Here's another reason why I don't post often.

Squeers and Antiseptic tried on two attitudes to women: that the ladies are preoccupied with frivolities (Squeers) or that the cheer squads of avowedly-feminist women ... tend to swamp any serious discussion with polemic and abuse (Antiseptic).

Now Antispetic writes: squeers, I'm no misogynist either, but if I'd said what you did I'd have been crucified as one.

I'll give them both the benefit of the doubt, and assume that these posts are attempts to stir.

But why rise to the bait? Whether genuine views or just stirs, these lines are almost sweetly old-fashioned. So I wouldn't bother any more - I've been there, done that, for decades. The world has changed - women can get their hair done and think about sex and be feminists (which I define as having the same opportunity as men to succeed, fail or just be dumb). And they can do all that and enjoy serious intellectual challenges and debate ... if they can find it.

So if you guys find that women don't engage with you over ideas, then maybe they've heard it all before and have just moved on?

PS Thanks, Yabbie

bonmot,

Thanks for that : )

I managed to work out most of it, but your translation makes it much clearer.

Anti,

Cossomby was just suggesting an exercise to take us out of our comfort zone. For example, it might be useful to me as I'm rather conflicted about "feminism" because it's application in the West is influenced greatly by a system I often criticise.

Lexi,

Thanks for that : )

RObert,

Glad you found the articles interesting - this issue completely bypassed OLOers it seems.

Poirot:"this issue completely bypassed OLOers it seems"

Not so. If you'd participate in the articles section you'll find that the Jennifer Wilson/MTR issue has already been discussed.

Thank you, Anti.

I don't suppose you could tell me where or post a link, could you...and are you referring to the recent stoush or simmering issues in the past?

P.S. I do participate in the article's section - quite often in fact. However, the general section often has plenty of action.

Cossomby,
I appreciate your comments and would encourage you to post more often.
Perhaps it's inevitable that there's an element of misogyny in all men who are conscious of the gender divide. But then that goes both ways and you'd have to admit that "men" (a stereotype) have also born the brunt of feminine mockery and feminist spleen for decades. I think each gender is deserving of criticism, though as individuals we can all claim to disown the stereotypes.

This comment is interesting:

"The world has changed - women can get their hair done and think about sex and be feminists (which I define as having the same opportunity as men to succeed, fail or just be dumb). And they can do all that and enjoy serious intellectual challenges and debate ... if they can find it".

Yes, feminism has wrought a degree of change in our culture; it's called political correctness and women enjoy the illusion, and to a certain extent the reality, of equal treatment. There's still work to be done but equality within the prevailing system has degenerated into the yardstick of feminist intervention. Any aspiration for real change, for the overthrow of patriarchal society and paternalism has been mitigated by the realisation that women constitute two of the pillars of patriarchy, paternalism and patriotism.
Feminists have abandoned their chance to change the world men built--and evermore extravagantly seek to renew--or at least took the kudos for, and have settled instead for the boast that they can be just as self-indulgent, narcissistic and irresponsible.
Your comment's interesting because it's so typical of a mindset common to both sexes that takes the prevailing reckless order utterly for granted. There's no thought of changing the world, no conception that the world could be other than it is, just an indignant insistence on an equal share of what amounts in the West to manna from heaven.
Women don't want emancipation, they just want better treatment/service to go with the indulgence. They want their illusions maintained.

Poirot, it wasn't discussed as such, but I mentioned it in passing in the women's super thread.

I think Jennifer Wilson's handled herself very well and the subject is an important one. I'm quite interested in Graham's view, since I was suspended last year for mentioning that a particular article was the product of someone from the Sydney Catholic diocese.

squeers, Eva Cox has made several comments lately in a similar vein. I do hope it signals a shift from the way mainstream carrerist feminists have handled themselves.