I did really find reading feminist material very depressing, Holly.

But more of that latter. I would have to agree with most of what you wrote. Personally if I had a time machine, I'd go back in time and give myself a big kick up the you know where and tell myself not to go down this path.

Admittedly some people do not want to look to deeply and others look too deeply which in itself causes a distorted view, in a very narrow field of vision.

http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/questions-i-want-to-ask-entitled-cis-het-men-part-3-space-for-men/

<Of course, it’s worth noting that the advantages women experience are almost always the flip side of unfortunate stereotypes. For instance, one might say that women get more social space for emotion because we’re stereotyped as irrational and hysterical. But that doesn’t change the fact that most of us easily grasp that space, while most men don’t. And if we can reject the Oppression Olympics for just one minute and stop thinking about who’s got it worse, it becomes clear that the advantages and drawbacks associated with being both male and female are intertwined. The two systems reinforce, and cannot function without, each other. The gender binary may not hurt everyone equally, but it hurts everyone.>

It is the other side of this binary I want to explore.

I don't know whether they're Marxists anti.

There is a lot of 'class' politics when you read any feminist 'social commentator' article about rugby league controversies. It's not just the dreaded 'attitude to women', but also a lamenting about a 'culture' that is very close to a 'heaping sh1t on the pikeys' attitude. An aversion to less intelligent or less 'educated' people and almost an aversion to sport per se, certainly an aversion to a 'common man's ' sport of rugby league. Really, apart from the painting of all men as violent predators, there is a sub-text of hatred for the less educated 'low class' man, and a patronising of the low-class women victims.

Maybe they're more Chardonnay socialists.

Which brings me to pelican,

'let's everyone just start taking responsibility for their own behaviour and not push guilt onto victims of sexual assault for one. '

That's a very ironic comment. Push guilt. Hahaha. Nobody can make you feel guilty. Take responsibility for your own feelings.

'Just because some men rape does not mean all men do. '

To be fair, that's exactly what James often bangs on about, the subtle assertion by FSM (feminist social commentators) that all men are guilty somehow for rape due to their 'attitude to women'. This 'attitude to women' basically being any expression of sexual attraction or depiction of male fantasy'.

'There is far too much of the 'Me Me' in this debate and not enough 'WE'.'
I don't know. I think people are wanting a more even-sided debate about consent these days. First we had 'she asked for it', but these days we have a gentleman/rapist dichotomy. I think we should explore the grey areas in negotiation of consent between drunken people rather than silence dissent with cries of 'Blaming the Victim!'.

PS: Thanks for the first 'blame the victim'. Was counting on it. May there be many more!

In summary,

Feminists wont let anyone talk at all about pragmatic precautions without yelling 'blaming the victim!', but some men wont let anyone talk about rape without yelling 'so all men are rapists huh?!'

Pelican:"feminism was a movement based on respect and equality"

In its earliest iterations, certainly, but the modern version is about power and control. Usually, it is about justifying a stance in which women have power and men have to exercise control.

I thought the recent comment from the French Finance Minister was revealing. She claims that women make better politicians because they're less interested in sex. I suspect she's right about the sex, but not about the qualification for politics. Moreover, I suspect that Nina et al understand that many women don't much like sex and that therefore, attacking male sexuality is a no-brainer: the class enemy is assaulted and there's very little chance of anyone important (IOW, other women) feeling aggrieved. In days gone by my mother used to have tea parties and other social getherings with her woman friends. I'm sure the "unreasonable" sexual requirements of their husbands were a common topic of conversation, no doubt with many suggestions bandied about as to how one might avoid them.

I have 6 sisters, so Dad must have been persuasive...

Pelican:"There is far too much of the 'Me Me' in this debate and not enough 'WE'."

If egalitarianism is the goal of feminism as you claim then why is 50% of the population excluded by definition?

Men have been very tolerant of the demands of feminism. It's an extension of the old "happy wife, happy life" maxim, I suspect. Feminists have shown no such concern for the negative outcomes of their policies on men. It's simply not part of the ideology.

Nothing like stepping into the fray.

The difference is Houlley is that I don't see a bevy of women saying "all men are rapists" - this is only in the mind of some men who for some reason I cannot fathom prefer to retain a victim status due their own personal experiences. Men and women need to get over those personal experiences and come into the light of rationality and reason.

But if you read OLO and other media, there is plenty of 'blaming the victim' going around especially where alcohol or footballers are involved.

The positive thing to remember is that most men and women dont' subscribe to the notion that men are demonised just because some men might rape, or because a woman writes an article about sexualisation of children in advertising, or recounts a rape experience and the reaction of police, or about glass ceilings or any number of other issues.

Feminism has never been an issue of the Left or Right even though it has been painted at various times as one or the other. In the early days feminism aligned itself heavily with the Right.

Feminists can be of either sex and many feminists believe that gender stereotypes hinder men and women.

Anti
I suspect the reason why men have sometimes been excluded in legislation is that like any cause where there was a perceived underdog the legislation initially sought to level the playing field.

That has changed as HEROC anti-discrimination legislation is by and large non-gender specific and men have utilised those same protective laws.

Men now benefit from paternity leave provisions and the like.

Most women don't want women to be the dominant gender, they don't think about dominance - that is my point - no-one is talking about female dominance except some men.

It is a distraction and there is nothing like avoiding the real issues by putting forward a preposterous and extreme claim like female domination or even 'terrorism' as proposed by Al.

I'm with Houellebecq on this one.

Demonization is, I suspect, largely in the eye of the beholder. I for one don't feel at all oppressed when I hear wild-eyed femo-nazis raving on about how evil men are. I feel sorry for them, in the same way that I feel sorry for anyone who decides that "it's all the world's fault" when anything happens that they don't like.

But I particularly liked this typo of yours, H.

>>maybe you see radial feminism everywhere?<<

My immediate thought was, does radial feminism have a spokesperson?