' that women must conform to a universally agreed standard on what it means to be a feminist. I am old enough to remember when the feminism of the 70s was about choice. '

I reckon when people have an ism, or a religion, they should be obliged to spell it out. What are the central tenets of this.

I see this 'Broad Church' BS as a flaky way of sidestepping any criticism, and being an impossibly small target. It's a mechanism where anything can be said and done and condoned by the followers of the ideology but the name of the ideology is in no way affected. It can simply be passed off as, he/she's just using my religion as an excuse for this, or that's not my feminism; My religion/ideology is harmless and wholesome, and you should ignore the messages from leading identities and people of positions of authority on the ism come out with daily.

Well it's not good enough. If enough proponents of an ism spew hate daily, the ism is a hate filled ism. It's up to non-haters to wage a PR campaign or have the name of th-e-ism tainted.

So in a way, I like this designation of who can and cant be a feminist, as at least it attempts to create some consensus of what is allowed under the ideology, and works to limit the lamey Broad Church way of weaseling out.

I've long said I respect religions that say we don't like gays for example, that's the rules of the church, if you don't like it piss off. At least you know where they stand. Then I can safely dismiss that religion.

What I hate is when the top 100 leading feminists broadcast an anti male doctrine full of hatred and misrepresentation, and then women still defend the ism with 'Broad Church ya-know' and 'that's not feminism'.

If a significant and vocal percentage of 'career feminists', the lasses that are there for every news outlet as 'cash for tut-tut' after every Office for Women press release says something, THAT's FEMINISM!

BTW: There's choice, fine, ok, good to have choice about how to live your life.

But really what feminists are looking for is choice while being immune from any judgement. Nobody has that. God knows us men don't, just ask any feminist about men! Judgement a plenty there!

Dear RObert,

Thank You for clarifying your position for me.
I misunderstood what you were saying. And of
course you've raised some valid points.

Houlley
I don't think it's fair to say that feminists hate men or have an anti-male stance in the same way that men might raise family law issues does not mean they are anti-women. It's a bit like the cries of anti-Catholicism for raising lack of duty of care regarding pedophile abuses. It's a diversion from the core topics and such an approach usually means the problems or divides continue unabated.

A manifesto of central tenets and beliefs would be helpful but feminism doesn't have a central HQ. It is not an organisation? Who owns it or runs the campaign? And if anything like a party platform (motherhood statements) without sufficient detail would probably not be too helpful.

That is part of the problem when trying to define feminism or trying to espouse what it means to be a feminist. Feminism is a football kicked from generation to generation and it's tenets of equality are so broad that it can be convoluted into anything you want it to be according to one's own agenda or to fit the current social morays. Unfortunately the most vocal and those who have public air-time do not always reflect the views of all women. They cannot possibly.

Why not a broader humanist approach that approaches life from the overall good. Afterall women and men are, as RObert puts it, in it together.

That is not to argue away from some gender specific policies that may affect one gender more than another particularly in relation to male/female health etc. That is, I am not arguing that gender becomes a 'no go' area altogether as there will be times when gender is applicable such as conscription (men) or issues around rape-violence while mainly affecting women may also be experienced by men.

Pelican have you had a look at Bob Mongomery's article yet? http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14683

Given the background all these discussions can easily turn to pitched battles, something I'd rather avoid.

I do see your point regarding no central manifesto but I think there comes a point where if the overwhelming majority of those working professionally in an area are pushing a particular hard line barrow that barrow can be fairly recognised as central. If feminists of good will rise up en mass and express their rejection of the hard liners then I'd have a different view but I've not seen that happen.

R0bert

' It's a bit like the cries of anti-Catholicism for raising lack of duty of care regarding pedophile abuses.'

Indeed. There IS a lot of anti-Catholicism mixed up in that. I don't think you can deny that. Seriously, so many feminist articles are really just an excuse to hate on men.

It's one thing to bring up a societal issue that affects women.

Its another to explain how the actions of men have contributed to or cause such a restriction or hardship for women.

So far so good. But the FSC always proceeds to...

Ignore or deny that women have had any hand in shaping societal attitudes, and put it all on 'men'.

Assume they are in a position to assign motive to the particular men that have caused the hardship by their actions, always ungenerously.

Assume to project this motive onto all men and use phrases like 'Men's attitude to women', or 'The Patriarchy', and opine it is a problem with masculinity itself, and propose as a woman you should re-define masculinity for men.

That's fair dink-um hate speech!

All the while complaining about men judging women in any way shape or form, and go so far as to decide what men should even find attractive in women.

BTW:' rape-violence while mainly affecting women may also be experienced by men.'

Men are far more affected by violence than women. It's just it's accepted for men to be victims of violence. Being male they are responsible for the violence of other men.