What have been some of the negative consequences of feminism and cultural diversity in Australia? And how can these problems be fixed for future generations?

Dear TRUTHNOW78,

You're asking two very large questions.
Due to the word limit - I'll try to answer them
one at a time as best I can.

Negative aspects of feminism?
Well, every "revolution" has its consequences,
its benefits and its costs. The revolution in
gender roles has helped reshape the workplace,
the family, and the relationships of the sexes,
but the feminist ideals of the 1960s, have not
always fulfilled the reality of the 21st Century.

Women who look forward to "having it all" are
finding that the rigours of pursuing their
careers, maintaining intimate relationships,
and raising children are often difficult to
balance. Some, who've put their careers before
marriage, now in their forties, regard themselves
as casualties of their own revolution, especially
if they did not marry and now face the prospect of
never finding a husband or having children.

Changes in women's roles have had an immense impact
on the family. Generations of children are being
raised by working mothers, who leave them in some
form of day care from an early age.

Additionally, women's new independence has made it
possible for them to contemplate leaving unhappy
marriages or raising children on their own. Partly
as a result, there has been a sharp increase in the
number of divorces, of births to unwed women, and of
female-headed households. Many of these women have
found themselves highly vunerable.

I'll write more later - I must run as I have an appointment
elsewhere.

That's all for now. It's just a start.

Feminism pluses - More financial independence for women as well as (partial) recognition of their skills and abilities.

Feminism minuses - The gradual deterioration of the Family Unit and removal of children from parental influence.

It's also been a valuable source of cheap non-imported labour for the growing western economies.

Who sponsored Gloria Steinem?

I've spent a bit of time thinking about a response to the question as asked. I've also tried to understand why the question might be asked. I keep coming up with the thought that what's bing asked would be better phrased as "Major problems with the move away from a sexist socially intollerant society". Feminism and cultural diversity are just two parts of that. I was reminded of a point which I've made often in the past that social change is a bit like moving house, no matter how good the new house things are often difficult during the transition. Stuff's not where you expect it to be, you don't know your way round inthe dark, your sleep patterns may be disturbed because you are not used to the local noises. The change society is going through is a bit like that, some stuff is not right yet. The kid throwing the tanty because they liked the old place better does not help.

We do need to look at the problems which have come with a move, there are things we can do better but to do so we need to look at them in conjunction with the benefits. What's working well, what can we do better.

Then I took a short look at truthnow78's posting history to see if my sense of the question was on the money. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=44104 I doubt that truthnow78 wants to know any of the good things about feminism or cultual diversity.

cont'd ...

Major problems with cultural diversity?

To most people, it's self-evident that their
own norms, religion, attitudes, values and
cultural practices are right and proper,
while those of other groups may seem inappropriate,
peculiar, bizarre, or even immoral.

The difficulty is, of course, that under certain
circumstances, these attitudes can lead to the
exploitation and oppression of other groups.

Of course the strong hostilities that originally
existed against Chinese, Irish, Italian, Greek, and other
immigrants has gradually lessened as these groups have
gained entry to the broad Australian middle-class,
where they are seen as equals rather than as rivals
for scarce resources.

Antipathy is now greatest against groups that remain
relatively impoverished, and this sentiment is
strongest among low-status whites who feel most
threatened by the economic progress and competition
of the minorities.

With time this will change - as each minority
group gains entrance to and acceptance in the
broader community, and another
group takes their place in being rejected.

R0bert: << Then I took a short look at truthnow78's posting history to see if my sense of the question was on the money. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=44104 I doubt that truthnow78 wants to know any of the good things about feminism or cultual diversity. >>

Yeah, well I just looked at the ridiculously broad questions and the fact that they were combined in one silly post and thought, "troll".

I'm surprised Graham let it through.

'Nuff said.

I also think that every revolution has negative and positive consequences for different groups - that is just natural.
I see both feminism and multiculturalism as very, very positive developments and I am sure that in the future some way will be found to overcome the problems it brings.

Any problems with cultural (and religious) diversity really stem from intolerance rather than the nature of the diversity itself.

I note that the question posed for this thread is about the NEGATIVE consequences and seems to be intended to provoke negative or inflammatory responses.

Truthnow, you bit off too much to chew, and gave yourself away as a troll. Not a particularly experienced one, at that.

If you were more talented at baiting and trolling, you'd have seen the transparency of this thread.

These two issues are the topics of choice for irate bloggers with too much time and too little sense. Pick any crazed kook in the political world, and I'll show you one who waxes lyrical on some aspect of these issues.

I'm not saying aspects of these aren't worth discussing, what I'm saying is that nutbags are drawn to these issues like moths to flames as well.

To pick one of these topics is fine - see, now clever trolls, they manage to disguise them as something worth discussing.

Not only do you fail to disguise them, but hell, you go for two at once, with no supporting information or background - nothing specific, just asking for sprays on the two most controversial topics around.

Try again. Be a little more clever next time, huh?

Ah TRTL, - Love your work.

Truthnow - what TRTL said.

I, too, would second -no third- what TRTL said.

I hope at that Truthnow will take the troublenow to give a decent reply to Foxy's post, because I feel that he is quite undeserving of such a thoughtful response.

What Celivia and Romany said: what TRTL said.

I have a major problem with Foxy's responses...
I am unsure as to why women would need to choose between career and children? Surely in an equal partnership both partners can care equally for the children. In fact, paternity leave is now a serious consideration in most employment situations.
I am unsure about the ethical dilemma of childcare. Working in the childcare industry, I see it is most common that both parents drop their children and often take a day off each week to care for their children...ie Mum takes care one day, dad one day an childcare three days. Children are loved and cared for in a high quality environment which is continuing to improve.
I am unsure of why Foxy would prefer women or men not to have a choice wether to stay in an unhappy marriage. Of course, the ideal is to work on the relationship together especially through the tough times, but Foxy is not acknowledging that for some, the tough times include domestic violence, sexual assault of minors, financial stress due to gambling or alcohol addiction, extra marital affairs. Of course women or men need to be empowered to live healthy lives and if that includes needing to leave an untenable situation then praise God for the feminine revolution.
It is not just females that have benefittwd from the feminist revolution...men too. As the pendulum sways, we are in the process of acknowledging that so often social stereotypes prevent men from expressing who they are. We are looking into ways for all to become the adult they were created to be. That can only be good.
As for cultural diversity..... of course all cultures should be respected.... because humanity is precious and there is more than one ideal ie my ideal, no matter how idyllic it is, can not be the only measure of culture society has.
I think these revolutions have helped us to grasp the diversity of humanity and appreciate the rich tapestry that makes our world.

Romany:"Ah TRTL, - Love your work.

Truthnow - what TRTL said."

Celivia:"I, too, would second -no third- what TRTL said.

I hope at that Truthnow will take the troublenow to give a decent reply to Foxy's post, because I feel that he is quite undeserving of such a thoughtful response."

Sancho:"What Celivia and Romany said: what TRTL said."

No doubt s/he'll mend his ways after such a scolding and start thinking "properly".

So much for cultural diversity...

The question is a perfect example of someone swallowing talkback radio polemics whole. Don't think about stuff - just whack all the things you don't like into one box and complain loudly.

It's sad really. Feminism and cultural diversity have brought change that some people clearly have trouble dealing with.

chainsmoker:"Feminism and cultural diversity have brought change that some people clearly have trouble dealing with."

I'd say that's about as big an understatement as I've seen. The fact is that feminism is an exclusiivist philiosophy, which is bound to create division and disadvantage. The fact that the disadvantage is diffused among many men rather than, as previously, among many women doesn't make it a good thing. In fact, under the much-despised "patriarchy", women were highly valued and generally protected, despite some suffering hardship. Feminism, on the other hand, has little regard for men at all, except insofar as they can advance the cause of women or as bad examples can be used to justify further discrimination in favour of women.

Cultural diversity in general, on the other hand, is an inclusivist paradigm. It creates an environment in which people are free to express their own ways of being. It is as far from feminism in it's basic raison d'etre as it is possible to be, despite the attempts by some feminists to justify their attacks on men as culturally diverse.

Both create challenges, but one is a challenge to get the most out of a diverse range of views and to express one's own cultural norms, while the other is a challenge to avoid expressing or doing anything that does not conform to the "women first, men nowhere" ideology that feminism demands. No wonder the "thought police" have tried to shut down the thread.

Foxy and others.
Your post on feminism is a good generalized summary of the pros and cons of in an idealized state. Like all “isms” there are very wide of range of practical diversities.

Feminism as an empowering agent is great and I’m all for it. But it seems to create at the lower end unrealistic expectations and merely confuses responses between individuals. Not every woman wants "feminism's liberation". I've even heard derogitary comments by "liberated" women about house wives there is something wrong with their choice ( almost letting down the sisterhood).

It can also be argued that it has highlighted the differences rather than equality. Great for marketing but is it equality of opportunity being exploited along gender fear lines:
• Men aren’t allowed men’s only clubs/spaces. Consider the “Titan shed ad” (good grief pass me the hemlock)
• Women have woman only gyms “feal uncomfortable being watched by (evil men) join a women’ s gym. ( Lesbians don’t go to female gyms?). Women’s clinics (The clinic I attend has M/F Drs I don’t consider their gender just their competence). There are several women’s business and women’s special interest groups etc.

All this seems to indicate that women ARE the fragile gender and need special non men environments to be happy. Sadly the WW , daytime TV set believe this pap and their interpretation is often to mimic the worst of “male” (sic) traits as a right and claim special gender protection When confronted with the consequences of their behaviour.

As an ex businessman I have been confronted with both opportunistic abuses and unacceptable attitudes from some young women who see feminism as a vector for special consideration, power not equality

Up until very recently Breast cancer gained most research funding and profile even though Prostate cancer claims similar number of lives.
Who’s looking after ‘men’s’ issues, sensitivities?…create a masculism movement? Just what we need another inter group conflict/contest for resources etc. Equality is a human rights issue not a gender one and should be treated as such.

Ok , please comment , I would appreciate the input.

In my earlier posts I tried to answer the questions
posed in this thread,i.e. the negative aspects of
feminism, and cultural diversity.
Due to the word limit - that's all I could
do. Present a brief summary. Rather than an
in-depth discussion of every point presented.

Of course for their part men, after
some hesitancy, have generally reacted positively
to the growing equality of women. In fact, their own
roles, being complimentary to those of women,are
inevitably, in flux also. Men are now permitted a more
gentle and expressive personality than would have
been considered appropriate a few decades ago.

Like the female role, the masculine role is more
ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to
interpretation by the individual.

Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part of the challenge of
social and cultural change. Under the 'old' system, everyone
knew what their roles were, and most people
unquestioningly behaved as they were supposed to. The system
constrained people, but it freed them from the need to make
choices.

There are fewer constraints today, but the individual now
has the liberty (or the burden) to choose his or her own
path to self-fulfillment.

What will the final shape of gender roles be?

The most probable pattern is one in which many alternative
lifestyles and roles will be acceptable for both men
and women. Our society is individualistic and highly open
to change and experiementation, and it is likely that women
and men will explore a wide variety of possible roles.

As I said in other threads, true liberation from the
restrictions of gender would mean that all possible options
would be open and equally acceptable for both sexes.

Then a person's individual human qualities, rather than her
or his biological sez would be the primary measure of that
person's worth and achievement.

Cheers Romany, celivia et al.

Antiseptic - although I've disagreed with many of your posts particularly in relation to the allegedly toxic nature of feminism, it's pretty clear to me that you're one of the more intelligent analytical posters who inhabit these threads - so ask yourself whether you believe this thread was begun to honestly discuss these issues, or if it is an attempt at baiting.

You say the 'thought police' are trying to 'shut down' this thread, perhaps in some effort to silence debate. Evidently I'd be classed among these 'thought police' you mention.
I dispute your assertion. I say that the premise of the thread is being ridiculed, and deservedly so.

I specifically mentioned in my post, that the aspects of these issues are worth discussing.
What's more, I would argue that there are many, many threads which deal with aspects of these issues. I happen to think most of them degenerate into pointless rounds of abuse, however occasionally some gems spring forth.

The reason why I ridicule this thread, was that it's utter lack of focus appears chosen to simply attract vitriol. It's almost certain to become one of the worthless threads.
When one of these topics is chosen without some kind of context, it's merely an invitation for verbal sprays. So when not one but two are chosen? Hell, it's ridiculous.

Lets say the thread originator was more specific, and outlined the differences between feminism and cultural diversity as you have. Perhaps then, we'd have a more focused discussion.

Lets say somebody has an issue with cultural diversity or feminism, and they outline their issue, the reasons why it's a problem and can give examples. If they genuinely listen to other viewpoints then yes, I'd say it's valid.

But antiseptic, regardless of your feelings in relation to feminism - do you really honestly believe this thread was really begun to discuss these issues in an intelligent, analytical manner? Do you really think it was an attempt at anything constructive?

In a civilised society family as a unit is essential. Upbringing of children is the most important duty of parents.If both parents are employed, children's interest certainly suffers.Children from such families do not get the love and affection they should get for normal development and they become dehumanised individuals as grown ups.For such children money is the only factor of importance in their life.Human consideration and such other human qualities will be absent in those children.Mostly they become cut throat competitors in life.Most of the problems faced by the western societies may be traced to this phenomenon.Good food and high standard of life alone is not enough for normal development.Parental bonding is very vital for children to imbibe humanism.If feminisn will come in the way of normal development of children it must be denounced in the strongest possible terms.

TRTL:"You say the 'thought police' are trying to 'shut down' this thread"

I think that's quite clear from the chorus of "me toos" when you suggested the OP was trolling. Let me ask you then, why does his/her motivation matter if the topic is sufficiently interesting to obtain sensible responses?

The crow's chorus has simply tried to shut the discussion down because they don't like it: a fairly common practise on sites such as this.

So far, there have been no "verbal sprays" or vitriol and the cackles of "me too" seem to have quieted, so how about discussing the topic, instead of this meta-discussion about the "worthiness" of the thread?

Antiseptic - both these topics have been done to death many times over. As for 'thought police' well, I personally think that's a weak moniker that you can apply to anyone who disagrees with you. I can just as easily call you the 'thought police' for trying to shut down the jibes directed at the thread.

But it doesn't get us anywhere now does it?

As for the topic, frankly I think it's been done to death and I prefer a little more by way of focused discussion.
But if you want to continue, there are no 'thought police' stopping you, so feel free to go nuts.

This issue has been done to death but there is always a glimmer of hope that the diehard anti-feminists might have softened there stance based on getting to know some of the feminists on this thread.

Contrary to what some men think feminists don't hate men nor do they want to everything to be feminised nor are they oblivious to the pressures or inequities faced by men.

There are still some sectors in society where women face discrimination though there have been great inroads into fields once closed to women. Men have also faced discrimination in the family law courts and there is some movement at the station in improving the situation for men particularly in relation to child custody. Perfection is not achievable in any form of society because you can never please everyone all of the time but we can always do better.

Like all movements and 'isms' there is always a cost I think until some sort of equilibrium or balance is achieved. A settling-in period if you like.

Looking to the future it would be more useful to talk about how we can achieve an all-important work-life balance and justice for men and women. This can only be achieved in unison and in encouraging systems that allow for flexibility and more choice according to individual or joint needs. Families or singles of myriad shapes and sizes.

I do think children are the most discriminated against in what we accept as our modern-lifesytles. Their needs are not very often taken into account and they take low priority against the perceived needs of adults at times. There is a lot of lip service about caring for our children but not much in the way of honest debate in critiquing some of the accepted norms. Children are vulnerable and resilient at the same time but greatly ignored in these sorts of arguments.

Pelican,Antiseptic,trtl
These issues have been done to death much like leaving the toilet seat up, lots of yelling for little real discussion
Oddly the basic principal is agreed ….Equality for both males and females is undisputed by most thinking people.

The difference seems to lie in the nature and manner of the method of equalization.
Paraphrasing Antiseptic; Feminism is an elitist exclusive construct whose underlying logic is to replace one unfair cultural consequence with another equally unfair set of circumstances.

Nature tends never to eliminate anything really merely add to it. Our genetic still has the genes of our ancient biological antecedents.
Much of our cultural and religious conflicts to stem from and/or is inflamed by these biological imperatives (self preservation, reproduction, Fear, Power over others etc).
In reality scapegoating males as the primary CAUSE (rather than just the vector) of female inequalities is like blaming the nose for running when one has a cold. Yet we leave the evolved cultural religious power structures (the real causes) unchanged.
Rather than creating power structure that compensate for our base instincts we ignore them creating “ isms” which are simply mechanisms of a different powerbase….complicate and exacerbate the original injustices by creating additional ones. It is for this reason I assert inequality is a matter of human rights not gender.

PS who ever used the term “thought police” in this context is wrong the correct assessment is that a majority of vocal opponents on this topic/site disagreed with your proposition. The term implies some level conspiracy paranoia in the mind user or sheer emotive petulance at not having their opinion accepted.

Antiseptic has one good point. Letting the poster's motivation dictate discussion gets nobody anywhere. But neither does tossing all feminism into the separatist basket.

There is such a thing as feminisms. The common picture of all feminists being hairy lesbian separatists is dead wrong.

For example we have women who believe they're entitled to equal pay but hesitate to think of that as feminist because they also want to shave their legs.
Some women want to stay home and raise their kids but object to being thought of as servile or the property of their husbands.
Plenty of women think we need more women in positions of power without advocating a complete takeover.

Feminism is as diverse as culture.

As one of the me-too crows, I think our position has been adequately explained: there really was no 'topic' simply the two reddest flags on the forum hastily cobbled together into one gauntlet and thrown down while the originator stepped back to watch. This opinion is substantiated by the fact that, since the first post, the initiator has taken a voyeurs stance rather than becoming involved in defending, explaining or substantiating the intent behind the thread.

While the suggestion has been made that we are thus free to ride our favourite hobby horses because this is what happens in many more narrowly focused threads, I think, on these two topics, the me-too people represent those of us would prefer that some goal-posts were in sight. Pointless bickering over much-chewed bones holds little allure.

chansmoker:"There is such a thing as feminisms. The common picture of all feminists being hairy lesbian separatists is dead wrong. "

And mostly used by pro-feminists to try to discredit those who make any criticism of feminism at all. It's a straw-woman argument, created and answered in order to avoid answering the real critique.

I don't dispute that individuals' expectations vary, however, the basic tenets of discrimination in favour of women, State-sponsored vilification of men and the use of deliberately created misinformation to justify it all are seemingly unquestioned within the upper echelons of our society. After all, it's all in a good cause, isn't it and let's face it, men (except us REAL men) are such neanderthals, aren't they? They need to be kept in line.

chainsmoker:"Feminism is as diverse as culture"

No, women are diverse; feminism is the very antithesis of diversity. It is entirely and unabashedly exclusionary and axclusivist. One need only read some of the output of SJF hear on OLO to gain an understanding of the reliance on received wisdom and rigid adherence to ideology that is feminism.

Romany:"As one of the me-too crows, I think our position has been adequately explained"

Yes, i think I explained it quite well. Attempting to shut down a conversation because one does not like the motive of the OP or perhaps his/her choice of topic is classic "thought police" behaviour. If just one of those who squawked "me too" had been known not to be pro-feminist, I'd not have commented on the "thought-crime" aspect at all.

Antiseptic "One need only read some of the output of SJF hear on OLO to gain an understanding of the reliance on received wisdom and rigid adherence to ideology that is feminism." - interesting that you picked SJF rather than one of the known feminists who don't take the same tack as SJF.

There are a number of other female posters on OLO who clarly identify themselves as feminist who take a much milder line than SJF and frankly SJF does not come near the level of blinkered inflexibiilty that some of the anti-feminist posters routinely display. She and I have clashed often but I've not seen the malace in her posts that I see in the posts from some anti-feminists directed at feminists.

When I was doing some background reading for the sisterhood of male baggers thread I came across an interesting piece by an anti-feminist commenting on the broad church idea. The writer made the point that moderate feminists believe that feminism can encompase a broad range of views but millitants don't tend to. The militants think that they know how it should be and have little regard for those who disagree. That does not make the militants right.

Judge feminism by where most are at not by the fringes no matter how loudly those at the fringe may claim to be at the center.

R0bert

R0berts>"nd frankly SJF does not come near the level of blinkered inflexibiilty that some of the anti-feminist posters routinely display. She and I have clashed often but I've not seen the malace in her posts that I see in the posts from some anti-feminists directed at feminists."

Where you see malice, I see urgency. When you are confronted with the most boneheaded denialism and ignorance, you drive people who know better than yourself to become angry. Imagine the forum was populated by one hundred runners and BOAZs, and imagine living in a 'democracy' where they had such a ratio.

"Malice" is a normal reaction to ignorance and denialism, because that passive aggression is malice in itself.

There are ample reasons why feminism is damaging society, that have been discussed on many occassions. The central part of which, is that bigotry and asinine, harmful ideas are passing under the guise of Feminism (see the catholic MTR's grip and activism that I've exposed here on OLO), which is rubber-stamped by the "hundred-score" feminists described at the alluded to at the beginning of this comment.

There is simple denialism and ignorance becoming policy in Australia, with as much frequency as religious-based laws are being implemented in this country and being pandered to.

Don't make me post how much malice has been shown by the feminists and their apologists, in their use of the term "misogyny" to describe rational dissent and critique.

R0bert:"interesting that you picked SJF rather than one of the known feminists who don't take the same tack as SJF."

I picked SJF because it is the radical fringe that have set the agenda. The moderates are frequently moved to support radicalism in the name of "sisterhood", while they rarely implement action of their own. Moreover, by and large it is not the moderates who have gone and got soft "doctorates" in gender-based fields, paid for by the Government, that they use to "speak from authority" (the received wisdom I mentioned earlier) to support ever more stridently ideological arguments.

It is true that some anti-feminist views are extreme as well, which can't be a good thing. It is also true that those of us who do speak out reasonably moderately and articulately are thin on the ground, so perhaps the more extreme viewpoints are an expression of frustration, as Steel said.

The church of feminism may be broad, but the clergy are from a very narrow-minded sect indeed.

Antiseptic, "It is true that some anti-feminist views are extreme as well, which can't be a good thing. It is also true that those of us who do speak out reasonably moderately and articulately are thin on the ground" - I refuse to accept that the extreme end of the men's rights side of the disussion sets the agenda for "our side" of things. They influence the agenda in providing a diversion from the issues, by providing a characature of angry men which is played to try and make us all bad but I don't think they set the agenda.

I don't like being treated as though the extreme end of the mens movement controlled my thinking so I don't see how it's fair to treat moderate feminists that way. I suspect that any "sisterhood" between moderates and radicals is an artifact of broad scale attacks on feminism and feminists rather than "sisterhood". If you make all feminists the enemy then you should not be surprised if they respond in kind.

If radical feminists have too much power, if their opinions carry too much weight it is in part because many have attacked the whole feminist movement rather than talking just about the bits that don't work. That leaves people feeling defensive, it hides those valid concerns which should be addressed and lessens the chances of meaningful communication.

R0bert

There is some great confusion about the actual situation.

I have not observed any "extremism" in a "men's movement" (btw, why women allegedly can't be seen to advocate for men is false and more than troubling).

The problem is not symmetrical as R0bert seems to think (ie, whatever feminism is accused of doing, so to it must be reflected in 'anti-feminist' movements).

The problem as alluded to by Antiseptic, is that feminists in positions of power are abusing the moderate feminists greatly (and all of the people who suffer from their policies and political correctness).

If you've observed the discussions here on OLO, you will know that moderate feminists who "step out of line" are quickly admonished by the more stringent feminists of the forum. This heirarchy and attitude is easily seen by the use of at least one feminist, of the word church in describing feminism as if all feminists are disciples who can't question it or stray from it's "teachings".

The authority of the author's was appealed to. It didn't matter what ration or logic was used by the moderate, the "Betrayer" card was played seemingly as a last resort. So when you see people like Melinda Tankard Reist manipulating women based on her feminist description, which is really servile to her hidden agenda of rigid Catholicism, you see an unhealthy relationship.

Conversely men who have had enough of the disgusting reasoning and denialism that has elevated feminism to a church in modern day society, an untouchable institution, as virginal as the fantasy about female innocence and whereby every politician may do anything but criticise it and the people spreading the propaganda for fear of being labelled a "misogynist" (see: Malice discussion above in the alst couple of posts). Who is serving the agenda? if you know anything at all about feminism, with influential people like Melinda Tankard Reist contributing to policy and the lies surrounding feminist viewpoints, then you will know it's not being served by moderates.

In this sense, feminism is a bit like Scientology or other religions, where women are introduced and fed information that is ever-increasing in extremism and deceit. Eventually the label of feminist becomes an automatic license in academia to have all of your views uncritically passed and accepted. To disrupt this flow of information is to hate women, to be labelled a misogynist.

"Where you see malice, I see urgency. When you are confronted with the most boneheaded denialism and ignorance, you drive people who know better than yourself to become angry."

I imagine this is how every extremist, from the IRA, right through to the feminists/anti-feminists and even ufo conspiracists see the world.

"I have not observed any "extremism" in a "men's movement"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6883&page=0"

Actually, take a closer look at the commentary from HRS, and tell me that again:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=30937&show=history

He even refused to admit that if a woman opposed the stoning of women in Saudi Arabia on the grounds of human rights and equality, and defined herself a feminist, she could be both a feminist and a decent person (he'd already accepted that anyone who defines themselves as feminist is a feminist).

Didn't compute.

I stand with those who say it's idiocy to define a group solely by the fringe. You piss off plenty of reasonable people for no good reason. Plus, when you say that the moderates are just sheep for the fringe, you dismiss them and refuse to listen to their arguments, which doesn't wash with me either.

Oppose the actions, not the name. When there are idiotic and unfair moves by fringe feminists, by all means, highlight them. Don't go tarring decent people by the same brush.

HRS first words in the responses:

HRS>"I'm still waiting for Audrey Apple to take the banner "Boys are made of slime and snails" off her blogsite."

TLTR>"take a closer look at the commentary from HRS, and tell me that again"

HRS' latest comment, about feminists concerted attacks on the successful Sarah Palin, shows you have blinkered vision.

TLTR>"I stand with those who say it's idiocy to define a group solely by the fringe. You piss off plenty of reasonable people for no good reason. "

As the fringe holds the keys to power, it would actually be idiocy not to define the movement by it's output and publications. If people become pissed off it's their own fault for rubber-stamping feminist policy and calling people who criticise it misogynists: yes, so-called MODERATES that you are defending make this manipulative accusation REGULARLY...don't you think that pisses people off?

i guess it doesn't count for someone with blinkered vision though.

TLTR: "Plus, when you say that the moderates are just sheep for the fringe, you dismiss them and refuse to listen to their arguments, which doesn't wash with me either."

I've never dismissed them nor refused to listen to their arguments. The converse is actually true. Rather than challenging my comment recently and the facts presented, the feminist CJ Morgan, resorted to simple ridicule, as did Fractelle prior to that.

The more public the discussion, the more someone advocating male concerns is quickly and falsely charged with the smear of misogynist and ignored (despite the anti-*feminist* position). Again, I wouldn't expect someone with as blinkered vision as you are demonstrating to acknowledge this fact.

i'm not surprised none of this washes with you. You do not observe the production of feminist propaganda and how it is disseminated. You do not pay attention to who makes these claims, nor who repeats them. Indeed you fail simply because you are biased from the outset*, and rather than accusing others of not listening, you yourself fail to extend that courtesy, by *simplifying* the prior comments and declaring that it doesn't wash.

*As shown.

Steel, "The more public the discussion, the more someone advocating male concerns is quickly and falsely charged with the smear of misogynist and ignored (despite the anti-*feminist* position). "

Some will do that but others engage in discussion. Some will lash out early but still keep listening, others will listen all the way through and try to understand.

I've persisted with putting my views on the misrepresentation of DV for some years now in this space. I've been accussed of being an abuser more than once, I've often been accussed of trying to cover up violence against women and assorted other nasty claims which sometimes hurt more than they should. I've been very disappointed at times people I respect have made those claims but through all that there are feminists who have sought to understand the point being made. Feminists who are willing to speak against all violence not just violence against women, feminists who accept that people hurt children not just men.

Few here are perfect but there are good people on differeing sides of most discussions. We get a choice here, engage in long running slanging matches or try and have a dialog. Sometimes we have to be the one who chooses to make things different.

R0bert

*Sigh*.

Steel, calm down. You're displaying the kneejerk tendencies I described as being indicative of extremist attitudes.

You missed the 'solely' bit. A crucial distinction.

I said it's foolish to judge "solely" by the fringe. My closing remarks were intended to convey that the nutbags can and should be judged harshly.

I've *never* called you a misogynist. I think this label is applied too quickly. It shouldn't be, unless it can be categorically shown.

Though I wouldn't "expect someone with such a blinkered vision as you," to acknowledge I've never resorted to the misogynist smear, except after a long, long discussion where I came to this conclusion after sharing dozens of posts with HRS, where he essentially said anyone called themselves a feminist could never, ever do anything good, which is simply illogical.

Some define themselves as feminists because they believe in equality. By this definition, HRS thinks equality of women is evil. This is misogynistic.

(Note, you can argue feminist definitions, but to say people who just call themselves that are automatically evil? Even if I call myself a terrorist but never do anything violent, am I incapable of good? 'feminist' is just a word, with different meanings to different people).

I've seen plenty of feminist propaganda and called it such, though only when it's unreasonable.

When hearing reasonable arguments highlighting inequalities for both genders, I simply don't foam at the mouth if the word 'feminist' is mentioned.

R0bert, for example, is one who doesn't react with vitriol and calmly discusses some problematic aspects of feminism. He advocates reforming attitudes regarding female-initiated DV. Although I'm still skeptical, after hearing his rational, long standing discussions, I now accept it's a significant problem.

Frankly I'm insulted by how quickly you exploded and called me a 'misogynist labeller', when I take great care not to.

Ultimately it says more about you than me, and alienates people from your cause.

Every cause has fringe elements on BOTH sides. Only those within one fringe, deny their fringe exists. Usually, something particularly harrowing has driven them there and left them with reduced objectivity.

TRTL,

'I stand with those who say it's idiocy to define a group solely by the fringe. You piss off plenty of reasonable people for no good reason. Plus, when you say that the moderates are just sheep for the fringe, you dismiss them and refuse to listen to their arguments, which doesn't wash with me either.

Oppose the actions, not the name. When there are idiotic and unfair moves by fringe feminists, by all means, highlight them. Don't go tarring decent people by the same brush.'

Good point. I see the sence in that, and I am guilty of this. But like Steel, I do see what is published by people who call themselves feminists and find a lot of it offensive. Now whether the ones I hear are radical or not is subjective. But I will stop using the term altogether as people who see themselves as feminists in turn get offended when I use the term to refute the ism I see via the opinions I am exposed to.

Incidently, this is all too late anyway. I did start to alter my 'behaviour', but when some posters will only see you in a certain 'misogynist' way, anything you say is discounted anyway. Actually a few of the feminists on OLO are very apt at setting themselves up as 'victims' of 'bullying' right off the bat as soon as a gender topic is opened and regardless of anything I have even said. The Irony is these same victims of bullying even follow me around just to wind me up, or ignore my points but talk about me in the third person. Anyway enough whinging, I just thought you should know it's a good point you make.

Thanks US. For the record, aside from HRS, I don't think I've seen any real misogyny on this website. Like overt racism, it's very rare (though I have seen some instances of that, and by which I don't mean the attacks on muslims, I mean people saying that other races are genuinely inferior) and I think such terms (misogynist/racist/elitist and so on) are used more often by people attempting to position themselves as victims.

I do see the problems with people assuming a mantle of victimhood, and I agree some sections of feminism go too far in applying this label to themselves, though I think we agree that when you launch broadside attacks on a multitude of people with a wide variety of views, it provokes a backlash from people who might otherwise agree.

I think people can either accept this as a reality and focus their efforts, or continue feeling marginalised when large tracts of people react negatively.

Steel - I also note that you implied the use of the word 'church' together with feminism, was an implication they're all followers who act as one.

I'd dispute that meaning. The phrase "a broad church" is used for many things and signifies the opposite, meaning that within a (well, I'll say 'movement' though I don't mean that in a 'zealot' sense, I just don't have a more neutral word), there is significant dissent in approach and attitude.