I both agree and disagree. Mary Wolstencroft was a victim of a tyrannical father.. yes, she had a very 'inequitable' life. But the then projected HER inequality onto the whole of society..and suddenly we have 'suffragettes' some of who became terrorists threatenting to blow up the English parliament.
In Virginia USA prior to the Civil war. Researchers ferreted out data from a large number of wills and various public records and made some deductions about Women's status.
Seems to me that women and men saw each other as 'complementary' rather than competitive in those times. So.. 'inequality' can only be valid when using the same criteria for both, and that in itself might not be culturally appropriate.

Not meaning to sound childish, but I think it's your argument that sounds weak, and it I suspect that you know precisely what I mean, but you're exaggerating a stance of common sense to the extremist level. 'Beastiality'? Come on. You're being deliberately obtuse and exaggerating.

Or, put another way, if I were to use the tactic you just used, I'd say that if we were to adopt your approach, what's to stop someone from saying 'what's expected' of women is merely to be chattel to men and keep quiet.
Or how about the notion that 'what's expected' of men is to be something strong and conservative like a blacksmith or builder. None of these arty farty types.
Or what about the exclusive brethren hmm? What's expected of them is to have women never cut their hair and nobody should use computers or televisions.
To step outside this role means excommunication and being shunned.

If exaggeration is the only tactic you're employing to rebut me, "I think you're argument is a bit weak there."

Anybody can exaggerate a stance. I could extrapolate it to you being a Nazi fascist. Of course, this would be a foolhardy exaggeration, but heck, I didn't try to bring in beastiality.

I said that provided I'm not hurting anyone, and I treat others with respect, then I should be able to do as I please. 'Treat with respect' is a keyword and common sense is required.

And just to clarify why your beastiality argument appears wilfully ignorant (because you seem to repeat it whenever something outside your narrow view of acceptable sex is brought up) I'm going to reiterate some of the satirical sarcastic responses to attacks on gay marriage I posted in a thread here: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6997#106264

4. Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

7. Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

What an interesting precis of feminism, Boaz. It ranged all the way from the ill-informed to the incorrect. For most of it I wasn't even sure what you were talking about.

For a start, Mary Wolstencraft didn't "start" feminism, if that's what you're suggesting. She was important, but like the rest of the civil rights movements, it arose out of a thousand different dawning days. Either way, it is clear from what you've said that you have no idea what A Vindication on the Rights of Women might possibly say. It is nothing to do with her father. It is a reasoned plea for women to have access to education.

Moreover, the idea that she "projected" her idea on to the suffragettes is ludicrous. For a start, the desire and fight for suffrage is universal - once you conceive of democracy, people want to vote, and will fight for that right.

For another thing, that some married couples were (and indeed are) happy is irrelevant to the aims and intentions of feminism. It is not a matter of competition between men and women. In those days, it was a matter of developing a legal system that granted women the same rights as men. In fact, one study found that in the happiest couples both partners identify as feminists. Which makes sense - both partners are most fully themselves. (Clearly this is not for you, Boaz.) Feminism is not about women trying to be men, it is about ensuring that society gives both sexes access to the same rights and responsibilities as citizens. Who cooks and who fixes bridges is your business.

Someone else suggested that you make things up as you go along. Your ideas about feminism seem to come from the old "if it was really about equality, why don't they call it equalism" school. Can I suggest that you do some reading, even if just on Wikipedia, to try and get slightly deeper understanding of where feminism came from and where it might be going.

As for this: "The very nature of 'soceity' involves norms. Anything challenging those norms is a threat", why can't anything challenging those norms be a challenge? A challenge to grapple and tussle with, a challenge to be met.

You raise a good point about nudity. Why is it illegal to be naked in public? (In fact, is it illegal to be naked in public?) Is it, in fact, a ridiculous rule? Who are we trying to protect?

In my view, a maturing society should be constantly be striving to be more free, more itself, more open. You, Boaz, should be just as free to put yourself in a gender box as the local trannie is to step out of hers.

Classic Boazy drivel. Others have already dignified it by giving more response than it deserves. He's just fishing here.

CJ, I'm glad that you're not surprised by my contribution. It only means that I am not taken in by the mainstream version of those events. As I wrote before, the victors write history, so is it all propaganda or not? I admitted that I was not there at the time so I can never be sure. Nothing wrong with an open mind.

Were you there at the time?

There is pretty much nothing funnier than someone claiming that listening to Jeff Rense proves that they're "open-minded". Jack, there's a grey slodgy thing on the floor under your ear. You might want to... you know... just maybe leave it ajar, rather than totally open.

Meanwhile, Holocaust denialism seems to be back in fashion on these boards. Think I might get some t-shirts made up.

Feminazi, while an outdated and term hard to take seriously, is a rather accurate description. most women don't realise that the core of feminism is extremely hostile toward men. They are not "fringe". They are the lobbyists and the ones who scream loudest at perceived injustices, to demand change, and are often given it merely to avoid being smeared in the media. Some of these misconceptions by mainstream feminists can be seen here:

"Feminism is sometimes distorted for spurious reason into some sort of man-hating movement to deflect from the real issues."

At the very same time you have on these boards an article is posted that shows a rather disgusting display of misandry (and the writer says they are a candidate for a PHD at some university if you can believe it):

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7032

And i've seen way too many discussions on female circumcision from feminists who support male circumcision...absolute hypocrisy. Any such objectionable practice on a young child is gender neutral. There is no need for the movement any more. Discrimination and harassment are gender neutral. Things like circumcision are gender neutral. Professions that require physical strength *should* be gender neutral, but you have special considerations today for women, which endanger lives (firefighting, police work, and army). The movement has gone from equality, to an invasion of the male domain and sexism has been now enacted in law. the core of the movement has to now justify it's own existence and is now blind to when it should finally just shut up and die. Ironically, while the term feminazi has been said here to be old the movement itself should have died long ago. it teaches women to be victims and they hence act like them. it's poison. for example, women that empower themselves through their own female differences (xxx adult industry is a great example), are attacked by feminists. feminism is why you rarely meet a friendly lesbian, but always find friendly gay male couples

Steel.

Interesting.

I think feminism is a massively broad church and your response to it too narrow. I'm a feminist, yet I think the article you link to is idiotic and affirmative action is a crock. My mates are feminists, yet they're the very opposite of man-haters - most of us are happily married to men who won't stand bossing.So why is she more of a feminist than I?

Many of the old battles have been won. However, I still believe there's a need for the feminist movement to exist. While the head of Channel Nine news can go round saying "To make it in this industry a woman has to have f@ckability," we still need feminism.

At the same time, I support many men's complaints. I agree with several OLO posters, for example, that DV ads are fundamentally unhelpful because they paint all domestic violence as man on woman. Far better to encourage both sexes to learn how to manage their anger.

But we still need feminism. When Eva Cox complained that there weren't enough women on K-Rudd's 2020 committee, I thought she concluded wrongly. It wasn't about the PM appointing more women, the issue is that, while there are many differences between men and women, sheer brain power isn't among them (though the synapsis may snap to different beats) and there's not good reason why there shouldn't be as many women contributing as men. It would be tokenism to stick women on that committee who didn't deserve to be there, but it is to the detriment of both men and women that we're failing to supply a qualified selection.

Your victim talk baffles me. If there's one thing I've learnt from OLO, it's that men like HRS and James and Whitty (I don't know about you) seriously believe they are victims of feminism. My feminist mother taught me *not* to be a victim, and I can truthfully say I've never been victimised in my entire life.

And for the record, I'm against all circumcision too.

I get your anger, but I think your feminist is largely a straw-woman.

I would be seriously interested in knowing actually what motivated this thread?

It seems it was not at all what was posted originally. Because as soon as it was realised that there was no controversy there and all were in harmony, the question abruptly changed. From "Sexism or Culture" we slide off into deliberately provocative racist remarks, the ever-popular bestiality non sequitur, and slap bang into the much travelled path of feminism. Plenty for all to come to blows with in that little mix.

It begins to look as though it is the term "discussion" that should really be looked into here. Has it become equated with the words "rancorous argument" for some, then? It's somehow unsatisfying to post a thread on which people are in agreement, and you only get good value if everyone's at each other's throats? Why on earth, otherwise, wouldn't a person think, "Ah cool, I was mistaken, seems we're all on the same page" and move on?

There are a plethora of subjects that would probably be interesting to find out about like oh, I dunno:- What do people REALLY think happens to the other sock in a washing machine; what was everyone's absolute toe-curlingly most embarrassing moment; is there a link between the pyramids of Egypt and the pyramids of South America; are cats the remnant of an invading force of extra terrestrials....ANYTHING that is not just the reiteration of one person's conviction that their particular belief system is superior to all others.

Rosemary

I think we can help to provide an answer to your question.

I will tell you what promoted David Boaz to open this thread.

Time and time again we said David would you like to at least learn something of what is going on here in Australia.

Possibly even by attend a meeting with the Muslim Leaders of Australia as a silent spectator to give him insight as to what he was saying.

To give him a better idea about Muslims in general.
To give him some clue about what future problems might be.
We thought it would be sensible to start in Australia for Bozzie to understand the real truth and the real issues.
He has claimed not to see those invitations on at least a half a dozen occasions and when he finally admitted to seeing the last one he simply said - thanks and opened another anti Muslim thread

David we are now openly expressing our anger with Muslim leaders
With very good reason but by addressing real issues
Honestly you’ve turned olo into an anti Muslim site
No wonder the peaceful Muslim migrants are becoming scared and bitter.
Your rude and arrogant and personally I think its time the Government stopped you.
I don’t know if you are working because you seem to post in business hours and I recall you said you had a wife and family
Who is paying for all this nonsense’s David?
Us The Tax payers
A church perhaps. Its time we looked at 'you' never mind the Muslim People.

Romany.. actually I didn't think the thread would have as many legs as it has gathered.

My motivation was just to point out that we are not really 'sexist' when we attribute different complimentary roles to males and females.

The experience I alluded to in the beginning was an andecdotal one, and the girl was only around 20, so.. young gen. Sadly, each time I see her, she has more evidence of self harm, using a razorblade to slash herself repeatedly on her forearms, so perhaps that's why I kind of pay more attention to her than normally.

Vanilla seems to be full bottle on feminism, and desires to portray it in warm tones. She suggests

"While the head of Channel Nine news can go round saying "To make it in this industry a woman has to have f@ckability," we still need feminism."

Now..here my opinion_differs. The problem with the Chanel 9 exec is not that he needs a good dose of 'feminist' knocking him into shape, he needs to repent of his sinful attitude and get with the Biblical program of how to treat/regard a woman. (in purity as a sister/ and in giving of self for her)

You see.. 'Feminism' which is not connected to an enduring (dare I say 'eternal') value system might in the next generation be replaced by 'male-ism' and why not? This is where it is so plain to me, but not to the secularists/atheists. They just don't seem to 'get' the idea that social values can go in 'any' direction with equal philosophical validity. The fact that we have inherited a JudaoChristian value system somewhat insulates them from the reality of this.

If they went to some PNG tribal cultures, they might be more thankful for the wonderful and enlightened way women are regarded in Australia, relatively speaking.
Feminism will never stop at 'equality'. My evidence is hard for this.
Brochure at local police station "If 'he' is violent it is NEVER your fault" which is so insulting as to be borderline Nazism.

Robert knows this only too well from his violent ex.

Boazy: "Brochure at local police station 'If 'he' is violent it is NEVER your fault' which is so insulting as to be borderline Nazism."

You are beyond redemption, Boazy. Since you've gratuitously mentioned Nazism I hereby invoke Godwin's Law and declare that this thread has outlived useful discussion - if indeed it ever incorporated any.

Boazy, I'm uncomfortable with the label you attached to my ex. Whilst she has been violent in the past I don't think violence typifies her life or character. I'm still thinking about how to respond to that but I would note that I've never known her to exhault violence the way you so often do. It's late, I'm tired and I want to think on that for a bit.

I've mentioned my experience at times because it's relevant to the way DV is addressed in society, not to have my ex labeled as violent by you.

R0bert

Looking at the various themes in discussions on this forum, it seems that gender is a much bigger issue than I was aware of - maybe I live a far too insulated existence where men and women don't really speak about their rights we just get on with our work and our lives.

There is obviously a whole other world out there where people are harbouring some pretty aggressive and negative thoughts about the opposite sex, probably based on their own experiences and then transposing that on an entire gender.

Not a lot of hope here for us is there?

Maleism as Boazy puts it is already here, what makes you think it is coming? Feminism is not a dirty word Boazy, you argue that Christianity is not a dirty word even though some Christian priests have molested children. This does not mean all Christians are child molesters. The argument also holds for feminsts ie. if you or others on this forum have met man-hating feminists, does this mean all feminists are man-hating? No.

I have never met any of these man-hating feminists that people speak of nor too many blatant misogynists. I have never met anyone who has said violence is good and we all agree with that, so there is at least some common ground.

Feminism can also be liberating for men in that it can work to remove stereotypes that might restrict men from seeking more fulfilled lives such as sharing work/life responsibilities if that is their desire, in the same way that women have been able to (economics allowing).

You don't typically encounter them in daily life pelican because they are working behind the scenes to socially engineer society. BOAZ had a great example with that brochure and the essay i linked to may well go on to influence lawmaking or shore up support for even more censorship, despite it's deep flaws. What people get angry about is the war these activists (i have a hunch they mainly come from the left side of politics though it could be more equally balanced) wage to get their views imprinted into law-making and indoctrination of society and it's controllers in general. I googled a little and i think i found a great site to demonstrate exactly this phenomenon and the somewhat insidious effect it has on the male population.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?cat=61

Take a look here and you will start to see the pattern. When it comes to interactions between the sexes, and there is conflict of some type, you can see that male rights are under assault and there isn't much holding back the feminists from getting their way...in fact they already have it for the most part.

Dear Robert... apologies if I overstepped the mark by simply re-stating what you have indelibly stated yourself here on a number of occasions.
I could have re-worded it as "Robert has reported dv from his ex".. is that better ? I didn't label her..you did.

Steel.. you come close to the mark there, referring to the ways in which some feminists seek to have their views become law. It seems we are often in danger of projecting in either of 2 ways.

Vanilla 'projects' from her moderate and balanced feminism to suggest that her kind is ok. (quite possibly correct)
Others like me, tend to project the worst images and reports across the board.

The more important point is that we should all be looking out for those who try to use the democratic process in unscrupulous ways to further an extremist agenda.

"Unscrupulous" would mean the deliberate manipulation and shaming of anyone in a 'Womens Studies' class who speaks out about such things as 'Its always his fault'. That's one issue and experience that has been reported on OLO a few times.

So.. YES.. the issue runs deep..and is quite emotive. I feel threatened and oppressed when I see brochures like that one at the police station, because I know that no matter what happened to me, (wife attacked with a knife, and I belted her) I am wrong by default.

So, in terms of specifics.. 'There is work to do' and the eradication of that brochure would be high on the list.

It is contrary to the crimes act anyway, and is discriminatory. It could even be siad to be 'perverting the course of justice' Reasonable restraint is very much a part of our legal system, and 'knocking out' a "person" attacking you with a deadly weapon is very 'reasonable'.

ACTION STATIONS. One act of protest may be to compose a letter, illustrating the last paragraphs above, and delivering it to the local police station, and also the police public liason unit.

Boazy, perhaps I read to much into your comment. If so sorry. My intention has never been to label my ex but rather to draw attention to the failures of a system that refuses to address female violence.
My ex has been violent but I don't think violence is one of her identifying characteristics.

If you find those posters threatening in a police station you should try dealing with a mediation situation where the shelves and walls are plastered with them. Where councellors tell you that "she is smaller than you and unlikely to hurt you".

One of the points often raised against the studies that show similar rates of DV initiation by men and women is that those on the front line don't report it. My experience is that those on the front line have been trained to ignore female violence. When confronted with it they excuse it and minimise it. "She felt threatened, she is smaller than you, she was upset", etc.

They have been so indoctrinated with the udea that DV is a male problem that they refuse to see it when females do it.

Apart from the pain (emotional and physical) suffered by male victims some of the research shows a high correlation between reciprical violence and the severity of injury to women. Women who hit men either as initiators or in retaliation are more likely to be seriously injured than those who don't. That alone should be reason to be telling women not to hit even for those who don't care about the male victims of DV.

Whilst feminism has had a significant role to play in this approach to DV so to has paternalism and a determination to judge people by perceived gender characteristics. Your kind of thinking about gender roles is part of the problem. Those who insist that women are almost all gentle nurturers who should be protected and excused for their weaknesses whereas men a barely controlled violent types get their thinking from a love of gender roles not from a passion for equality.

R0ber

Steel, Boazy and RObert

I read Steel's link and yes there are many cases where children have been put at risk due to decisions made by Courts. Recently a man in Australia drove his children into a lake and drowned them and he did have access to his children and by all appearances was a good dad.

There is no doubt that in the past men were generally the losers in custodial arrangements and as RObert mentioned the issues surrounding men experiencing DV perpetrated by women. We can't ignore the fact that women who are victims of DV also need assistance and in my experience they are in the majority. I accept that the statistics about men experiencing DV are not perfect because of the failure to report but it is not a competition to see who wins.

It is only in the past 40 years or so that women had access to shelters if they were being beaten by their husbands. In the past women often had to 'cop it sweet' because there was nowhere else to go and women were nearly always completely dependent on their partner for financial security. Now of course, these issues have been addressed and our working culture has shifted somewhat.

In regards to custody, I don't know much about the new Family Relationship Centres that were set up to assist families in making better and fairer decisions about children but I am told they allow a forum for men to be able to air their grievances about access to children, issues of child support etc.

The only thing we do know is that it is not an exact science, sometimes the authorities will make mistakes because lets face it the only two people who really know what went on in a marriage are the couple involved and sometimes people lie.

We all agree that there are problems, but how do we address them to ensure better outcomes for children? It is about the children first and foremost. No-one disputes that children should experience equally loving relationships with fathers as well as mothers.

pelican you are being rather biased. you are very quick to say two things which indicate this: a quick example" of a man doing something similar as if the two cases are equal (they most assuredly are not mainly because of the decisions and warnings provided in the example i provided). the website contains a lot more than one example of this.

http://glennsacks.com/blog/?cat=61

And your second paragraph begins with:
"There is no doubt that ...............*IN THE PAST*........... men were generally the losers in custodial arrangements"

> "The only thing we do know is that it is not an exact science, sometimes the authorities will make mistakes because lets face it the only two people who really know what went on in a marriage are the couple involved and sometimes people lie."

And there lies the point. Women are favoured in LAW and men are generally assumed to be the liars by authorities too.

When the opposite is quite possibly true:
http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/s/139/139613_women_lie_cheat_and_steal.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgxwPU0W-Wg

And i've been told i have a strawman in a prior comment:

"
* “Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated.” — Catherine MacKinnon

* “Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience.” - Catherine Comins

* “All men are rapists and that’s all they are.” (Marilyn French, Author; and advisor to Al Gore’s Presidential Campaign)

* “We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men…” Elizabeth Cady Stanton, “One Woman, One Vote”
"

http://endofmen.wordpress.com/2007/11/05/86/

Um, I think it was me who brought up the straw woman, Steel. However I left the thread when CJ invoked Godwin's law. (I know! What am I doing here? It's a paradox!)

My resolve to leave was further strengthened by your comment: "they are working behind the scenes to socially engineer society." It was then I remembered I was due back in the secret underground bunker from which my feminist "brethren" and I rule the world. Abyssinia.

Also I have my own version of Godwin's law, it's called Vanilla's law, and it occurs when an argument about feminism ends in either a Catherine McKinnon or an Andrea Dworkin quote. CJ, R0bert, Pelican - can you help me popularise it?

Good.. seems like no hard feelings lingering.. certainly no ill intent intended Rob.

If we look at most of the posts.. the central issue is conflict. Its 'men are disadvantaged' or.. 'Women are vulnerable'.. and we have some example of tragedies that illustrate these things.

Robert.. I take that point about partly the fault of men due to their ideas about gender.. in that they don't take female DV seriously enough to report it. I guess because they/we know that if we decided to, we could end it quickly, but there might be a few bruises. (unless knives and/or guns are involved or the element of surpise)

One of the themes running through my heart all through this dialogue is how tragic (to me, as a Christian) that we have allowed society to deterioate to the point where such things are commonplace.

I think I would be brough to utter despair if I was in a mediation room surrounded by all manner of literature condemning me because I'm a bloke.

So.. coming full circle to the beginning again.. I hope and pray that we will give more consideration to the role of faith based on beautiful values, and a wonderful example in Christ, with whom we can indeed have a relationship with.

Having lived in such a society, where those values permeated all our relationships, its rather wonderful. The differing roles of male and female were not a problem, as people who's hearts seek the good, will not feel comfortable with one side of the gender equation carrying an unfair share of the domestic/family load

I am not biased Steel, you are misunderstanding what I have said or maybe I have not expressed myself as well as others are able. It seems pointless arguing with you and some others in these types of discussions because you only see one side of the argument. Even when someone agrees with a point you make you jump on one selective sentence and completely misinterpret it.

You can put up any link you like but you won't change the fact that some people behave badly, men and women alike. You have not once acknowledged or shown sympathy for women of abuse in any of your posts.

You accuse me of bias but then go on to quote a number of statements attributed to various women about men. Where are the derogatory quotes about women by men if you are being totally fair.

Even when someone agrees with you on a point, you can't quite accept it for some reason I can't quite determine but you certainly don't have a high opinion of women and we are all bad in your book.

What is the point of trying to discuss something with you when you only read what you want to read by cherry picking and misinterpreting other posts to suit your own agenda. I'll leave you to it but I do hope that support and advocacy for male victims increases despite some of the strong feelings that may in fact work against this objective.

Don't take it personally (i'm sure you don't) I did recognise at the time your post agreed in some sense and that is why i only picked up on one or two small parts i thought were out of place.. that means i thought

Don't take it personally (i'm sure you don't) I did recognise at the time your post agreed in some sense and that is why i only picked up on one or two small parts i thought were out of place..

Vanilla, maybe you should be careful you don't stand on the 'grey slodgy thing on the floor '. It may belong to you. While, like the anal-sex promoting, self-proclaimed enthusiastic heterosexual (CJ), you don't agree with Rense, you might like to consider that his article referred to the Auschwitz Museum Director, Dr. Franciszek Piper, and quoted him in quite a few statements that negated many claims of the Holohoax. Or is the director not a good enough source. Scrub that, he's a good source but, as he is stating something that you don't agree with, his views are worthless.

Both you and CJ seem to be supportive of minorities. As , at this time, holocaust deniers are still in the minority, shouldn't you be lending them some support? Or are you hypocrites?

What will you write on your T shirts?

"Vanilla, maybe you should be careful you don't stand on the 'grey slodgy thing on the floor '. It may belong to you."

Good comeback! It's like, I know you are, but what am I?

Yes - Jack's an intellectual giant.

Hmm... good to see some feisty interaction :)

bring it on ! more more more.

"Holohoax" :) not bad Jack... we can all improve our writing skills here.

I alert you all to one of mine coming up "BD's short history of time" in response to Fractelles challenges... I think yous'll like it.
(On the 'common ground between Muslims and Christians' thread)

Steel, no problems at all - no personal offence taken. :)

There certainly is some feisty interaction on this forum at times.

Irony is we are all probably on the same page but coming at the problems from a different angle or perspective.

OK, Very late on this, but believe it or not I'd never noticed the general discussion blogs. I'm sure my appearance here will be disappointing to vanilla and pelican.

I've noticed a trend in all the gender politics blogs here. We're all so defensive.

1. A bunch of guys jack up to a typically one-sided (I believe) feminist article, and defend their gender by trying to highlight the bias or exageration, or omission of any responsibility placed on women for the social phenomena, and omission of any articles sypathising with men on... well... anything really.

2.The women posters then interperet this as an attack on the actual topic or denial of the plight of the women discussed, and defend the validity of the actual individual women who may be experiencing the discrimination/hatred/disrespect/general evil male behaviour.

3. The male posters then see this as a playing down of the plight of the men in the other side (usually undiscussed by the author) of the story they have highlighted as examples that men don't have it so rosy. To them it is further perpetuation of women being only capable of seeing women=victim, male=oppressor that I believe many males have been brought up with hearing and are just sick to death of it. Anger abounds.

4. The women posters then decide the men are turning it all around and attacking women, and sabataging the female sympathy fest the original article was intended to promote.

In reallity I think the women posters really do have SOME sympathy for mens plight in the world, but rather it didn't interupt the attention to womens issues. The men have always had sympathy for womens issues (how could they not when it's been banged into their head since childhood), but cant understand why in any social phenomena, they are constantly told men=bad, women=good. It's hard to show sympathy while at the same time feeling demonised.

"I'm sure my appearance here will be disappointing to vanilla and pelican."

What the? I thought we were mates. I'm thrilled you've found the general forum. It's way more fun here, you can bang on about whatever you want, and whenever you get bored, there's always Boazy's posts to unravel.

I agree with your assessment of the typical OLO argument, although that only holds true for the article threads. This thread began because Boazy thought it was sexist of a woman to ask a man a question about cars, threw in a bit of non sequiter racism (whoops! I used the word "racist"! I must be PC!), while Steel went off on a journey I found it difficult to follow, and CJ, Pelican and I remained the beacons of excellent sense we inevitably are. That's my assessment anyway.

I don't agree with your last paragraph though, and indeed, it contains an internal contradiction. I see no evidence to suggest levels of sympathy for the other sex on these boards aren't actually entirely personality-based. In this thread, for example, I think Pelican has more sympathy for men than Steel for women, and I'm willing to bet that Pelican is more sympathetic in general. Likewise I think I'm more sympathetic than, oh, say HRS, and that it comes across on these boards as it would in any other arena. Equally, I think you're more sympathetic to women than some of the lady posters are to men. So no, it's not my experience that there's a gender divide - I think it's a personality one.

I am sincere in saying I thought we were mates. You've changed my mind on a number of issues and I've used your story about the masturbating woman (which is going to sound awfully saucy to those not in the know) with my IRL friends. Having said that, I'm always up for a tussle if there's one in the offing.

Interesting perspective Whitty.. and by the way.. first time I noticed you here. *welcome* :)

My opening post was not that I thought the girl mentioning the car show to the boy for 'male confirmation' was sexist I rather loved it, but I noticed that that kind of thing.. would be "called" sexist by some more enthusiastic feminists of the militant kind.

I once committed a 'sexist' sin.. a girl parked her car at right angles to the flow of traffic in a servo.. i.e. she blocked everyone else from departing from the pumps.. when she came out I gave her a friendly dig "aah..women driver".. shocked.. then recovered..she called me a "sexist b*stard".... as I reflected on that.. I could have taken a different approach.. calling her what she really was "An inconsiderate retard who knows nothing about how to park a vehicle"

To which the only valid response would be 'ur right' :)

I think men are the 'crusaders' women are the 'carers'.

Women operate within the freedom and security which men guarantee by their protection of the society. One can argue till the cows come home about that, but it remains an absolute fact of life. I hope none of our female contributors argues with that.. cos if they do I'll be all over them like the worst rash they ever had.. with facts and history,
not to mention my secret weapon. "Discovery chanel" :)

Vanilla is right.. its way more fun in this general discussion area.
But.. like many sports, we have to take as well as give.

Boaz: "I hope none of our female contributors argues with that.. cos if they do I'll be all over them like the worst rash they ever had"

With that image in my head, Boazy, you can guarantee that this lady poster will never argue with you about anything ever again.

Since I'm a bloke I infer that I'm immune to the "rash" :O

Boazy: "I think men are the 'crusaders' women are the 'carers'.

Women operate within the freedom and security which men guarantee by their protection of the society."

I know it's an obvious bait, but sometimes Boazy is positively Neanderthal.

Since Vanilla found my points hard to follow (read more carefully/slowly?) perhaps this recent news will serve as an additional example:

"Iraqi women in 'national crisis' since invasion"
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23333436-1702,00.html

Hmmm.. so how are the *men* doing? They're not in "national crisis"?? Honestly, where are the articles saying, "Iraqi men in 'national crisis' since invasion"? It's just laughable how men are by default the (and historically?) simple statistics or non-entities when these stories come up. At least these women can be thankful for not having been shot dead on sight like men of all ages right down to the age of 12 or 13 during active military operations... it's these kinds of omissions overall that build the picture of men being expendable and less valuable, as the perpetrators and criminals, or simply as people not worth counting....it's like the sound of a tree falling when nobody is nearby question. if there is no media attention then people do not even give it a passing thought. it simply doesn't exist. So your left with these headlines saying women this...women that...such and such is a dark age for women....female circumcision, my how barbaric...the only thing that really comes close to that is the overly abused "but think of the children" catch cry

Like it or not, Boaz, you are painting yourself into a corner where the only response to your original question can be yes, Boaz is sexist and yes, it is his culture that makes him so.

Let's face it, anyone who opens proceedings with the remark "I was chatting with the chick serving..." and then asks the question "is this sexist?" is leading with his chin - well bearded though it may be.

Most of your other posts have been similarly humorous - except of course when you tried to sidetrack us into your racist observations on "Eastern" cultures - but the last is a classic.

>>I could have taken a different approach.. calling her what she really was "An inconsiderate retard who knows nothing about how to park a vehicle" To which the only valid response would be 'ur right'<<

I had this instant mental image of you, in the same situation at the servo, only this time the offender was a 6'4" Samoan rugby player. What would you have said to him, I wonder?

If you did indeed have the courage to point out his error - which I have absolutely no doubt that you would - how would you have chosen your words? "ah, islander drivers", or "inconsiderate retard who knows nothing about how to park a vehicle"?

Do tell.

Whitty - welcome. I have to agree with Vanilla's interpretation of your argument.

You made a lot of sense and had me convinced right up to point no. 4 where you could not resist using the term "female sympathy fest" and other comments in your last paragraph. Again "men are demonised" but no mention of the women who are battered. In advertisements about DV services for women, who do you think are the perpetrators? If we want to be totally PC we can paint the man as some sort of illusion or ghostly figure so as not to offend but for what purpose.

If your mission is to seek equal representation on these issues, it is not served by distorting statistics or diminishing the experiences of women.

You are guilty of exactly what you were so sincerely arguing from points no. 1-3, which have a lot of merit.

People become defensive when they are attacked, it is human nature but to assume and argue that women are supportive of men's issues as long as it does not intefere with women's issues is in itself a very narrow view of what women are about (and yes I am sure you can dig up a link about one radical feminist who hates men).

Men need to get out there and lobby for better support and advocacy groups - women did it with the feminist movement when governments were all but ignoring the issues. We women can support you (just as many men did with the feminists), but we can't do it for you because if we tried it would only be met with derision and mistrust if the responses on this discussion are any reflection of the rest of society.

Another point is that I am a woman so it is natural to see things from a woman's point of view, ditto for men and I guess we can't really do much about that other than try and see things from the other person's viewpoint.

boaz: "Women operate within the freedom and security which men guarantee by their protection of the society."

Presumably this protection is from other human influences... so.. the women need the men to protect them from other men?

Even if this is false, your contention is flawed - if men didn't exist, then wouldn't it just be women? Then wouldn't it be women protecting themselves from other women?
Then why would it be any different to men?

So yes, I can quite easily deny this 'absolute fact of life.'

Pericles: "ah, islander drivers"

Actually, Boazy, what if she'd been an Asian woman? Would you have stuck "aah... woman driver" or would you have gone with the more contemporary "aah... Asian driver"? To my mind, "aah... Asian woman driver" is just too clunky, but if anyone had the chutzpah to carry it off, it would be you. One thing that I can't accept is Pericle's subliminal suggestion that when the woman in question said "sexist" she actually meant "tosser".

Pericles, really.

Steel, I was joking, I do get your point that men's issues and vulnerabilities can get lost in culture and I agree with it - as you'll find I've mentioned many times on OLO in different threads. I'm with the blokes on changing perceptions about DV. I just don't believe in the whole feminist conspiracy thing. Or if I do believe in it, I'm so annoyed they I haven't got a piece of the action that I'm officially denying it exists.

Honestly, you think I'm thick, you've called my comments "superfluous and mundane" on another thread - I'm not objecting, I'll fight for your right to call me whatever you like, and I of course have the luxury of knowing you're wrong, but jeez.

"Iraqi women in 'national crisis' since invasion" (Steel)

"Women operate within the freedom and security which men guarantee by their protection of the society." (BD)

I wonder how many women were involved in the decision to invade Iraq.

As in so many war-torn countries all over the world, it might be the men who are out there fighting for the "protection of the society", but it is the women who bear the real brunt of the loss, grief and hopelessness back home as they try to rebuild shattered families and communities out of the rubble.

This is not to negate the suffering of men. Of course men and boys are suffering enormously too.

It's just that the decision to kill and maim is rarely made by women. If given a chance, I'm sure they'd find another way.

"Honestly, you think I'm thick, you've called my comments "superfluous and mundane" on another thread -"

No. I didn't direct this at you personally... only that one issue.

Yeah, yeah. I was being over-sensitive. Sorry. Over it now.

Hi CJ, the intellectual giant's back.

As an Islamophile, I think you should read this

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121402403.html

Is the Iranian president also an intellectual giant? How can you reconcile your opposing views?

Being a dickheadophobe does not automatically make one an Islamophile.

What Bugsy said :D

For the record, I'm no great fan of Islam (or any other religion), but I do object to blind bigotry against anybody. It's quite simple, really.

P.S. Now that I've looked at Jack's link, I think that he, Ahmadinejad, and all the other holocaust deniers belong in their own special intellectual category.

And Bugsy's already named it!

Pericles and Vanila...

in truth, I would only make a mild teasing dig to any stranger over such a thing. Hence my 'woman driver' with a smile on my face. I wouldn't even call someone the other term I used, its not my style, but I was juxtaposing what 'might' have been said (accurately, though retard might be a bit strong) and what was said.

Saying something volatile to a bloke, specially one well endowed with testosterone, would be more likely to result in physical conflict, and that would not be nice for anyone. Probably the most I'd do would be to look at the car (with raised eyebrows).. look at mine.. and leave it at that.

Vanilla.. the 'rash' is verbal only.

TRTL questioning the fact that women operate under freedoms and safety guaranteed by men is like suggesting the earth is flat. It's so self evident that I can't be bothered arguing it. Yes, protection from other men, of course.

Our Social status quo has it's roots in tribal power balances, or.. national power balances. That 'is' history.

Boazy: "Saying something volatile to a bloke, specially one well endowed with testosterone, would be more likely to result in physical conflict"

Er, so where does that put the "women are as violent as men" argument?

If I had the capacity, Pericles, I would make a "can you believe this guy?" kind of face at you right now.

Welcome back Bugsy/Brian, I've missed your valuable input. You seem to be still suffering from your 'dumbed-down syndrome'. You waited a long time before jumping in with your half-assed comment.

CJ, correct me if I'm wrong but haven't you, in the past, had a go at anyone who posts anything anti-moslem? If so, how can you now turn against Ahmadinejad - not that you're wrong, he is a cretin - it just seems to go against your grain.

While you wrote that you're no great fan of Islam (or any other religion), islam seems to be the one whose defence you jump to. Also, if you 'object to blind bigotry against anybody', shouldn't you give Ahmadinejad a break and consider that he may be right?

Jack, are you serious? Are you trying to "tease" CJ or do you really not understand what he's been saying all this time?

Anyway, I would have thought you'd like Ahmadinejad - he's a holocaust denier and a poof denier to boot. Thought he'd be right up your alley. So to speak.

And Jack is of course not anti-Moslem when it comes to being anti-Jew.

Not teasing, Vanilla, just pointing out his contradictions.

Brian/Bugsy, denying the Holohoax doesn't make anyone anti-Jew, if that's what your little statement inferred.

"TRTL questioning the fact that women operate under freedoms and safety guaranteed by men is like suggesting the earth is flat. It's so self evident that I can't be bothered arguing it. Yes, protection from other men, of course."

You mean, like suggesting the earth is flat as the church demanded so many years ago?

Sorry. Couldn't resist. Though your defence of gender roles feels a little flat earth at times.

In response to your response, I make the point that you're accepting that men are the aggressors that women need protecting from.

You can argue this somehow supports the idea of gender roles - i.e. men need to be there as the gender role of protector.

Wouldn't a better argument be to remove gender roles, taking away men as aggressors?

The argument you're making is that women need men to protect them from men. If we're looking at it purely in terms of the logic of this single statement, then you've got to admit it looks pretty stupid. Technically, if men didn't exist, women wouldn't need men to protect themselves from them now would they?

So Jack, what's the contradiction? Do you think anyone who speaks out against ill-informed prejudice should, ergo, support the president of Iran? Do you think practicing tolerance is equivalent to becoming a complete moral relativist? Do you look at CJ and think, "He stuck up for mozzies. Oo-er. That means he *loves* them. Hey, I just found a bit where he said he didn't love them! Omigod! He's *so*, like, a hypocrite."? (Not sure why I gave you a Valley Girl voice then, but it seemed to suit.) C'mon, do tell, what is this contradiction?

As for not having to be anti-Jew to not believe the holocaust took place, your own link proves that evidence for the holocaust *not* occurring is not particularly credible and is certainly not scholarly. (Did you even read the link Pericles provided? Or do you only read dodgy, monosyllabic websites that back up your own view?) So no, you don't have to be anti-Jew, but I'd suggest you at least have to be an enthusiastic and gullible consumer of internet-assembled conspiracy theories. Otherwise you'd look at a website like that and come to the old GIGO conclusion, surely?

Actually Jack, what my statement was referring to, was the fact that you are usually rabidly anti-Moslem, seeing as how you have referred to them in the past as a "lesser race". The idea that you are defending a view held by the president of Iran kind of tickled me, and then I realised that it's because the only common ground that you would find with him would be in the vilification of people, eg. Jews and gays. Yeah, you're a real humanitarian.

Not anti-Jewish? I would imagine that there are quite a number of families who had relatives in the death camps that would think otherwise.

Whitty, are you still around? I'd like to invite you to look at the "Fair Go for Women" comments thread on the article boards. Do you think it fits into your schema? Do you think the male posters are demonstrating that they've "have always had sympathy for womens issues"? Do you think that the female posters are demonstrably less sympathetic than the male posters?

Vanilla: "Do you look at CJ and think, "He stuck up for mozzies. Oo-er. That means he *loves* them. Hey, I just found a bit where he said he didn't love them! Omigod! He's *so*, like, a hypocrite"

Thanks Vanilla, but I think both the nuance and the observation will be lost on our Jack. According to him, because I argued against blatant homophobia in another thread, I'm obviously a poofter as well as an Islamophile.

As I've suggested previously, Jack is obviously an intellectual giant.

There is a nasty tendency in this forum for those who are bereft of actual argument to attribute extraneous values to those with whom they can't compete intellectually. If one objects to obvious bigotry against any minority group, one is automatically labelled as an overt supporter or sympathiser with that group.

Apologies to Bugsy, but he nailed it with his "Dickheadophobia isn't Islamophilia" comment. Substitute "Islam" with whatever object of hate you like, and that's about where I stand in these kinds of discussions.

Indeed CJ. It's the type of boorish der-brainedness that goes hand in hand with the profoundly old-fashioned "feminists are all man-haters," or Boazy's so-dated-it's-almost-retro, "the problem with the feminazis is that they want to be exactly the same as men." It's enough to make me don my bhurka and go live in a lesbian separatist mosque.

Vanilla,

Sorry I was probably thinking of SJF. I remember our discussions about the picture now. Thanks for the warm welcome.

Pelican,

'If your mission is to seek equal representation on these issues, it is not served by distorting statistics or diminishing the experiences of women. '

Just where have I 'distorted' statistics. I don't diminish the experiences of women either. I just called it a sympathy fest. I never said the sympathy wasn't deserved!

'... who do you think are the perpetrators?'
You're deliberately mis-representing my whole argument. You just cant comprehend any depictions in the ad of women hitting men can you. Even if I take your figures of 1 in 7, why not 1 depiction of women hitting men?

'Men need to get out there and lobby for better support and advocacy groups..'

I think domestic violence is better handled as an issue involving men and women, not two seperate issues, one with women being hit by men, then a seperate issue with men being hit by women. This attitude you have shown illustrates my point that feminism is about equality for women, and any advantages to men is a happy side effect. That's the natural progression from your attitude of men should fight their own battles.

Regardless DV is seen as something men do to women. Same as racism is something whites do to other colours. For men to fight domestic violence or 'raise awareness' (I HATE that term) we would need to re-brand DV now that the government has done this damage with it's one-sided campaign.

If I had the money I would launch an advertising campaign. To violence against men, Australia doesn't care. (Or maybe Australia doesn't believe you)

Vanilla, the point about CJ is that I've only ever seen him stick up for moslems (Oh, and anal sex too). I could refer you to other sources that challenge the Holohoax but, as you wouldn't agree with their conclusions, you would see them as 'dodgy' also. I tend not to believe, while you, having not been there, accept the whole sob-story without reservation. So who's gullible?

Bugsy/Brian, I have never referred to moslems as a race. Where did you get that from? As for the 'number of families who had relatives in the death camps'. Again it depends on what you believe. I believe that they were internment camps. I could be included as a member of your 'number of families' as I had a distant relative in a camp for political reasons. He lived to a ripe old age after the war.

CJ, I never suggested that you werer a poofter but you do advocate indulgence in going for the brown.

Whitty, interesting post. Indeed, violence against men exists. I once knew someone who was regularly hit by his wife (you know him Bugsy - remember 'Squeak' Connelly?). He used to make pathetic excuses if he turned up with marks on his face. Also, there is anti-White racism - just look at Mugabe.

Whitty, well said.

Jack the Lad,
It's fairly obvious that CJ Morgan is not muslim or fond of the beliefs associated with Islam. He's made it abundantly clear that what he is opposed to is the dishonest hate campaign wages against muslims by some (especially our resident christian fundies).

When we sit back and allow any group to be dishonestly targetted and villified we all loose. Apart from any concept of fair dealing and a liking for diversity there is always the self interest factor. If it's OK to tell lies about and promote hatred of muslims and homosexuals today then tomorrow the intollerant might set their sights on some group I belong to (agnostics, single dads etc).

I don't like monothiestic religion and I'm happily hetrosexual but I find the dishonesty used to villify muslims and to attack homosexuals disgusting and a threat to our society if allowed to go on unchallenged. If we value freedom then we need to challenge those who advocate hatred and lies at every opportunity.

R0bert