Ginx:"confirm what I'm saying"

That sounds wonderful, ginx, but you've not "said" anything at all. Lots of toshery, no substance. Don't feel bad, that's par for the course here.

ginx:"
But you septic? You are a really insecure little bod aren't you? And you've shown a vulnerability and hypersensitivity to issues you see as threatening you manhood;-for quite some time."

Oh, poor Ginx, the big bad man said you were self-centred, did he? now you've gone and smeared that rotten lot all over yourself, the Pomeranian will be in like a shot...

As for frequency of posts, my dear old attention-seeker, my comment was to do with what the posts failed to contain, 3 times in a row, which was anything worth reading. I'm not sure why that surprised me, since it's merely carrying on the high standard of vapidity you've always maintained.

ginx:"if we XX's make a supportive statement, (unlike the XY's!!), then we are subject to more ridicule."

Do you REALLY want to open that can of worms, dear? On the whole, the male posters here tend to post their own thoughts, rarely offering much overt or explicit support for another other than by their arguments. OTOH, the female posters seem to think their arguments aren't much chop unless several other women immediately chime in with compliments. They're often right about the quality although sadly mistaken about the power of compliments.

100 wrong people who all agree are still wrong. Nevermind, at least you've got the pomeranian...

Ginx,

'What is it called when a thread about gender focused magazines result in an ongoing attack about bloody feminism? Insecure men diatribe?'

I don't think you understand the dynamics of how this thread was created. Just look at Fraccy's second and third post rather than the topic post, and you'll see the REAL reason for the thread...

'...women are defined on appearance alone. Women over a certain age regarded as 'invisible' whereas men are perceived as 'distinguished'.

Feminist rant. Where the true insecurity in this topic lies. This 'apearance alone' crap, was what I have argued against constantly. It was what was rejected on the other thread also.

'I know I am risking another 'battle of the genders', but I am seeking some honesty here.'

A carry over from the previous thread where anyone who disagrees with Fraccy is 'dishonest'.

'What I found astounding was the denial that the image of women is portrayed as sexual more than the image of men is.'
No such denial was made. What this whole topic is about is Fractelle, making her own topic, with goalposts of argument moved, added in a special dash of misrepresentation, and whalla!

'However, if I make the above claims I am subjected to attack, innuendo and outright insult. For stating the truth no less.'
The obligatory victim positioning we all come to expect now days.

Translation: Nobody was agreeing with me, so I'll make a new topic as a trojan horse for my feminist hobby horse argument that wasn't accepted on the other topic, where I distorted the opinions of all the male posters and called everyone dishonest and liars, but I'm the victim. But I don't want a gender war, honest;-)

Houellebecq

"I don't think you understand the dynamics of how this thread was created. Just look at Fraccy's second and third post rather than the topic post, and you'll see the REAL reason for the thread...

'...women are defined on appearance alone. Women over a certain age regarded as 'invisible' whereas men are perceived as 'distinguished'.

Feminist rant. Where the true insecurity in this topic lies. This 'apearance alone' crap, was what I have argued against constantly."

You can argue against it all you like, but comments like Yabby's clearly support Fractelle's assertion, which by the way is only one of many points raised by her in a thoughtful and wide ranging thread.

"Those bleeding men won't do as she thinks. Next she is getting older, closer to the wrinklies, and of course her younger and more attractive sisters could easily cut her out.

Not things that Fractelle would ever admit to, as women don't, but the realities of life anyhow.

Its ok girls, we men are understanding. You have your years of calling the shots, then old age catches up with the best of you.

Anger and frustration shows, even if you try to deny it."

A typical Yabby comment - says it all really, as far as I'm concerned. (TBC)

Houellebecq (Cont.)

You can deny it all you want, but women are judged on how closely they conform to a certain look. And women who continue to point this out are not, as you and Yabby keep telling them, doing it out of frustration and bitterness at not having that look. I'm sure they're no less secure than anyone else and in fact are probably perfectly comfortable with their place in the world.

I know it's a difficult concept for some men to comprehend, but such women are not necessarily arguing from a point of self-interest. They're looking at the effects on society more broadly and in particular on young girls, many of whom develop seriously disordered body image problems and debilitating lack of confidence in their own capabilities, which stay with them for life, as a result of this relentless pressure to conform to a narrow and imposed ideal of femininity.

How did you do on the empathy section in Fractelle's test? If you're like many men, you will have scored poorly. And my guess is it's the very men who lack empathy that are the most vocal in criticizing women who complain about being pigeon-holed according to appearance. Such men have no capacity to feel or even imagine the experience for themselves, but that rarely stops them from having plenty to say about it just the same.

BTW, it's very unfair to attack Fractelle's intentions when she's clearly posted her last post on the thread. Contrary to your assertions, Fractelle has been fair and comprehensive in her facilitation of the thread and its success is very much due to that fact.

Bronwyn,

'BTW, it's very unfair to attack Fractelle's intentions when she's clearly posted'

Her intentions were very 'clearly posted' in her 2nd and 3rd posts on this thread. She outlined them explicitly....

'My reason for asking about equivalent raunchy magazines for women, was on the Susan Boyle thread a number of male posters denied assessing women in a sexual way'

Which I showed (with six quotes) was wrong. Then

'I know I am risking another 'battle of the genders', but I am seeking some honesty here.'

Basically a repeat of the 'dishnoest' call from the other thread that was proven wrong.

'I'm sure they're no less secure...'

My jibe about 'insecure' was a retaliation to just the sad attempts by Fractelle and Gynx to threaten 'septics and Yabby's masculinity. Like in the last topic Fractelle saying in one breath she wants 'a world which values men for being caring and nurturing rather than ridiculed as being somehow lacking in masculinity', while in this thread attempting to threaten people's masculinity (How I dunno with a brain test?) and saying things like "you are a sensitive little bunch of flowers aren't you?". Hypocritical much?

Neither have I said women aren't judged on appearance. As I said the 'appearance ALONE' is what I rail against. I maintain that Fractelles view of men as creatures who instantly categorize every women they see as f&ckable or not, and that she 'knows men' as a whole based on a group of guys who guessed her breast size, and calling everyone who didn't agree with the above as 'dishonest', shows up a pretty dim view of men. As I said, 'Perpetually confronted by the ghost of Benny Hill' sums her up. Any man who doesn't admit to being a mere characature of Benny Hill is 'dishonest' in her book.

How did you do on the empathy section in Fractelle's test?
Not sure what part that one was. If it was the eyes, I actually got 9 out of 10.

Dear Yabby,

You said, "clearly our books differ. I don't
think I wrote anything that Ginx has not written
herself on one thread or another."

Let me set the record straight for you.
Ginx has never
considered herself, "too old, sick and frail."
When I tried to point this out to you you called
me gutless and full of "smaltz."

It doesn't take much courage to attack a person
when they're vulnerable. It doesn't take much
courage to tell a person who's fighting a battle
with cancer, has had numerous operations and has
just come back to this Forum, "You're too old, sick
and frail for me." Ginx would never dream of complaining,
and she has a terrific sense of humour - but that's
not an excuse to take advantage.

"Clearly our books differ." Clearly they do.
I don't look upon you or anyone else as "fair game."