Julie Bishop doesn't find it useful to describe herself as a feminist http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/im-no-feminist-julie-bishop-20141029-11dn7m.html. I can understand that. Because of its more radical proponents, feminism means something in the common mind that is not helpful to ensuring equality for women.

I have two daughters, both studying at university, and I hope that their careers are no worse than their brother's, and they seem to be setting themselves up to achieve that. But neither describe as feminists. In fact, none of the young women that I regularly mix with describe themselves as feminists.

I have male friends of my own age or older who self-describe as feminists. Not something I have been tempted to do, even though I've always been keen to promote female equality and my first boss was a woman - Senator Kathy Martin.

For me the reason is that I'm uneasy with a term which seems to favour one gender over the other. And I also see situations in which feminism has led as much to the unfair detriment of boys as to the reasonable benefit of girls.

Yes, there has been a boys club in the past, but I don't think you fix that by creating a rival girls club.

Gender is just one of the attributes we are born with. Surely the aim of feminism is to ensure that it is just one, and you can't do that by defining everything in terms of that attribute.

So we'll know feminism has succeeded when the term falls into disuse. Perhaps Julie Bishop has recognised its success before some of her female colleagues?

Dear Graham,

I've always regarded feminism as a belief
in equality and justice for all. What could be more
important than that. It is still relevant today
especially regarding Julie Bishop's recent comments.

A reader made this observation in The Age,
Saturday, November 1, 2014:

"Foreign Minister Julie Bishop has confused me, again.
She said that she does not acknowledge the existence
of a glass ceiling, yet goes on to say she does
"the very best I can to make it easier for those who will
follow me." (The Age, 30/10)."

"But if there is no glass ceiling why does it need to
be easier? ..."

No problems translating what Bishop said. She has never accepted the glass ceiling as an excuse for not getting the job she is after. She's not saying it doesn't exist, but that talking about it doesn't help. You just need to try again.

Foxy,
If you believe in equality you're not a Feminist, that makes you a liberal like Julie Bishop and she merely expressed an altruistic sentiment in the section you've quoted. Odds are her successor will be a man, if she has a protege on her staff I bet he's a man also, she's just saying she'll do her best to pass on her experience and make the climb up the ladder a bit easier for the next generation.
There's a stark difference between what people think Feminism means and what it looks like in practice, it's basically two irreconcilable views.
I'm a White Nationalist, we're very quick to say who should and should not be heard, whose views are out of date, divisive or just plain wrong, this is a way of thinking common to most real world schools of thought. This introspection is something which until the last few years has been absent from Feminism and it's only come about because thanks to the internet Feminism is now something inextricably linked with the worst kind of degenerates, hucksters and kooks.
This is how bad it's become and this is why people are angry:
http://www.womanist-musings.com/2011/03/stop-denying-white-female-privilege.html
http://i1.wp.com/therightstuff.biz/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/white.jpg

Maybe if in the 1970's "Feminists" had simply said that people like Andrea Dworkin, Susan Sontag and Susan Brownmiller and the dozens of other aesthetically challenged Jewesses who didn't get prom invites should no longer be heard because their views were divisive, motivated by personal bias and just flat out wrong women's activism might have retained some of the credibility it had built up in the early 20th century.
The Feminist motto "Make the personal political" is the exact opposite of what the West represents, it's, shall we say an oriental way of thinking for an oriental people.

I was reading about this very subject in the guardian yesterday.
It shows a different perspective on the subject.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/nov/01/julie-bishop-doesnt-find-feminism-useful-what-do-rightwing-women-want-anyway?view=mobile

Julie Bishop has to tow the party line of a very conservative, very Catholic Prime Minister. Feminism is a dirty word to him and his band of merry men, no matter how many daughters troop dutifully out to show us they feel women are 'equal'.

Julie Bishop and her other right-wing female colleagues apparently all feel the same about feminism (not surprising). They feel it has had it's day and that us women are competing with the men equally now.
But are we?

"Joining their chorus, Concetta Fierravanti-Wells concurred with Scott’s comments that jobs should be awarded based on “merit and ability to do the job”.
Bishop is the Abbott government’s only female cabinet member; the most optimistic conclusion to draw from Scott and Fierravanti-Wells’ comments is that the women who are drawn to involvement in the LNP lack merit and ability, or they’d rise higher. The pessimistic view is that right-wing men are somehow inherently superior to right-wing women, which is why they proliferate at female expense."

Indeed.

It is well known out here in the wider community that Bishop runs rings around Abbott as far as speaking in public and diplomatic relations with other countries goes.

Will she ever get the top job though?
Not a hope in hell...

I have to agree with the girls here, Bishop has benefited from the past efforts of women as they have fought for equality, which incidentally they are yet to fully achieve. That does not make them any different to many others within society, who are also yet to achieve that full equality that they so richly deserve. Now that Bishop has personally achieved much, and she has, the woman feels its not necessary to carry on the fight for her sisters, not that she was in the fight in the first place, I suspect she has simply been a beneficiary of the efforts of others. In other words "I'm all right Jackie, stuff you!" but put in nice terms, a very selfish attitude indeed.
I know a number of women who I could easily describe as active feminists, but they are not all the same, they all have personalities which very much come into play. Two women who are MP's and very active for women, are two totally different people, one the out there, in your face noisy type, the other a far more relaxed lay back quite type of person. Both these women are educated knowledgeable and articulate, but from very different backgrounds, but both are passionate about women's issues and other issues as well. Which one is the better feminists? I find them both equal.
I asked my partner "T" last night if she considered herself a feminists. She said "Yes I am, I'm a human being first, a Maori second and a women third, and all three are telling you to do the washing up, NOW!" "Yes dear, straight away dear, sorry dear, should equality apply to doing the dishes?" LOL

Suse,

"Julie Bishop has to tow the party line of a very conservative, very Catholic Prime Minister. Feminism is a dirty word to him and his band of merry men, no matter how many daughters troop dutifully out to show us they feel women are 'equal'."

Oh I don't know...as far as his governance goes in the present administration, it appears Peta Credlin pulls his strings.

And one imagines it's the IPA who pulls hers.

I don't think it matters if Julie Bishop is the only woman in Cabinet, as long as she's towing the line and doing a good job, gender isn't a factor - as with Peta Credlin - as with Bronwyn Bishop.

Western feminism, when it's reduced to the effect it has on an individual woman's career, only ever demonstrates how successfully she was able to infiltrate a masculine system, endorse it and outshine her colleagues on her own merit.

I'll just add that when I write "...as long as she's towing the line and doing a good job, gender isn't a factor..."

What I meant is "As long as she's doing a good job of towing the line, gender isn't a factor."

Maggie Thatcher springs to mind also.

‘morning Graham,

I think the real significance of the comments by Julie Bishop is being missed.

Words are a key means of communication however, what we say and do in conversation does not instruct or convey, nor determine a response - it simply triggers changes in the emotioning and languaging of another, which, in turn, shape the next bit of the conversation.

Meaning and significance arises from the emotion assigned to the language used, but for this to be effective there has to be “ownership” of the words.

We see “ownership” of many words in society today. The most common of these seem to be sexism, feminism, islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia and so on. Once ownership is taken, a process of assigning emotional value is next. This is called “emotioning” and it is fundamental to owning and operating these adopted words.

The conversations built on these “owned” words form a network and these networks of conversation constitute a culture.

Group cognition is what these networks create. The system is not only self-organizing it is self-referring through its connection with its own world.

It is self evident that much of the progressive world has taken ownership of many phobic words in order threaten, intimidate or accuse through the emotive value they have assigned to them.

These cognitive groups in our society may differ in their structure and place in our society but have a common element in their organization. This makes them autonomous unities.

For example such groups might include the ALP, Greens, ABC, SBS, Fairfax, humanities academia, NGO’s, civil rights and refugee advocates. How can we possibly know this? We can evidence this by simply observing their reaction to their adopted “words”. Just mention any one of these words and the reaction will be the same from all groups, autonomous unities forming self referential networks.

So what has Julie Bishop done? She has just given the brand image of “feminism” to the progressives, flagged the hypocrisy and will force many to distance themselves from it. They now own it, have to defend it and live with the consequences.

Brilliant.

I just read two interesting letters in a magazine that
I think might be relevant:

1) "Hilary Clinton would make a great American
President because she is intelligent,
politically savvy and an experienced campaigner on the
world stage. However, I don't know why she has to use the
"first female President" title to somehow excite the masses.
Gender should be an irrelevant factor. The only focus
should be on her capability and suitability for the top job.
We hate it when chauvinistic behaviour reigns, so
celebrating a female for female's sake is no different.
Politician is a gender-neutral word, so let's keep gender out
of politics."

And on the other side of the coin - this one:

2) "...Peta Credlin, what a shame she didn't use her
undoubted influence over the Prime Minister to include more
than one woman - ... Julie Bishop ... in his cabinet.
Just think, if the Abbott Government adopted the Greens'
affirmative action policy, at least nine frontbenchers
would be women. Then we'd be talking power."

In response to Graham's question, being postfeminist seems more common than self identifying as feminist. Post feminists avoid the feminist label, because it is associated with a stereotype of a relentlessly earnest, joyless, upper middle class battleaxe, roaming the world, looking for opportunities to take offence.

However, most women ascribe to core feminist values of equality and freedom of choice and apply these to various debates. My objection is that they only seem to champion these values when they are convenient. By not identifying as feminist, they avoid being lumbered with values when they might come at a cost.

Poirot -"Western feminism, when it's reduced to the effect it has on an individual woman's career, only ever demonstrates how successfully she was able to infiltrate a masculine system, endorse it and outshine her colleagues on her own merit."

Agreed, however one wonders how they can infiltrate a masculine system if all the males working in that system prefer to leave it masculine, and they will have the last say?

Peta Credlin may well be pulling Tone's strings, but I doubt she will ever get credit for it.

It appears that there are far more women in top jobs in the other political parties who have managed to get there by their own merit.
Surely at least a few more of the Liberal party women are just as deserving?

Foxy, in The Greens there is encouragement for women to contest ballots. When Cate Faehrmann stepped down from the NSW LC to contests the Federal Senate, the ballot to fill the casual vacancy was open only to women. A strong field of about 9 or 10 nominated and I was very pleased that Mehreen Faruqi was selected by the membership. To show that Mehreen's win was not a case of a jobs for the girls Mehreen won the very winnable second spot on the open ticket for the up coming 2015 election behind John Kaye, Mehreen defeated a number of good male and female candidates to get second. We hope to see Jenny Leong in parliament next year also, in the new seat of Newtown. Jenny would be an excellent choice. Labor have a strong candidate as well in Penny Sharpe. it will be a close contest between the two.

http://nsw.greens.org.au/content/greens-announce-preselection-candidates-newtown

'For example such groups might include the ALP, Greens, ABC, SBS, Fairfax, humanities academia, NGO’s, civil rights and refugee advocates. How can we possibly know this? We can evidence this by simply observing their reaction to their adopted “words”. Just mention any one of these words and the reaction will be the same from all groups, autonomous unities forming self referential networks. '

hit the nail on the head Spindoc

Suse,

"Agreed, however one wonders how they can infiltrate a masculine system if all the males working in that system prefer to leave it masculine, and they will have the last say?"

That's simple....women choosing to go along with any system, perpetuate it. They're not changing anything "about the system", instead merely accommodating themselves more comfortably within it.

probably more than anywhere the state education system shows the total failure of feminism in action. Feminist dogma and behaviour have driven or made it unadvisible for men to become teachers. As a result we have poor standards, few role models for boys and the only solution given for failure being more and more money. As usual nothing will improve because feminism (selfishness) triumps what is good for society.

Early Australian women's activists also worked for the rights of men on issues such as the World War and conscription and many were involved in the labour movement.
The problems began with the Americanisation of Australian popular culture in the 1960's cand '70's and the adoption of so called fourth wave Feminism promoted by Jewish-American intellectuals, it's a school of thought which is explicitly anti male, anti western and anti White.
The fourth wave is all about revenge, retaliation and forcible redistribution of wealth and "power" along gender and racial lines.
While I may not agree with most of the views of early women's advocates such as Louisa Lawson, Adela Walsh or Vida Goldstein they are at least credible figures who were committed to Socialist equality for all, there are no Feminists of that stature around today.
Despite considerable ideological differences I have a lot of time for the present men's rights movement (the self styled MHRA's) but they made the right decision in eschewing the term "masculinist" in favour of Men's Human Rights Activist.
The Men's rights movement more closely resembles the old, pre 1960's movements with men and women working together to address the whole spectrum of family and gender issues and it's a milieu which encourages women to take part,speak up and take the lead.
Maybe instead of Feminism the concerned female citizen could describe herself as a Women's Human Rights Activist?

Foxy, about the only good thing about the yanks electing an idiot like Obama president, was it saved them from the much bigger mistake of electing a much bigger idiot in Hillary Clinton.

Bill gave her a few jobs while he was president including health, with huge fanfare. She stuffed up mightily, & ran away, thankfully.

We will know that the yanks are gone, & have a self destruct wish, if they are stupid enough to elect her anything. If they do, start your kids on their mandarin lessons immediately, they WILL need it.

Julie Bishops problem has nothing to do with any old boys club. It has to do with the dreadful redhead she has to live down. Any lady, having a serious job, when the last woman with such a job was so disastrous must be very hard. Thank god she is up to it, we're in enough trouble from Gillard, & can't afford any more.

Both Thatcher and Bishop have showed that talented and driven women can succeed in a conservative environment.

The left's afirmative action has pushed some women ahead of their competence. One only has to look at the unmitigated disaster of Juliar, and the intellectual pinhead Milne.

Feminism is what feminism does.

Just two observations about Australian feminism:

- it is the exclusive gravy train of educated middle class white women, who were already privileged anyhow and use it to retain and extend their privilege. In both they have been unrelenting and very successful; and

- it bounces between very narrow rails of ideology that do not accept or even acknowledge the many transitions that women go through in life and usually do so by choice.

Australian feminism (Western feminism) is a caste system. Feminism is a problem in itself. Educated middle class women are the superior caste with entitlements, opportunity (and the $means to take it up) and buffed positive stereotyping that allowed them to soar well above white men (whom they need as a distraction from their own greed, insatiable sense of personal entitlement and excesses), and indigenous women are on the bottom.

The focus of Australian feminists is on careerism, the material things and conspicuous consumption. They measure their success in the game of life by the labels they wear and doubtless by the number of women they look down on.

Young women don't need feminists telling them how to lead their lives and they certainly don't want to inherit their baggage. Indigenous women need the safety and education, not nagging, men-negging feminists out to feather their own nests for yet another decade.

Poirot and Squeers offered some interesting comment in a thread running parallel. I would agree with them that change is needed for a fairer, more accepting society with genuine alternatives and a better quality of life (which does not imply increased consumption), and that feminism is not the way. Feminism is an impediment to social innovation and improvement. While on the subject, the feminists' rejection of femininity threw out the baby with the bathwater and stymied advancement of women and of society too.

Returning to the OP, of course Julie Bishop does not have to wear a label, she is her own woman and does not need feminist nags telling her how to lead her life, or else.

Members of a subordinate stratum in society
tend to accept the ideology that justifies their
own low statuses, because they see the existing
arrangements as "natural" and proper, and do
not question them. As long as members of the
subordinate stratum continue to take the status quo
for granted, this will persist. But if they come to
see their situation as socially created - and unfair
besides, they are likely to demand change.

This is precisely what happened in the early 1960s, when
a women'a movement arose and challenged traditional
gender roles. The results were profound, and still
as we can see reverberate through our society otday.

In the past women were isolated from the economic mainstream
and were utterly dependent on their menfolk for the
essentials of life. In this environment the inferior status
of women was widely acceptable as an unalterable fact of life.

The idea that females could contribute significantly to
public life (or even benefit from higher education) was considered
preposterous. In fact, for most legal purposes, women were
treated much like children: they were not allowed to vote,
to make contracts, or even own property.

The roles today of course are far more flexible. However many
traditional norms still exist, that structure the experience of
most men and women and their basic options in life.

Some deviance from these norms is permitted, but the woman
who is "too masculine" and more particularly the man who is
"effeminate" in manner or interests, still invites
ridicule. And the strength of the reaction to deviance
from the norms themselves is a good indication of the
strength of the norms themselves.

Clearly defined gender roles exist, no matter how we may
try to deny them and they are reflected in the personalities
interpersonal relationships and workplace experiences of
men and women.

As for denying "Feminism." Admitedly and unfortunately
to some people the image of "hairy-legged man-haters"
still persist - for most of us those were creatures
that existed in the "olden days," that left a generation
of women embarrassed to say they were feminists.

Shadow Minister, "Both Thatcher and Bishop have showed that talented and driven women can succeed"

I appreciate the point you are making, however I would like to borrow that example to reinforce one of the criticisms I made earlier of feminists, that they would measure their success in that way - narrowly.

However is that what a good life is all about? Because many women (and men) would want a richer life than that. Julie Bishop was right to quote another woman who sagely said that women can't have everything, although she did exclude 'superwomen'.

What feminists refuse to accept is that women move though many transitions in life and no, the career, power, (illusory)status and the $$ for discretionary spending until they drop is not what most women believe will bring value, meaning and joy to their lives. Julie Bishop also said that her choices are not for everyone and once the door closed at forty the die was cast for her. Women should think whole of life.

Young women can see what comes from the array of choices before them and they know there are long term consequences as well. The Eighties feminists were very short-sighted. Many have come to blame others for they choices they made and most likely boasted of at the time.

Hi there Folks...

I've never been all that sure what is meant by the term 'feminist' other than it's some derogatory term used to denigrate females who embrace and espouse views that some perceive are radical ? I suppose we live in a time where it's fashionable to apply 'tags' to nearly everything we either don't like or not agree with ? Still it's the Aussie way to render a tag or label to just about everything, it's the nature of our distinctive lingo, not dissimilar to that of the London Cockney with his rhyming slang.

In conclusion, the word 'feminism' has a rather 'nice' sound to my old ears at least, like the sound of the adjective, 'feminine' I reckon ! Imagine if we had a harsher word to describe the female gender, instead of '...she's very feminine...' as opposed to '...she's very 'blokie'...' !

otb,

Now be honest.

Would you, if you were a member of the Liberal
Party, and had been given the opportunity,
vote for a woman as leader?

And do you think Julie Bishop would make a good Prime Minister
and why?

Foxy,

I am reminded of your stock reply when asked questions about something you have written, which is NIL, nada, and nothing but a flat bat. Here is a recent reply:

Foxy: "You want me to provide you with answers to
questions that you're interested in... That's not logical."

I find the negative stereotyping of me implied in your current post quite ridiculous and offensive. Par for the course I might add for feminists, who have earned their reputation for nasty negging of anyone who dares challenge them.

Frankly you should be asking other feminists why the gun turrets are swinging towards the very effective Julie Bishop. No secret why, huh? Where a woman who is a public figure dares not to toe the line with them, there is no understanding or empathy shown at all and no quarter is given She is immediately subjected to a barrage of personal scrutiny, rudeness and character assassination.

There are many women celebrities who have been pursued relentlessly and 'outed' (!) by feminists for not swearing allegiance to feminism and spruiking the party line.

'That' question is always asked of them and why that has to be is something that really should be discussed.

Its still to early to tell.

Tally

otb,

"I find the negative stereotyping of me implied in your current post quite ridiculous and offensive...."

That's rich coming from you - a hoot from the master of stereotyped derision.

You followed your lament up with a typical example, as in:

"Par for the course I might add for feminists..."

Lol!

I'd have to agree that Julia Gillard has damaged the prospects of female politicians, the misogyny speech was a big mistake, it was the last straw which alienated her from the mainstream once and for all.
If we do have another female prime minister I guarantee she won't be a Feminist and she won't make the same mistakes as Gillard.

A little off the topic I realise, but Julie GILLARD will be remembered for two things I believe; (i) Australia's first female Prime Minster, and (ii) Australia's worst ever Prime Minister.

I know nothing about her on a personal level, other than she's reportedly charming and very engaging whenever she interacts with those privately. She was a particularly accomplished advocate also, when arguing matters on Industrial Legislation, and perhaps she would've done better for herself if she had decided to stay in legal practice ? Still, she chose politics. And the rest as they say, is history.

JoM, do you think the 'mistakes' Julia Gillard made were because she is female?
What were they then?
If so, do you think the 'mistakes' Kevin Rudd made were because he was male?

Julie Bishop is by far the better leader in the Liberal Party, and yet she is not their leader.
Apparently there are no other women in the whole of the Liberal party who are talented enough to join her on the front bench. It must be a very shallow pool...

I often wonder if that is because of the stuffy conservative views of the old boys in that party, or whether it is because of all the stuffy conservative old boys (and girls!) in the wider community who couldn't handle such a change?

Suse,
No, I don't think Julia Gillard made mistakes because she is a woman or that they were a woman's mistakes, she is a person of modest talents who was put into a position to which she was not suited via affirmative action, factional deals and the deal with the Greens and independants.
No Julie Bishop isn't leadership material and the "old boys" aren't holding anyone back, the real leader of the cabinet is a woman, Peta Credlin.
Labor promote nonsense like the "wage gap", the Liberals promote other nonsense but their "schtick" as exemplified by Julie bishop's speech is closer to the way real men and women think of themselves and each other.

Not often do I find myself agreeing with Jay Of M, but on Gillard I tend to agree, she was rather a lackluster leader and there may have been a degree of affirmative action which catapulted her into that leaders position. In Gillards defense, one could argue who could have done better given the circumstances, certainly not Abbott. The poison chalice of leading a minority government was too much for Julia given her limited leadership talents. The resurrection of Rudd seen the Labor Party admitting it had got it wrong, but it was too little, too late. I had been in favor of handing government to Abbott in 2010, given his very dubious capabilities.
Is Julie Bishop the best the Liberals have to offer, I would have hoped not, with the exception of Turnbull, there is little in the way of leadership talent on the governments front bench, Abbott in the Howard days was considered a non goer, but we now see him in command. Who else is there, Hockey, Pyne, oh please no. If these are the alternatives to Abbott, maybe Bishop is "outstanding" given that the for-mentioned are totally lacking in talent.

<I asked my partner "T" last night if she considered herself a feminists. She said "Yes I
<am, I'm a human being first, a Maori second and a women third, and all three are telling
<you to do the washing up, NOW!" "Yes dear, straight away dear, sorry dear, should
<equality apply to doing the dishes?" LOL
Posted by Paul1405, Monday, 3 November 2014 7:12:58 AM

That is priceless. LOLO

Here is a simplistic definition - feminism entails the advocation of political, social, legal and economic rights for women (euqal to those of men). I am a feminist myself, yet I do not consider men inferior. I believe strongly in equality for both men and women....this is the heart, the crux of true feminism. people in competion who consider men less are simply ill educated assaholics claiming to be feminists and using it as a an excuse to back their simple minded perceptions. these people are not tue feminists lol. they are distasteful, angsty little gils who have embraced a concept, misunderstood purpose and taken it to the extreme. There are only THREEEE rights based elements to consider in life---sexuality, gender and race. Each of these focal elements are vital to euqality and acceptnce of identity. These are elements based on who we are from birth NOT who we are established by choice or preference. U cannot alter ur skin, you cannot alter ur sexuality and you cannot alter ur gender. straight up, these three groups had their rights stolen...rights that should have existed from the get go. history tarnished them. history has been harsh to these groups. and the funniest part exists when we consider that these groups are each socially constructed. gender is a social construct. race is a social construct. sexuality is a social construct. the bigger picture which i hope u can all appreciate is the fact that we are all human. we are humans...we bleed the same blood. have the same organs. people are people nothing more nothing less. the artificial social concepts are to promote segrgation aned inferiority/hate. my main position is that yeah feminism is great. tue feminism is beautiful. it is all about peace and euqal opportunity between men and women with no relevnce to the notion of one being superior to the other. google the def regarding it. think bout it too...all religions have their extremists and all political movements do too! people who believe men to be inferior are just ill educated extremists. simple! peace xx

btw, these posts are from....DAUGHTEROFGLOIN. tc everyone. embrace equality and abolish judgements.

If only?

Feminism claims to be about challenging 'gender' stereo types, yet on the same hand creates it's own gender stereo types. It is a one way communication line, telling us men what is wrong with us men.

As many of the feminists on this site display, they are only happy with communication from men who agree with them and what they are saying.

Should a male disagree with them, various tactics, such as name calling, or guild tripping are used in order to shame these dissident males back into line.

Feminists rather than opening the lines of communication to explore ideas and issues, shut down such debate unless it complies with their own agenda.

Wolly B,

I can just hear the crescendo from the "many of the feminists on this site"....but where are the "many".

As far as the general section of this forum is concerned, there are three females who "regularly" contribute - that's Suseonine, Foxy and Poirot.

I'm more likely to critique feminism on various grounds, connecting it to the system in which it operates.

I can assure you that many men who frequent OLO are particularly strident in their views and invite an equally strident response - it's got little to do with "feminism" per se.

So occasionally they're out-debated by "a woman"...or do you reckon that's somewhat beyond the pale.....on a forum that hosts around ninety percent male participation.(Graham would have a better idea, and can correct me if I'm wrong)

Or should we females not get above ourselves and respond in kind to provocative rhetoric from our opposite gender?

Okay Wolly B, whatever. u have obviously had some extremists (not feminists, but extremists) in your ear. feminism is about equal rights for women/ coinciding with the equal rights of men. read a text book and get back to me. get ur google on buddy. I do not wish to argue with you, its not my intention here, but u obviously lack understanding. this is just a case of ill knowledge and misunderstanding n possibly possibly poor encounters with people who took the stand out of its context and manipulated it into a hate male session. all forms of extremism are unhealthy and cradle hostility in some way or another. im sure youre smart enough to comprehend my views. awesome u have ur own opinion. my opinion though iws that ur opinion is warped. i guess u can only go by ur personal experiences. pls do urself a fav before u slam an equality based movement and read a book or two. feminism doesnt aim to put down men. it is simply about empowering women to grasp the same rights as men.

and also....what is wrong with that? especially considering women didnt have equal rights to begin with. what is so wrong about empowering women to ensure they have the same rights. if they had equal rights from the get go, feminism would be something else. it wouldnt even exist really.feminism is a consequence of years and years of inequality bestowed upon women. its a ramification. a rightful rightful stand that merely exists as a consequence through lack of euqality. i guess we should also slam race based equality movements too? how about we bring back total opression and enslavement? y not? there is NOTHING WRONG with the promotion of equality for disadvantaged groups who suffered inequality in the past. it is empowering and brilliant.

sonogloin,

"Okay Wolly B, whatever. u have obviously had some extremists (not feminists, but extremists) in your ear....u obviously lack understanding. this is just a case of ill knowledge and misunderstanding n possibly possibly poor encounters with people who took the stand out of its context and manipulated it into a hate male session. all forms of extremism are unhealthy and cradle hostility in some way or another..."

Which was in reply to Wolly B posting this:

"As many of the feminists on this site display, they are only happy with communication from men who agree with them and what they are saying.

Should a male disagree with them, various tactics, such as name calling, or guild tripping are used in order to shame these dissident males back into line."

Sonofgloin appears to be a "faux feminist" or why else would he label women on OLO as "extemists" for venting their views?

Woman who disagrees with male opinion on OLO = "extremist" (according to sonofgloin)...it appears.

Given the very few women who frequent this site, it amazes me that this subject comes up as often as it does.

I think that often it is just a chance for all the resident good ol' boys to have a whinge about all the pesky women in their lives who dare to suggest they would like to be treated as a human beings...

Anyway, everyone have a good Melbourne Cup day, and I hope a mare wins the race :)

Daughterofgloin,see this is what I mean about Feminists poisoning the well of "social justice", everything you've posted is based on false premises and flies in the face of reason and scientific observations, you've posted the usual bogus rhetoric but made a caveat "I don't hate men"
Race and gender are biological realities and there's no such thing as variations of sexuality, sexual behaviour is when a man and woman try to reproduce, anything else is just a recreational activity.
Nature doesn't do equality, the genders are so different that they can't be compared to one another as are the(now proven)two broad Racial categories,African and Eurasian.
Julie Bishop is in many ways superior to many if not most men in the cabinet but she's clearly not the intellectual equal of Peta Credlin or the people at the IPA. Bill Shorten is an inferior politician to Malcolm Turnbull, Daniel Andrews and Dennis Napthine are about evenly matched in terms of intellect and ability but they're outclassed by people such as Jane Garrett or Geoff Shaw.

What a boring world we'd live in if everyone was "equal".

Julie Bishop, would get my vote over Abboott any time. She is much more pleasing on the eye. (Before you get your knickers in a knot, I am teasing.)

Having listened to her speak, she is a much more effective speaker, than our stilted speaking Prime Minister and maybe a much better choice for Prime minister than any other politician I can think of.

Whilst Malcolm Turnbull is very articulate, he is a former merchant banker, which makes him less trustworthy than .........!

As too the many feminists on this site, to be honest I haven't conducted any real research into their actual numbers, I just made an assumption.

As far as I know there are a multitude of different levels of feminism, I think it was mentioned in "Who Stole Feminism". Daphne Patai may also have mentioned them. Then there is the book, 'Lipstick feminism' and a few others.

The vast majority written by female authors.

Come off it Wolly B, there can be no worse way to chose a Prime minister than by their ability to talk.

Obama is about as good an orator as he is bad president.

Both Hitler & Churchill were great orators, & look at how many they killed between them.

Whitlam was a reasonable orator, as was the idiot Rudd, which should be enough to convince anyone, but if you need any more, I won a number of prizes for public speaking.

Ok Hasbeen, I'lll vote for you too.

Poirot>>Sonofgloin appears to be a "faux feminist" or why else would he label women on OLO as "extemists" for venting their views?<<

Not I Poirot..........these few post came from my darling daughter.

sonofgloin,

"Not I Poirot..........these few post came from my darling daughter."

"....especially considering women didnt have equal rights to begin with. what is so wrong about empowering women to ensure they have the same rights...."

Perhaps you should tell daughterofgloin that she has all the empowerment and equal rights to sign herself onto this forum and post under her own username - progress!

(saves confusion)

Dear Poirot,

Interesting times ahead in the political
arena of this country. Did you happen to
watch "Media Watch," and "Q and A," last night?

I also find it equally interesting that otb instead
of answering my questions posed to him earlier
about Julie Bishop as leader of the Coalition
as "offensive." That came as a surprise and then
he attacks me for what I would have thought was
a rather pertinent question considering that the polls
indicate that Ms Bishop is gaining in popularity
over Mr Abbott:

http://www.news.com.au/national/julie-bishop-level-with-tony-abbott-as-preferred-coalition-leader/story-fncynjr2-1227111728710

Foxy,
Yeah, but the people who post on this site are a cut above the rest so we can see things from multiple perspectives, the bulk of electors are stupid and they vote for stupid reasons, Abbott got a poll boost over the MH17 disaster and Howard over Tampa.
Julie Bishop seems to be a decent, capable, intelligent woman who's good at her job...but that's all, she has no charisma, she's elegant and articulate but not engaging.
When you live in a society with universal suffrage and compulsory voting you get anomalies like Jacquie Lambie and Ricky Muir on the blockhead end of the spectrum and Nick Xenophon and Andrew Wilkie at the opposite end. It's a choice between a plate of yabbies and a beer or a piece of perch and a spumante, what we really need is a nice sashimi platter with a glass of champagne...every day.
You don't get to eat well by letting idiots vote.

Good old Clementine Ford has made a list of the things patriarchy has done for women and why Julie Bishop should be grateful, good, saves me doing it:
http://www.theage.com.au/comment/whats-so-wrong-with-being-a-feminist-20141103-11g2dw.html

Dear Jay,

But in a representative democracy such as ours
even "idiots" are entitled to representation.

Dear Jay,

Thanks for the link.

Excellent article.

Perhaps you'd better re-read it.

Poirot>> Perhaps you should tell daughterofgloin that she has all the empowerment and equal rights to sign herself onto this forum and post under her own username - progress!(saves confusion)<<

I believe it was a one off thing P.

Foxy,
Sure but idiots should be ruled by their betters,not their peers, trade unions were supposed to be the vehicle for political the expressions of the lumpenproles, without that guidance and basic political education they're no longer fit to vote at all.
You're smart, don't you find people of even "average" intelligence insufferable?

Re Clementine Ford, you'll notice that societies where formal equality is enforced with a gun in your back are the most enduring patriarchal systems? Ford's article could be re-titled "Things our fathers gave us".

Dear Jay,

I would like to take you seriously,
But to do so would insult your intelligence.

JoM "You're smart, don't you find people of even "average" intelligence insufferable? "
Lol.
.
I imagine Foxy does find people like you insufferable.
The feminist movement was thought up originally to deal with men like you...

During a woman's medical examination, the doctor says, "Your heart, lungs, pulse and blood pressure are all fine. Now let me see the part that gets you women into all kinds of trouble."

The woman starts taking off her clothes but is interrupted by the doctor.

"No! No! .... Just stick out your tongue!"

Suse,
Really? I thought Feminism was all about equality, not "dealing with" or eradicating specific groups in society because of the way they think or act? Of course if you say Feminism is a punitive movement based on revenge and retaliation against men then who am I to argue?
Feminism can't exist without patriarchy just as socialism can't work without capitalism to shelter it, equality has to be enforced by law because it's not a natural state of affairs, to enforce laws you need a class of subservient men willing to inflict violence upon others "in the name of the law", you can't have a class of subservient men without patriarchy.

There are those on here who continually bag The Greens for their policies. On the policy concerning women, I believe The Greens have got it right. The policy was formulated with women being the major source of input. it is basically a policy by women for women. The emphases has to be on the practical needs of women in a modern society.
Foxy, Suse and Poirot I would appreciate your comments on our women's policy.

http://greens.org.au/policies/women

Policy? Who drafts that stuff?

Leaving that to one side, precisely what is the worth of it where there is no prospect of the Greens ever forming government, where the Greens refuse to be reasonable in negotiations with others, or live up to their agreements? Even where an agreement is expressed in writing (Gillard and Bob Brown), the Greens had no compunction later in taking their bat and going home, or belting their partner with the said bat.

Julia Gillard, "The Greens Party is fundamentally a party that would prefer to complain about things than get solutions" and "I did always think they (Greens) would revert to type and they have done so"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ouJ5NqpOU78

It was the Greens, Milne and other senior women Greens, who carried on from Bob Brown to destabilise Australia's first woman PM and created the conditions for challenges to her leadership.

Lol!...watching Gough's memorial service.

Howard booed.

Abbott booed even more fulsomely.

Gillard walks in and the entire room stands up and erupts in applause - crowd outside cheering.

Abbott walks in and ...crickets....

Thanks for that, I'd never watch such rubbish.

Never the less, such behaviour says it all about Labor people. Cheer the 2 most useless D heads ever to hold the post, & boo the best. What huge intellects.

It just shows what bogans labor members are.

'Boguns'? Is that the best a Liberal supporter can come up with?
lol!

JoM, whether or not the original feminists who fought for women's rights were tying to punish men or not is not the question here.

The fact remains that there have been a lot of annoyed men since women moved closer to having equal rights to them, because they could no longer control all aspects of 'their' women's lives.

I am comfortable with that fact.

Hasbeen, SM,

"....Cheer the 2 most useless D heads ever to hold the post, & boo the best. What huge intellects."

"It just shows what bogans labor members are."

Lol!....you guys have a certain style.

Graceless as ever....gutter eloquence at its best

Carry on....

SOL,

Really, I could come up with a lot more, but booing someone at a funeral simply because they are of a different political stripe is beneath contempt, and I doubt that at a liberal funeral the same vile behaviour would be extended to the two most incompetent PMs since Gough i.e. Gillard and Rudd.

I see you're as adept as Chris Pyne at selectively displaying faux outrage.

Sometime leaders are so odious that it's difficult for the populace to maintain decorum.

Suse,
Nope, men aren't annoyed at women having "equal rights" because women have traditionally had more privileges than men and been protected from the kinds of things men have had to endure, we're all better off now that women are expected to shoulder some of the burden of running a civilisation.

SM,

"..... but booing someone at a funeral simply because they are of a different political stripe is beneath contempt..."

"So of course there would be booing, and cheering, and foot stamping, and joy, and outrage. This was Gough Whitlam’s memorial, a unique and resonant gathering of the political tribes, still writhing in a combat that can never be satisfactorily resolved.

This was pure politics. Not the crimped, meaningless formulations of contemporary protagonists who are so meek and afraid of mistakes and of failure that they can only communicate in the language of sound bites, in words without meaning.

The outburst of emotion outside the Sydney town hall on Wednesday morning was a powerful affirmation, proof positive that Australian politics has a beating heart....."

"....The fighters were there to farewell one of their greats. As they roiled, and contested, and asserted their right to be partisan and nostalgic and furious in perpetuity at the moment of the official parting, the little vigil on social media tut-tutted primly.

How could people show emotion in such a setting? How could they boo and hiss? How could they feel and go so far as to emit their intemperate feelings?

How could they not be beaten down and lobotomised and straight-laced and platitudinous and terribly, terribly proper? Are we now so obsessed with process and petty intrigues that we’ve forgotten politics actually rises to greatness when it connects, when it empathises, when it imagines there are ideas worth having, worth asserting, worth getting a blood nose for?

Resolving the conflict, and standing mute at the point of manufactured resolution, misses the point. Whitlam – for all his limitations and imperfections – believed enough to change a country. Conviction animates politics, and politics soars when it connects with people who actually, resolutely, implacably, believe."

http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2014/nov/05/whitlam-believers-booed-and-cheered-and-politics-beating-heart-was-revealed?CMP=share_btn_tw

Poirot,

Sometimes people are so odious that they cannot maintain decorum at a funeral.

Foxy, paul1405 and Poirot,

"For example such groups might include the ALP, Greens, ABC, SBS, Fairfax, humanities academia, NGO’s, civil rights and refugee advocates. How can we possibly know this? We can evidence this by simply observing their reaction to their adopted “words”. Just mention any one of these words and the reaction will be the same from all groups, autonomous unities forming self referential networks."

Just catching up on your string "frightbat" comments. Many thanks, I rest my case

Dear Shadow Minister,

In your "odious" group you would also have to include
those who produce menus at Liberal fund-raisers depicting
our then Prime Minister in a very disgusting way.
You would also have to include the groups that turned
up with various derogatory signs (shown on TV cameras)
dipicting our then Prime Minister as "witch" "bitch"
and so on. And Mr Abbott had no qualms about posing in
front of these signs for the cameras.

Good for the goose ... But then perhaps the only thing
you find as "odious" is behaviour that disagrees with
your political views which you can then dismiss in a
flood of simplistic rhetoric, posturing, and crass
political point-scoring.

Nothing new there.

spindoc,

What are you talking about.

Which of my comments are you referring to on this
discussion. Do tell.

Foxy,

Ever the hypocrite.

For every person that produces a distasteful menu (that was not actually presented at the meal) or produces a sign calling Juliar a witch, there are 1000s that wear FCUK Abbott shirts and wave signs saying the same.

As far as bad taste and manners, the left whingers leave everyone else in the shade, and occupy the moral swamp.

God what desperation.

To claim Whitlam as one of your greats, you must be very short of anyone of any value.

GWAR decapitate effigy of Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott during Soundwave festival
http://www.news.com.au/national/gwar-decapitate-effigy-of-australian-prime-minister-tony-abbott-during-soundwave-festival/story-fncynjr2-1226836122473

Students burn Tony Abbott effigy, chase Joe Hockey in heated protest outside Parliament
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/students-burn-tony-abbott-effigy-chase-joe-hockey-in-heated-protest-outside-parliament/story-fni0fit3-1226749705640

Men Are Harassed More Than Women Online
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/09/04/men-are-harassed-more-than-women-online.html

In 5/7 Categories, Men Harassed Online More Than Women:
http://www.pewinternet.org/2014/10/22/part-1-experiencing-online-harassment/

Dear Shadow Minister,

Kindly refrain from name calling.
That doesn't suit your faux righteous indignation.

I am pleased that you are able to see that
people come of all political persuasions do
inappropriate things. That was the point being made
Sir. (note the absence of the word hypocrite in
my post).

Dear Hasbeen,

Who then is your political hero?

Do tell.

Both the cheering of certain politicians and the heckling of others is another nail in the coffin of the rapidly diminishing (and so often trashed by political progressives) Australian culture that always valued and respected civility.

Frankly, while I had a lot of respect for Gough Whitlam as someone who even though flawed in his some of his keynote policies nonetheless had the good of Australia at heart, it was his own vanity bordering on arrogance and his obstinate refusal to move on from the past that encouraged the uncooth incivilility witnessed today. It has become so common as to be impossible for police to control, and is the potential precursor to more problematic anti-social behaviour, 'justified' by perceived 'unfairness'.

Commentators and their editorial staff who should know better, may very soon rue the disconnect they encourage and foster in misled, resentful youth who come to believe that what they say doesn't matter and that there is no way they can influence policy outside of taking the law into their own hands.

Remember the Hilton Hotel bombing by that dangerous fool Evan Pederick, a young highly intelligent fellow who despite all of the benefits of his permanent Public Service emnployment and the free expensive education that led to it (thanks Gough!) came to believe that HIS way was the right way and the death of innocent men ('lesser' men?) was merely collateral damage.

The ball is set firmly in the court of federal parliamentarians to model better judgement, morals, ethics and fairness. For starters, the Leftist 'Progressives' should accept that they lost the last election (it wasn't 'stolen' form them) and no, the electorate should never, ever, be trashed as 'punters' who get it wrong in the elections that are the fundamental basis of democracy.

It is simply awful that there are some here who would seek to justify boorish partisan behaviour at a State funeral.

otb

'It is simply awful that there are some here who would seek to justify boorish partisan behaviour at a State funeral. '

the fact that Abbott and Howard showed up the totally failed policies of Whitlam/Rudd/Gillard was what upset the luvvies so much. I would be disgusted to get praise from followers of such failures.

'morning Foxy,

You ask which of my comments are you talking about?

All of them sweetie , all of them!

Foxy,

Take note of spindoc's spiel...

"All of them sweetie , all of them!"

"Sweetie" - no less!

I'm sure he often refers to his male peers around here in the same manner - or maybe not.

It often features on OLO as a term of endearment reserved for females with whom some "blokes" find themselves in disagreement. It's a subtle sexist putdown not so well disguised as a subtle sexist putdown.

Still, he could have referred to you as "toots".

Dear Spindoc,

I've told you this in the past - if you find
my statements so abhorrent you are not under any
obligation to either read or respond to them,
you can simply scroll past. The fact that you
do read and respond to them shows that you're
not being quite honest here. And I also
take your calling me "sweetie," as an indication
that underneath it all and despite of what you
say - your feelings are not totally negative.
Go ahead - admit it. I won't tell anyone.

Dear Poirot,

I think Spindoc secretly has a crush on me.
I've suspected that for a while now.
And he doesn't know how to show it. ;-)

Foxy,

Actually men around here usually only deploy "sweetie" as a patronising term in order to frame their female target as an air-headed girlie who deserves to be talked down to.

I don't think they possess an equivalent term for men on OLO who require "putting in their place"...but "sweetie" sure comes in handy for the likes of Loudmouth and spindoc when they run out of reasoned debate.

Poirot, Foxy I agree with you about the use of terms like that in this context.

The closest I can think of coming in the other direction is references to "the old boys club" when men speak on gender issues, a different sexist (and ageist) putdown used for what appear to be similar reasons.

We would be better without most of that stuff (or only an amount where it retains some comic factor) but I don't see that happening anytime soon.

R0bert

Foxy,

The point I was trying to make is not that there are bogans in each party, but in the ALP it would seem that bogans rule. From the coalition side, you can only find a few over the years, but bogans from the ALP are everyday occurrences.

How many times did people try to assault Juliar? Yet even Poirot thinks that booing at a funeral is OK. Clearly labor values are an oxymoron.

Dear Poirot and RObert,

Perhaps you're both right.

However, I have to be honest and say that I
don't find it offensive or look upon it as
a putdown when a man uses "endearing" terms
such as "darling, "sweetie," et cetera to
a woman. Neither do I object when I get
wolf-whistles when walking past construction sites.
I simply mouth the words - "Thank You," and walk on.
Sometimes I blow them a kiss and smile.

Of course I could be wrong and it might be intended
as you say - as a putdown. But then that's something
over which I have no control. I can only control
how I react to it. And I have to be true to myself.
Naive as it may seem.

'Sweetie'?, thank God for that! At last a solid FEMINIST ISSUE that posters can get their teeth into!

What is even more fortunate is that there is already a radfem solution from that land of rad fembots, Sweden, where scores of radfems have networked for years and spent a fortune of Swedish Krona on 'conference' knees-ups (there are long-suffering taxpayers everywhere) to arrive at a term that neuters gender when encountering women and the multiplicity of sexes approved of and authorised by feminists.

In Sweden the feminists have declared that 'hen' must be used henceforth. Of course Australia being the world's example par excellence of multiculturalism and reckless diversity solved this years ago. In Australia there is the rather apt term 'chooks', or more correctly 'old chooks', as the noun and even term of endearment, for the feminists left over from the previous Millenium.

Premier Joh Bjelke Peterson was ahead of the pack assuming that journalism studies would commonly accompany gender studies (as is now the case). Because Joh always referred to his meetings with journalists as 'feeding the chooks'. -History in the making. Nek minute, it is henstory in the making. Could that huge and forever growing Manual of Oz Political Correctness ever be wrong?

SM,

"....From the coalition side, you can only find a few over the years, but bogans from the ALP are everyday occurrences..."

Come off it...the LNP goes out of its way to appeal to the bogan element in society - which is why they pinched Hanson's agenda while simultaneously pushing her off the swing.

It's nauseating listening to people like Pyne (who's a great barometer for deploying these kinds of affectations) who decided it was great form "on the occasion of his condolence motion to Whitlam" to tell the nation his mum cried with delight when she heard he'd got the boot.

" My mother started crying. I have to let you in on a secret, she was crying out of joy."

That's almost as classy as him calling Shorten the "C" word over the dispatch box.

Save your faux sensibilities for your candlelight suppers...judging by the govt's performance so far - they're as crass as they come.

Foxy,

I have nothing against the word "sweetie" when it's used genuinely. Often when addressing young children, I use the word myself. It's then a genuine term of endearment.

When it's used by men on OLO to address a woman with whom they are debating, it's meant as a putdown.

Of course, you are at liberty to take it on board as some sort of endearing rejoinder (but I can assure that is not how it's meant)

otb,

Lol!...I read your first sentence (scintillating stuff!)

Excuse me if I don't bother with the rest - your tangents are tiresome.

Dear Poirot,

I can't argue with your logic.

But I have to stay true to myself and what
I feel is right.

Just wondering, when Sweden's parliament is solely (and deservedly of course) exclusively hen, will it be called the Hen House?

Also, was that Rhode Island Red that was formerly in the chair as Oz PM actually 'a hen' of her time and not not ahead 'ahead' her time (as She says)?

Poirot,

I know I have you by the short and curlies when you have to make stuff up.

Pyne saying his mum was delighted when Whitlam got the boot for incompetence is not boganesque, many people were delighted as his trouncing at the subsequent elections showed. Neither did Pyne use the C word. I remember listening to the so called recordings which were completely unintelligible and you could insert any word in the dictionary and it would be just as likely.

The reality is that the Labor bogans feel that their belief in their cause excuses whatever vile behaviour they display.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Vile behaviour should never be excused no matter
which side of politics it comes from. Most voters
know this and do vote accordingly. as history
has shown. Voters do get it right in the end.
However, the problem currently seems to be the
contraditions between what this government claims to
stand for and what it does.

Hence the current public dissatisfaction being shown.

SM,

My reference to the LNP and boganism was their whizz-bang agenda to tap into the surface mentality of the community of their being any number of "threats" - over-hyped hysterical propaganda aimed squarely at the bogan element in Oz society...reminiscent, and up a gear, on Howard's brilliant "battlers".

I didn't allude to any "boganism" exuding from the affectations of Pyne. I was highlighting his crassness in what was a "condolence motion".

You appear to be pontificating lyrical over people booing a much-disliked PM at a public memorial service - and yet appear to think it's dandy to titteringly insult the subject's memory and legacy during a condolence motion, the key element of which is "usually" respect.

And you are completely wrong regarding Pyne's use of the "C" word to Shorten. He said he called him a "grub" (how's that for style!)...but the actual word could be clearly heard - and it didn't begin with "G" or end with "B" (or perhaps you need a hearing aid?)

So much for encouraging "gentlemanly" behaviour in Parliament - Pyne is a pretentious squealing hypocrite.

The self styled 'White Supremacists' in our mist must have a real problem in Australia with women. As these white nationalists are invariably men and against all minorities, except their minuscule own minority, females are a real problem. After all females are the majority of Australians being over 50% of the population. As believers in the master race, these blokes are yet to come up with an alternate to at least tolerating some (pure of blood) women of child bearing quality, who else would propagate the Aryan race for them.

Jay, Beach any ideas?

Foxy,

Now you are just making it up. "Dissatisfaction" is no excuse for vile behaviour at a funeral, and this vile labor behaviour has been a constant since Abbott was made opposition leader and began bringing down Rudd, and has ramped up after Labor was thrashed at the elections.

Labor is dissatisfied with anyone that has a contrary opinion, especially if they are right.

'morning Poirot and Foxy,

The term "sweetie" means exactly what I meant it to mean, nothing more notheng less.

Also noted is the fact that you gave it a bigger run than the term feminism. I don't suppose you see anything significant in that by any chance?

You are both hunting like a pair of pirranahs for anyone who dares tip their toes into the waters you have already "burlied up" with your favourite "trigger" words.

Most ammusing of all is that you don"t even see what you do!

Dear spindoc,

You were the one who introduced the term "Sweetie,"
to this discussion. I wanted to explain my position
on the use of this and other "endearments." Nothing
more, nothing less. However if you see myself and
Poirot as a pair of "piranahs," your use of the
term "Sweetie," does become suspect and you apparently
also don't see what you're doing.

Oh dear.

Dear Shadow Minister,

There were people of all political persuasions
outside the Sydney Town Hall. You attributing
the booing to only "Laborites," is simply not
logical.

Neither are your accusations targeting only Labor.
Your Party's record - especially in Parliament
and the behaviour of the current Speaker and
Mr Christopher Pyne - leave a great deal to be
desired - and their bias should be obvious even
to you. Don't point fingers at others. Make sure
that you clean up your own act first.

Foxy>> I think Spindoc secretly has a crush on me.
I've suspected that for a while now.
And he doesn't know how to show it. ;-)<<

...yes he does Foxy, but you don't have pig tails and spindoc does not posess an inkwell.....lololol

Foxy>> Dear Shadow Minister,

There were people of all political persuasions
outside the Sydney Town Hall. You attributing
the booing to only "Laborites," is simply not
logical.<<

SM, the lady has a point.........Turnbull was there.....

Dear SOG,

I admit that I've outgrown my braids but
I still possess a luxurious mane of hair.
Besides, Spindoc
doesn't need an inkwell - he's got something
stronger - its called a computer. And he knows how
to use it. (Sigh).

Problems of the First World Feminists

Problem No 1., 'Mens' saying 'Sweetie'

Frivolous maybe, but these are the Feminisys and feminism is what feminism does.

To repeat, just two observations about Australian feminism:

- it is the exclusive gravy train of educated middle class white women, who were already privileged anyhow and use it to retain and extend their privilege. In both they have been unrelenting and very successful; and

- it bounces between very narrow rails of ideology that do not accept or even acknowledge the many transitions that women go through in life and usually do so by choice.

Australian feminism (Western feminism) is a caste system. Feminism is a problem in itself. Educated middle class women are the superior caste with entitlements, opportunity (and the $means to take it up) and buffed positive stereotyping that allowed them to soar well above white men (whom they need as a distraction from their own greed, insatiable sense of personal entitlement and excesses), and indigenous women are on the bottom.

One wonders if indigenous women would agree that being called 'Sweetie' on a public internet forum would be their first concern for improvement today. Then again, how many women from those remote indigenous communities feature in the leftist EMILY's List to be given that leg-up as one of the already privileged educated middle class white Grrls?

Meanwhile, somewhere else in the world,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpH83Vi7b9E

Yikes, I misspelled 'Feminist' as 'Feminsys' and feminists are not known for their tolerance or humour.

otb,

Feminists don't have a sense of humour?

On the contrary. I bet they'd find you very
entertaining.

It's the "Regressives," who have trouble
with humour. They tend to laugh last -
because they usually don't get the joke.

"Yikes, I misspelled 'Feminist' as 'Feminsys' and feminists are not known for their tolerance or humour."

Lol!

"One wonders if indigenous women would agree that being called 'Sweetie' on a public internet forum would be their first concern for improvement today...."

How would you men feel if we women punctuated our posts to you with "sonny boy" or honey-bun"?

You'd know we were being disingenuous and "having a bit of a go".

Men don't refer to other men around here with similar terms of endearment - it's reserved to patronise the women.

Men on the Left should never have been so slack intellectually and gutless to have gone along for the ride with those bullying educated middle class feminists.

Feminism is the caste system that favours and embeds educated middle class white women as the privileged and entitled goddesses of capitalism (they even refer to themselves as goddesses, but capitalised of course), and constantly rolls logs in front of other options for social improvement.

They are vulgar, mercenary materialists whose idea of 'equality' is getting leg-ups for themselves for cosy sinecures on the boards of private companies after careers that were too long, where they were log-jams blocking jobs in the public bureaucracies and academia. Honestly, all of those years from Whitlam's day and still many of the feminist dinosaurs from the previous Millenium are themselves physically blocking the careers of young people with fresh ideas and education they paid for themselves.

For decades, the taxpayer-funded national broadcaster has featured the same old, same old, feminist hens clucking at young women to do what they say and 'never you mind'. The token 'left' men who are sometimes allowed to appear to support them as a cheer squad(?) lack gonads and never think for themselves, even asking the Sisters for permission to speak.

Come on Beach you are all for women, do you still listen to that Miss Marple nutter of yours, Amy McGrath. Isn't Amy a feminists, by your definition? Well no matter, she still is as crazy as they come.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OK54fBPTuZo

'morning Poirot,

You said, "How would you men feel if we women punctuated our posts to you with "sonny boy" or honey-bun"?

No problem because sonny boy and honey bun are not terms owned by progressive females, or should I say aggressive females. So they have no emotive attachments and are of zero value as terms of abuse.

Your words, such as feminism, are reserved as "special" for women who don't feel feminine. You latch onto and defend the word because it means something to you but means nothing to those who don't see themselves as unfeminine or have no need for parallel gender reassignment.

For those women who are insecure, uncomfortable with who they are, unable to express their natural authority and blame the rest of society for their perceived lack of status, they can always close ranks behind the Emily's List feminists' and hiss over the sand bags.

Yours as always, snuggle pie.

PS don't forget, it's two sugars in my Ovaltine, warm the cup first and make sure you stand it on the coaster at the bedside table. Just saving you the trouble of cleaning off those ring marks before you go to work !

spindoc,

"Your words, such as feminism, are reserved as "special" for women who don't feel feminine. You latch onto and defend the word because it means something to you but means nothing to those who don't see themselves as unfeminine or have no need for parallel gender reassignment.

For those women who are insecure, uncomfortable with who they are, unable to express their natural authority and blame the rest of society for their perceived lack of status, they can always close ranks behind the Emily's List feminists' and hiss over the sand bags."

What "are" you blathering about?

I don't need to go prancing about on public forums reinforcing my "femininity". And I certainly don't need men calling me "sweetie" as a parting gesture of contempt.

"....or should I say aggressive females...."

Oh, they would be the ones who call men out for indulging in faux terms of endearment to patronise the ladies?

Or, as author, Rebecca West, put it:

"I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."

(I know how she feels....)

Foxy,

The vast majority of those outside Whitlam's funeral were Labor or Greens, and the booing did not come from coalition supporters.

Labor and the greens are simply haters.

Shadow, I speak to a lot of non-committed votes, and your man Abbott is not real popular out there, a lot of dissatisfied people. The half a micron of gloss has worn off well and truly since the last election. If a major crises was to hit the government Abbott would be on his way faster than you can say Malcolm Turnbull.
At the memorial I was surprised at the number of Liberals in attendance. I actually ran into an old bloke I know from the local Liberal Party branch. Said he was there to pay respects, as I would if it had been Malcolm Fraser, I would not have said that in 1975. Some people mellow over the years.

SM,

".... "Dissatisfaction" is no excuse for vile behaviour at a funeral, and this vile labor behaviour has been a constant since Abbott was made opposition leader..."

Lol!...."vile" being a fave of the pretentious indignation crowd....along with "incensed" and "appalled".

Here's a goody:

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/tv-and-radio/who-is-barbara-the-talkback-caller-20141106-11i82a.html

"Alan Jones must have thought he met his kindred spirit.

Finally, the long-haired, latte-sipping, quinoa-eating, over-educated, under-appreciating yahoos of Sydney had met their match.

Their biggest crime? Booing former Liberal prime ministers at Gough Whitlam's funeral.

Incensed conservative warrior and talkback caller Barbara decided she had had enough when she called Alan Jones' 2GB radio show on Thursday.

Armed with a cat and an Ocker-via-Oxford accent, Barbara took aim.

"Did you see those idiots booing our prime minister and John Howard and his wife as they went into the hall," she said.

"I did," Jones said. "Cheered Julia Gillard."

"Yeah well that'd be right wouldn't it," said Barbara.

"Absolute disgrace, you see 'em there with their scarves and their soy lattes and their problems that they have with their university funding. Go out and get a job!"

Music to Jones' ears, t'was.

But then Barbara went too far. Soy lattes are one thing, organic cookies are quite another.

"All our tax dollars are being munched up by them, they all look well fed too, with their organic cookies and their products they get from the bloody organic home-grown such and such, you know."

Jones knew. Jones knew he was being had. "Brilliant," he said."

Do yer reckon, SM, you can unpurse your lips long enough to have a smile at that one?

Dear Shadow Minister,

Poirot has got you with the facts.

You can try to claim whatever you like
however, from all the news reports and the
interviews of people - as seen on television - the
crowd outside the Sydney Town Hall was a wide mixture.
And, if you stop to think logically -
on the law of averages - those huge numbers that
were there could not all have been just Labor and
Greens. You're not presenting well reasoned arguments.

‘morning Poirot and Foxy (AKA the Piranha Sisters),

Back on topic, the question asked by GY was “Has the term feminism run its course”? It’s crystal clear from your responses that your answer is, “no we haven’t finished with it yet”.

That’s OK, you want it you can have it. Just remember that a growing portion of the public are well and truly over “PC totalitarianism” and all the words that go with it.

PC rhetoric has nowhere to go, when challenged you just offer even more of it and when that fails we get schizophrenia.

Having “felt” my critique on feminism, your response is it to call it “blathering”. But you understood enough of it to offer a rebuttal to what you thought it said?

<< I don't need to go prancing about on public forums reinforcing my "femininity". >>

Oh really? So OLO is not a “public forum” then?

In one of multiple responses to using the term “Sweetie” you say,

<< they would be the ones who call men out for indulging in faux terms of endearment to patronize the ladies? >>.

Is this really your understanding of why I used that term? Or was it used to demonstrate the sort of bait that causes the flaring schizophrenia of the Piranha Sisters?

Your Rebecca West quote is a belter. One of the greatest bloopers in modern PC rhetoric.

<< I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a feminist whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat." >>

You say you know how she feels! Of course you do, isn’t that what we have been trying to tell you?

It’s a classic quote because it demonstrates the defensive hypocrisy displayed by PC totalitarians. Such comments have been translated many times with so many different PC words;

“I quite like feminists really”, “my best friend is a feminist”, “my son actually married a feminist”.

(Please substitute the word feminist for any other PC words of your choice, they all work the same).

Cont’d.

Cont’d.

To provide a little more context I’ll address some of the social attributes inherent in the adoption of emotive words by progressives.

Just to be clear, the words we are talking about are such sexism, feminism, islamophobia, homophobia, xenophobia. This also extends to equality, compassion, human rights, discrimination and dare I say it, CAGW. I’ll refer to these collectively as ETW’s (Emotive Trigger Words).

I’ve already made the case for Conversation, Emotioning, Cultures and Cognition earlier, you can refer to these at;
Posted by spindoc, Monday, 3 November 2014 8:50:30 AM

The progressives’ “need” for the use ETW’s and rhetoric, tends to isolate them from wider communities, they treat “outsiders” with contempt and are likewise treated with suspicion. As a direct result they tend to polarize into like minded groups which are carefully crafted to support each self referential network. This is a domain where they can happily coexist, share “approved” opinion, establish defenses and from where they can launch attacks upon those who threaten their ETW’s.

The sisterhood, Emily’s List (The Piranha Sisters) and many other such networks all share the emotive association with the word “feminism” along with other ETW’s like “equality”.

Julie Bishop is not denigrated because of what she does or says, but because she threatens the adoption and “value” of their ETW’s. She does not need them. It’s a heinous crime to deny emotive attachment “their” ETW’s and must be attacked.

The group is elitist, claiming a special, exalted status for itself, has a special mission to save women, has a polarized us-versus-them mentality, causing conflict with the wider society. Group members, alone, are trustworthy, sharing a false sense of righteousness by pointing to the shortcomings of those outside the group, are obsessive, adopt victimhood, lose spontaneity and sense of humor and embrace groupthink.

Many such groups have already progressed to activism or “social bullying” which inflicts pain and social division on the wider community.

The Piranha Sisters now own the “Encyclopedia of Thought Terminating Clichés and Platitudes” from which all their posts are composed.

Feminism? I think we’re truly over it

spindoc,

Yeah, thanks for that : )

So, to sum up...here's a selection of your cogent argument - which (apparently) you conclude is the way to refer to women in debate.

"‘morning Poirot and Foxy (AKA the Piranha Sisters)"

"....Or was it used to demonstrate the sort of bait that causes the flaring schizophrenia of the Piranha Sisters?"

"The sisterhood, Emily’s List (The Piranha Sisters) and many other such networks all share the emotive association..."

"The Piranha Sisters now own the “Encyclopedia of Thought Terminating Clichés and Platitudes”....."

Hmmm....spindoc goes to immense trouble to dissect the psychology of feminism - and peppers his analysis with puerile epithets....and employs hackneyed cliches to do it.

How very grown up of him!

Gawd, Foxy, you've gone from a "sweetie" to a "Pirahna" in no time at all. Do you still think spindoc's "sweetie" was a term of endearment?

I'll paraphrase Rebecca West's quote, if yers don't mind:

" I myself have never been able to find out precisely what feminism is: I only know that people call me a Pirahna whenever I express sentiments that differentiate me from a doormat."

Dear Spindoc,

Thank You for sharing your thoughts with us
so openly and honestly. I explained earlier
in my posts that I did not have a problem with
the use of endearments like "sweetie," only that
your use of terms like "piranas," made the
endearments somewhat suspect.

As for Feminism,
and whether its run its course? I think that
depends on each individual to decide what
significance it has in their lives today. Women
who benefit from the achivements of feminism
and then refuse to embrace the term is not a
position that many women would have a respect for.
Still, having said that, most women I know are
simply busy coping with their daily lives alongside
either their male partners or on their own.

As for Julie Bishop? She has risen and been accepted
in the LNP and why no other woman seems to be
following her is because she has made the choice of
not rocking the boat so to speak. Her choice apparently
is to continue to comply with the structure of power.

Of course
as a woman she is inforcing the powerlessness.
She exhibits the competence her parliamentary leader
lacks, without agitating against the structures that
promoted his lesser talent over hers. That is
unfortunate, and her feminist disavowel in reality does
not leave much for the future of talented women
in the party beyond a place that will be granted to them
by the men. But that's nothing new.

In her former life Julie Bishop chose to defend James
Hardie - for money. She had no qualms of climbing over
the corpses of asbestos victims. So her choices in
life as I stated earlier really are about looking out for
No 1.

Still Julie Bishop is looking out for No. 1.
And few can blame her for that.

Dear Poirot,

Nah. You were right all along.
The proof is in Spindoc's posts.
So obvious now.
And silly me!

Foxy,

I kind of admire your trusting and genuine attitude...you usually attempt to find common ground and show respect to your opponent. That is a good thing!

I'm a little more reactive - and a veteran of Loudmouth deploying "sweetie" anytime he's desperate for a change of strategy and decides nothing other than a condescending term of endearment will suffice.

I can imagine Julie Bishop in the middle of a heated debate with men on the floor of Parliament meekly accepting being referred to as "sweetie" - NOT!

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for your kind words.

I make huge mistakes - but hopefully
I will learn from them. I've got such good
role models on this forum - and I mean that
sincerely - from SteeleRedux, to yourself,
and many, many others. I find at times that even
the people that I thought were not logical
tend to surprise at times. We all have our
stories and that's what makes it interesting,
and keeps us coming back.

Foxy,

Obviously logic is not your strong point.

I agree with Poirot that not everyone there were Labor supporters, however, the majority were labor or greens.
Secondly not everyone was booing Howard and Abbott or nor cheering Juliar.
Finally, within the coalition Abbott and certainly Howard are held in high regard.

Therefore the conjecture that because there were a sprinkling of Liberal supporters in the crowd that they joined in the booing is logically feeble in the extreme.

The only conclusion is that the left whingers hate anyone that thinks differently from them, and have the manners of feral pigs.

Just on one little point.

I have referred to Foxy many times as Sweetie, & meant in the nicest way. She has earned it.

Some surely would have noticed I have never used the term when addressing many of the women, [I couldn't call them ladies], on here.

Hasbeen,

Yep, I've noticed that you tend to employ the term to Foxy more as a paternalistic pat on the head...usually when you're about to impart some pearl of Hasbeen wisdom.

Your reference to Foxy having "earned it" would seem to confirm my analysis there.

"Some surely would have noticed I have never used the term when addressing many of the women, [I couldn't call them ladies], on here."

On that aspect, could you point me in the direction of the many "gentlemen" on this forum?....considering there are so many male posters, it's odd that I seem to be having trouble identifying them.

Julia Whatshername (the one with the $2M bungalow in Adelaide) did the Gender War thing, along with the oldie but never a goodie Class War act. However that was all rejected by the public who were revulsed by the Gender Warriors especially.

The feminists' bluff is well and truly blown. It is blindingly obvious that feminists cannot deliver more votes to any Party, including Labor who always laboured (heh, heh) under the now proved false belief that there were 'womens' votes in feminist activism. At most they are spoilers, but have become ineffectual, only a whimper there too.

The public know that the feminist hens were always selfish advocates for their own personal interests and their tertiary-educated middle class elite. The feminist hens who snipe at men and women alike on Q&A are usually well-off, have good super schemes that take advantage of the taxpayer and will never get their hand dirty and that includes doing for themselves - instead, they hire in and claim it is a virtue to have other women cleaning up after them.

Feminism is anti-humanism, fudges numbers and preaches hate, so it is not faring so well with young adults either. They will be voting often and long, so goodbye to the Radfem dinosaurs of the previous Millenium.

The LNP should just let history take care of itself and stay out of the feminist swamp. Tony Abbott has already learned one hopes that being responsive to the advice of feminists is fraught with danger. Because feminists were never in touch with what women want and frankly their egocentrism never cared what 'ordinary' women wanted anyway.

otb,

Dear, oh dear, more irrational, inflexible
attitudes towards an entire category of people.
Your comments are always rooted in generalisations
and totally ignores the differences among individuals.
Your concepts are so vague and sweeping in their scope.
It's becoming embarrassing.

Still I guess if you think in terms of general categories
then this enables you to make sense of the world by
simplifying its complexity.

You can engage in a debate - by saying some one is wrong
on x-y-or-z. But don't continue to inject some
kind of personal insult or some rude remark
about a characteristic related to the female gender.

Men come in all sizes and shapes, so do women and it is
about time you saw it for what it really is,
just human nature and reality.

Hasbeen has earned a special place in our hearts, so I suggest an appropriately affectionate term should be applied, 'Old Codger' springs to mind. Hassy just take it as a term of endearment.

<<Feminism is anti-humanism, fudges numbers and preaches hate>> Gee, Tony Abbott is a feminists! So are most of the 'Usual Suspects' on this forum. Thanks for that Beach.

Paul 1405,
Well I don't believe in equality and I like to point my finger at other groups in society and shriek "Looooook!", so I guess I'm a feminist too?

It's funny how Feminists like to focus on their 'movement" which has done absolutely nothing for women save act as a women's auxilliary for the worse strands of capitalism yet they never mention the real women's groups,such as the CWA and PWMU, Girl Guides etc.

JAYofM CWA wonderful old ladies, my grandmother was a member, I have devonshire tea every year at the 'Tulip Festival' in Bowral from the CWA ladies, same as it has been for the past 30 years, except for the price. Bowral the home of Don Bradman you know! Yes, Jay The Communist Workers Alliance, what would we do without them! However that Girl Guides outfit are suspect, with their brownies and all that knot tying, wouldn't you agree?

"Well I don't believe in equality" you wouldn't be much of 'White Supremacists' if you thought black people, Asians, Jews, Homosexuals, communists, women, children, Jews, oh I mentioned them, but they are worth an extra special mention,are they not, cats, dogs, goldfish, potted plants, garden worms, chook eggs, paper clips, left handed people, those that don't like Vegemite, etc etc etc the list goes on and on, were all equal to Jay. I agree I am definitely superior to paper clips! I am superior. Hope I didn't get carried away on you there Jay. LOL

JoM,

Er...capitalism more likely acted as an enabling auxiliary for the worst strands of itself where women are concerned.

Lots of spending power associated with women being "liberated" to earn and spend in a consumer society.

"Because they're worth it..." (as the advertising jingle goes)

Of course, with that kind of liberation, other aspects were up for negotiation as well.

The "Jeanie" was let out of the bottle....and who could blame her for finding her own voice?

Now the spiteful interrogations, accusations and nasty labelling by the feminists are being directed at the fiercely independent Salma Hayek, who has said she is not a feminist and she believes in equality.

"“I am not a feminist,” she told People Magazine on the red carpet before the event.
“If men were going through the things women are going through today, I would be fighting for them with just as much passion. I believe in equality.”

http://tinyurl.com/pcyf3oa

As can be seen from the readers' letters, she is not alone and she has an incoming flood tide of support.

Why should Salma Hayek be forced by feminist totalitarianism into wearing their offensive brand label anyhow? What about freedom of speech and freedom to choose?

The confused case of Salma Hayek.

She explained that someone told her that feminists
hate men - so there she is before an award presentation
by the group "Equality Now" which was honouring her for
her work to stop violence against women. Apparently
Ms Hayek didn't see the irony of it.

Can't we have an honest discussion about women's issues
without some women having to bring up how much they
love men? Why should some women feel that they have to
sell feminism on the basis of how it will benefit the
boys - instead of it being the right thing to do?

Aren't women allowed to say - "I support women"
without having to preface it with "Don't worry I
will fight for men's causes just as passionately!"

Apparently not.

cont'd ...

So much for "equality!"

There is no irony. Just feminists trying to bag and gag her.

"Now the spiteful interrogations, accusations and nasty labelling by the feminists are being..."...blah, blah, blah.

Gawd, otb, we'd have to go a long long way to see the kind of spiteful blather you dish up anytime your "feminism" antenna is tweaked.

"....feminist totalitarianism...."

Lol!

otb,

You'll have to be more specific.

Or are sweeping generalisations all you've got.

Which feminists are trying to "gag" and "bag"
Salma Hayak?

The only attempts that we can see on this forum
of "gaging" and "bagging" are coming from you.

If feminism is so outdated in your opinion
why do you find it necessary to persist to downgrade
and attack it so obsessively. Does it in so way
threaten you? Because you certainly appear to have
an irrational, inflexible attitude towards an
entire category of people. And your attacks are so
inappropriate and always rooted in generalisations,
ignoring the differences among individuals.

Goodness me. Ive pointed it out to you previously
that men come in all sizes and shapes, as do women.
Why on earth do you persist in injecting some
kind of personal and rude remarks about characteristics
related only to the female gender. Were you mistreated
by some woman in your life - Do tell.

Foxy "Were you mistreated by some woman in your life - Do tell."

Oh please no Foxy!
I couldn't bear reading the litany of wrongs done to Beachy by the probably few women in his life. And I am sure it would take too long.

I have no doubt that many annoyed women vented their fury at OTB in the past , given his track record with his anti-female rants on this site.

Feminism and feminists would be his nightmare...

Dear Suse,

It makes sense though doesn't it?

There must be a logical reason why otb keeps
on and on with his attacks on women, "Feminists,"
"Emily Listers," and previous PMs - who happen
to also be female.
But I do have to admit that whatever his problems
I too would prefer not to really know. Let him
continue to "beat a dead horse," (his analogy not
mine) as he seems to like to do -
beating all sorts of people, but especially women.

'morning OTB,

Don't the sisterhood play so well together?

And to think what I proposed was classed as fiction!

The good news is that Paul1405 turns out to be a full on "blouse", go girlie Paul!

mornin' spindoc,

I say, you and otb are orffly good at calling people namies...is that the extent of your debating skills on this subject?

Let's see..."sisterhood"..."pirahna"..."full on blouse"..."girlie".

Wow!

Dear Poirot,

This discussion like so many others on this
forum seems to have opened the door once again
to crackpot theorists as a battleground for
their fantasies. Their comments as always are
highly irrelevant here.

Let's try to steer the discussion away from extreme
points of view (if we can) and toward common ground,
which is where solutions will eventually be found
one way or another.

spindoc,

Feminism is an anachronism. However, the dinosaur's head takes some time to 'know' after the body has died.

Salma Hayek and others are not the bellwethers of a change to come, but women surprised that any journalist would be posing such an odd, outmoded, irrelevant question in 2014. So old hat as to be cringe-worthy and honestly, what audience might care?

Feminism cannot be re-branded. It would be a waste of time going into why not, change is basic stuff.

'morning Ladies,

I described in a double post, my detailed analysis of the who, what, why and how of feminists.
Posted by spindoc, Friday, 7 November 2014 9:41:36 AM

Within half an hour the Piranha Sisters began a series of self referential posts just between themselves. They "stroked" each other so much that the static electricity caused background interference across the Internet.

Madam Poirot as first respondent, simply re posted all the statements that caused an emotive response, but curiously not a single reference to any content? Nor has there been any attempt since.
Posted by Poirot, Friday, 7 November 2014 10:17:23 AM

Now Poirot asks "...is that the extent of your debating skills on this subject"? So Poirot, all you have to do now is point to anywhere that you have even attempted to "debate" content and I will acknowledge it. Otherwise you will have to wear your breathtaking hypocrisy.

Foxy likewise avoids all contact with content. The defence is mounted on sickly sweet faux nicities followed by changed narrative and more Unicorns. But still no response to any content.
Posted by Foxy, Friday, 7 November 2014 10:18:25 AM

The false indignation of feminism continues to flow like ruptured septic tank.

"Let's see..."sisterhood"..."pirahna"..."full on blouse"..."girlie". You missed out "Sweetie".

This thread asked the question, "Has the term feminism run its course?" It seems reasonable to draw out examples and to put them on display.

The cooperation of the sisterhood in this process is very much appreciated, the Piranha Sisters have done a fine job.

I will now cease use of the trigger words used, content with the fact that they have served their purpose.

Spindoc,

You'll get a rebuttal from me when you post something worth rebutting.

As far as I can make out you were criticizing "feminists" for taking ownership of words/rhetoric while simultaneously exploring your inner hypocrite by peppering your posts with silly epithets.....piranha sisters....Sisterhood...etc.

And now you swagger off into the sunset, having holstered your "trigger words" like some OLO version of a spaghetti western.

So you popped up, call us some names - and now you're off.....

Most profound!

Good Morning Spindoc,

I wrote in an earlier post and I thought I made it
quite clear that it'sup to each woman to decide what
if any relevance Feminism has in their lives. That
most women I know are simply busy coping with their
daily lives alongside their partners or alone.

I guess you missed that of chose to ignore it in preference
to your venting your spleen and supporting otb. It's
interesting that you don't find otb's remarks offensive
when he posts his attacks - when when that garners a
response from females - you're in there swinging with
terms like "piranas," et cetera.

The following link may help clarify things for you.
Of course it's written by a woman and that may not be
acceptable to either yourself and otb. So much for
Feminism still not being relevant today. Makes you wonder
who the "dinosaurs" really are - to use otb's words.

Despite what you and otb may think as the link points
out - Feminism is still relevant and very much alive
today. As the aothor points out - It reminds us that
the social position of women is still an ongoing and
important question. Yet as we can see from some of the
posts on this discussion it has also become apparent
that there is confusion around the term Feminism itself.
Salma Hayek has admitted that she was told "Feminists"
hate men.

Apparently there are some who still really believe that.

cont'd ...

Here's the link:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/society-and-culture/feminism-is-not-a-dirty-word-20091207-kf3y.html

'morning Poirot,

Wow, that was quick!

You didn't even read it did you? You just "feel" the post.

I'm not going anywhere, swaggering or otherwise. All I said was I would cease using the words that trigger your indignation, and I will.

Again you repeat only the bits that upset you, but fail to go anywhere near a discussion on the content. Where is your rebuttal of the case I made about the who, how and why of feminism?

You could have avoided any debate or response to content by simply refusing on the grounds my content was not worth rebutting?

Oh, sorry, you already did that.

All here who have witnessed the management of change in organisations would recognise what is happening here: the crest of the wave has already passed, while those who are not part of the ongoing change and are about to be ejected from the back of the wave are left bewildered and floundering, wondering what happened and still attempting to justify their (lost) functions.

That is what inevitably happens to bureaucratic functionaries and academics who have been comfortable living in their cocoon. They are like the little boy who fell out of the plane - he just wasn't in it.

A university that doesn't keep pace with the competition is going to be found out very soon. Students expect to have relevant, marketable skills and they are paying for their education.

spindoc,

Why would you even imagine that I would bother to reply in detail to a post that begins "‘morning Poirot and Foxy (AKA the Piranha Sisters)"

I mean you sound quite outraged because I had the temerity to concentrate on your fulsome derision, derision that was positively peppered through your post....why are you in the least surprised that I would consider it insulting rhetoric and not bother with it?

How would you like it if I addressed you in a post in the same manner?

If you wish to converse with another seriously on a subject, why would you start out by slapping them on the cheek with your glove?

And now you say...

"I'm not going anywhere, swaggering or otherwise. All I said was I would cease using the words that trigger your indignation, and I will."

Why, if you wished for a genuine discussion, did you not dispense with your "trigger words" from the start. I'm amazed that you can serially bag feminists for retaliatory rhetoric when your own strategy is to bait them in the first place.

I haven't got time to reply to you more fulsomely at the moment as I have to cook breaky for three hungry boys (sleepover)...gawd, if I was a proper feminist, I'd tell 'em to do it themselves!

On this thread are a few comments regarding my general take on Western feminism - if you're interested:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16795

‘morning Foxy,

Thanks for your link to the SMH article by Georgina Isbister, department of gender and cultural studies ant the University of Sydney, it very nicely made my case for me, you should read it.

I was personally disappointed in you for jumping into your own trap by suggesting that it might be unacceptable because it was written by a woman! That was a silly mistake given what I’ve already leveled at feminism.

I have made the case that feminism is a “political” creation of the left.

Georgina postulates; “….”a tool that opens up avenues for gender liberation” …..”to move towards a fairer and more equal society”…..”This is a core ideal, thus we need to reclaim feminism”….”feminist struggle”…”feminisms central aim”….”entrenched misogyny”? On and on and on!

Oh my god Foxy, surely you don’t expect us to swallow this academic, PC guff do you?

As to your comment, << It's interesting that you don't find otb's remarks offensive when he posts his attacks >>.

This is just so ugly in its beauty. So now you have an expectation of me to come to your defense when you’re “attacked” by another poster?

Apart from telegraphing the inadequacy of your personal authority, it is not up to me to defend you against someone else’s comments. It is your job to rebut a case, which you don’t, you just squeal about things. And it is up to GY to arbitrate on posts not me.

If it is on topic, in context and does not breach Forum rules than stand your ground or flag it for deletion.

Foxy, I have a wife, two daughters and four granddaughters. Not one of them exhibit the plaintive posturing that you an Poirot display, they don’t have a need.

Poirot, I’m coming to the conclusion that you don’t understand who, what, why or where you are on this topic. Get stuck into a counter to the case made against you and try to avoid hiding behind both the very feminism you are trying to deny and your confected outrage.

Dear Spindoc,

I actually expect very little from you.
As I do from otb.

Enjoy your gruntlement - Gentlemen.

I shall leave you both to it.

I was hoping to steer this discussion away
from extreme points of view and toward
common ground - which is as I stated previously
solutions will eventually be found - one way
or another.

BTW: I have two sons and four grandchildren.
Three boys and one granddaughter.
And I believe that every human being deserves
something better than having their lives
dismissed in a flood of simplistic rhetoric,
posturing, and crass political point-scoring.

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 his or her biological sex would be the primary
measure of that person's worth and achievement.

See you on another discussion.

spindoc,

Bacon's on...got time for a quick post (it's only 8:05 here in the West)

"Poirot, I’m coming to the conclusion that you don’t understand who, what, why or where you are on this topic. Get stuck into a counter to the case made against you and try to avoid hiding behind both the very feminism you are trying to deny and your confected outrage."

Wait for it.....From the oh-so-mature strategy of spindoc to jump on a thread and spray puerile epithets at women, we have him now lampooning their dissatisfaction as "Confected outrage".

Pray tell, spindoc, what was your object in calling the girls names, if not to engender a bit of "outrage"?

Besides, I'm not outraged...just tired of immature men flinging disparaging labels every time a thread on feminism arises on OLO.

I'm not interested in countering your case. Like Julie Bishop, I don't consider myself a feminist, however, I do realise that women, like men, are all beneficiaries of the system. Feminists have our "patriarchal system" to thank for their voice, which they employ to push for an equal share of the spoils.

(Lol!...I've managed to cook a breakfast for the family and two extra guests while composing this post...not bad for a feminist piranha, eh?)

Foxy,
The fundamental counter argument to Feminism is that it's demands are in defiance of nature and that a person's gender does shape they way they look at the world and the choices they make because certain traits are inherent to a single gender.
It's not possible, nor is it desirable to have an "equal society", the greater proportion of men are always going to use brute force or charisma to take what they want and most women will use sex as a means to securing the protection and support of the man with the most power and material assets within their social class or ethnic group .
As soon as you create formal arrangements for equality they are undermined by basic human nature thus formal or legislative "equality" has never even been worth the ink it's written in.
We've seen formal equality taken to it's ultimate conclusion in the U.S.S.R, China and Kampuchea, the process involves shooting all the smart, rich people and the middle class and stripping everyone else of everything but the shirts on their backs and it still doesn't result in an equal society.
Feminism needs patriarchy/capitalism as it's benefactor, it can't exist without it and it couldn't exist in an equal society anyway.
Feminism, like all left wing movements is stronger when it ditches it's liberal pretensions of "equality for all" but there's a limit, a glass ceiling if you will which has been reached in the last few years and beyond which the ideology cannot rise lest it destroy the patriarchal structure suppporting it.

"After proving herself as a strong presence on the world stage following the MH17 tragedy, Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop has earned the Harper's Bazaar's Woman of the Year award.

In an interview with the women's magazine Ms Bishop reflects on her role as a female leader in a male-dominated cabinet, while sticking by her controversial insistence she is not a feminist.

"Stop whingeing, get on with it and prove them all wrong," she told the magazine, in a veiled criticism of former prime minister Julia Gillard's promise to "call out misogyny"."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/julie-bishop-named-harpers-bazaars-woman-of-the-year-20141108-11j46w.html

There you go, Julie "I'm not a feminist" Bishop receives an award from an elitist consumer mag for...er...being a woman....of a certain class...who wears it well..and who managed to sneak into an otherwise all male cabinet.

I suppose that's something for a fashion mag to celebrate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harper%27s_Bazaar

"Harper’s Bazaar is an American women's fashion magazine, first published in 1867. Harper’s Bazaar is published by Hearst and, as a magazine, considers itself to be the style resource for "women who are the first to buy the best, from casual to couture."

Aimed at members of the upper-middle and upper classes, Bazaar assembles photographers, artists, designers and writers to deliver a "sophisticated" perspective into the world of fashion, beauty and popular culture on a monthly basis."

Good Afternoon Spindoc,

I've just realised that I didn't reply in
my previous post to your assertion that
I wanted you to defend me and Poirot
against otb.

That is not correct. Your defense on our
behalf was not what was wanted at all.
We are more
than capable of responding to otb - which
is what we regularly to his sweeping generalisations
and personal attacks. The point being made was -
you criticise us for our reponses but not otb -
for his attacks on us when we respond to his
assertions. A bit of a double standard.

I thought it important to clear that up for you.
Also, if you want to debate any topic - its best
that you also not begin your posts
as Poirot has pointed out to you
using derogatory words. That is, if you want a
response. Because logic should tell you that
you will be subsequently ignored or not taken seriously.
No one likes or appreciates - an illogical or abusive poster.
As this attempt at interaction with you has illustrated.

Poirot,
And who says capitalists don't value female achievement?

Julie Bishop is a strong, independant woman who has earned her place in cabinet through hard work, Julia Gillard is an empowered woman, ie she was empowered and enabled by others throughout her political career.
Don't forget, Julia Gillard was not elected to lead the Labor party by the people and she was elected to lead the country by the Greens and independants, not the voters.
Feminism can only produce these larger numbers of empowered women by bullying, affirmative action and rent seeking, neoliberalism produces far fewer women candidates but they're of far higher quality than those on the left. Julie Bishop isn't the only one, Amanda Vanstone, Bronwyn Bishop, Judy Moylan, Sharman Stone, the list goes on and even though people may not agree with these women they do respect them, this is not the case with Labor's "empowered" Feminists.
Formal equality produces mediocre people and mediocre achievements, one analogy is that in the 1940's the Soviets could produce soldiers at a rate of seven to every one Axis recruit but they were so poorly trained and brutalised by their service that in order to beat back the Fascist advances they had to throw their "Bolshevik Robots" onto the guns in human wave assaults and shoot anyone who faltered in the back as an example to the next wave.
More women in parliament of the board room isn't necessarily better if the only way you can place them there is by shaming, bullying and even terrorising the the institutions and their present staff.

Dear Jay,

Just to set the record straight for you.

Julie Bishop and the others you mention have risen
and been accepted in the
LNP because Julie Bishop, et al - continue to
comply with the structure of power. They toe
the Party Line. To do otherwise would be
disastrous for them. As Amanda Vandstone once
let it slip on "Q and A," - "I want to keep my
job." Of course complying with the structure
of power is the activity of re-inforcing powerlessness.

Julie Bishop seems to exhibit the competence her
Parliamentary Leader lacks, without agitating
against the structures that promoted his lesser talent
over hers has the endgame of feminist disavowal - which
does not leave much beyond a place to sit and do as you're
told in the general scheme of things.

Still, as can be seen from Ms Bishop's former life -
where she chose to defend James Hardie - for money, thereby
climbing over the corpses of asbestos victims - Ms Bishop is
only interested in looking out for No. 1.

It will be interesting to see where her future and those
of other women in the Party lies.

JoM,

"Poirot,
And who says capitalists don't value female achievement?"

Not me.

yada, yada... I'm not going to get into who produces the best/most women in this or that.

My point was that female empowerment is achieved within a masculine system..ergo...is bought into for a share of the spoils - as one would expect.

Mr related point is that Western feminism isn't about creating another system based on feminine principles. It's about trying to get a share of what's on offer within a masculine system. That's why feminists are seen as loud-mouthed bullies. In a system that doesn't pay dividends for the meek and mild, it's a given that to wrest power one needs to play the game.

Julie Bishop succeeds by playing the game, representing with aplomb the capitalist agenda, just like the men. She wears tailored clothes, just like the men, but dyed a more feminine hue, just like all the other women who represent the system at govt or corporate level. They emulate the men as closely as they can while still differentiating themselves as women.

It's fascinating to watch.

Foxy, Poirot.
Exactly, strong women vs empowered women.
In general terms the Liberal women gained influence,prestige and wealth through work and playing the game, the Labor women gained empowerment through affirmative action and making demands upon the party.
Empowerment isn't real power and Feminism robs women of real power by it's tactics of bullying and rent seeking whereby it seeks to insert people into positions of influence based on gender, not talent or their good reputation.
Feminists actually do have a considerable amount of power in society because they've targeted and successfully taken over key sectors such as the education system and state media and they're adept at both driving men out of their territory and protecting their monopolies.
Yet what are they doing besides promoting their long outdated fourth wave rhetoric and bogus talking points like "wage gap" and "rape culture"?

If feminism was supposed to be about equality it certainly hasn't been in the last several decades and feminism IS what feminism DOES.

Feminism is radical feminism, radical feminism is feminism - there is no other brand.

The brand IS anti-humanism. They DO hate and sneer at men and boys and they are gynocentric. Feminists are the elite of educated middle class white women and NO, they do not care a fig about what they perceive as lesser women who make other choices, or are not one of them through not having the $$ they had to make the most of life's opportunities.

It is worth acknowledging at this juncture that just as many men as women do not have the $$ behind them and the cleverness, street smarts and contacts to reliably attain higher incomes.

It will be a long, cold day in hell when any of those feminists who are forever whining about their own entitlement ever volunteer to help anyone else. They just do not do that.

While the educated middle class feminists are forever hitching a ride on indigenous for example, their concern about them is superficial and it is very soon back to their taxpayer-funded knees-ups in five star hotels disrespecting the legions of men and women who do not always choose career above all else.

OTB,
When Feminism or any other "progressive" school of thought hits the "glass ceiling" called human nature it doesn't slack off the pressure, the pressure is just diverted to the sides and downward.
You can see it everywhere, the only people they can recruit these days are the damaged, the weak and the irredeemably narcissistic and these fruitcakes spend all their time attacking their own constituents and powerless, low caste men.
Illiberal forms of social organisation are not limited by human nature, they're enhanced by it, that's why progressive causes can never be competitive, never convert a conservative electorate and why their activist networks perpetually split and splinter.

I don't know what you guys are complaining about.

It's a masculine system and it's trundling along and doing its thing.

The females decided, once they were let off the leash in order to partake of the consumer banquet, that they'd stump up for a few other privileges.

They're on board and the juggernaut is full steam ahead - all together as one.

What did you expect they'd do...under the circumstances?

Go out to work, do some shopping, then sit tight and shut their mouths while doing a spot of knitting?

Poirot,
We're just complaining about capital F Feminism, not women, we love women and have a patriarchal interest in their success and well being.
Australia in 2014 provides practically limitless opportunities for personal growth,individual success and group development, it doesn't need anachronistic social movements based on flawed 18th century philosophy.

This comment from a blog I follow sums it up:
http://alternative-right.blogspot.com/2014/10/gamergate-reveals-leftist-mo-of-passive.html

"They find a healthy host, infect it with commentators, and then attack
it when it refuses to accept those commentators as its original voice
and purpose."

Well put. I think this speaks to the larger issue of modern leftism in general. It is a method for the weak to exploit the strong.

In the one case these poor young feminists have been brainwashed with propaganda and spoiled with man-made convenience their entire lives. They don't know who they are or what they want. But their man-hating programming goes into overdrive when they see men enjoying something without them; they get jealous and have the vindictive need to infiltrate it, --bring it down if necessary. It really is irritating. You just can't believe a word they say and must never give in to their subversive demands

JoM,

But why are you surprised and/or irritated?

Women have adapted to the new paradigm.

They either blend in and climb the ladder or they openly compete for kudos in such a system.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Why wouldn't a movement arise to take on men at their own game?

Under the circumstances...

Poirot,
Being effectively the last faction standing Feminism is the face of the Left, the counterproductive, bullying, rent seeking Left which in the absence of an authentic right with whom to joust just flail their arms and stamp their feet and spend their lives provoking fights with people who have no power or a stake in the staus quo.
People shouldn't lose their jobs or have their visa cancelled because some group of middle class undergraduates (and adults who should know better) all hopped up on their own inflated sense of self importance create a stink on social media over what such a person might say in public or think in private.
If this nonsense stayed on the internet or on the campus quadrangle no one would care but ordinary, harmless people's lives are being, if not exactly ruined disrupted by this so called "activism'.

Poirot,
I forgot to preface that post with "This isn't your mother's Feminism", what's being promoted as Feminism today is a type of intolerant,fundamentalist dogma based mainly on conspiracy theories or assumptions about the world informed by flawed logic and pseudo science.
Sound familiar?
It's on a par with the 9-11 Truthers and the people who think psychopaths and the "Nazi International" run the New World Order.
As I said, if it confined itself to university clubs and the internet no one would care but because it has the ear of influential "adult" feminists in the media and politics who have an eye for the main chance so to speak the ratbag fringe gets far more oxygen that it deserves.

The following link works through some of the
common assumptions made in anti-feminist
declarations - such as feminists are - "man-haters,"
and worse.

The link points out that not only are these
homophobic categorisation of feminists, but are
ahistorical and fundamentally misread the
nature of feminism and the current status of women.

http://theconversation.com/actually-women-you-do-need-feminism-30415

There is nothing here that alters the simple, incontrovertible fact that the few radical feminists remaining are not competitive for other careers and are too complacent and lazy to even try, despite the fact that the world has moved on and left them behind.

They are mainly public bureaucrats, lazy journalists who recycle feminist shock-horror stories, many faked, many trivial, and the damned lazy, irresponsible and arrogant feminist academics who refuse to take any responsibility for the very restricted employment prospects of their trusting, fee-paying students.

Regarding the last mentioned, a university that doesn't keep pace with the competition is going to be found out. Students expect to have relevant, marketable skills and again, they are paying for their education. What about the claimed social research though? What university wouldn't be embarrassed by papers that constantly regurgitate, recycle and claim to build upon 'research' that is known to be sub-standard, shabby and highly speculative?

otb,

Instead of rhetoric - kindly supply
us with evidence please if you want to
have any credibility.

Be specific as to
which feminists you are talking about - give
us some names because there's quite a few in this
country - most of whom are highly respected.
Which universities are
you referring to - and how do you come to know
them. Most women I know have paid
their own way through university, myself included.
And which research are you talking about precisely.
Universities have many faculties and areas of study.
If it's social research - where does your knowledge
come from.

You need to work through your assumptions prior
to posting and back up your anti-feminist declarations
with facts and specific examples. Otherwise you fall
into the trap of homophobic categorisations that make
you appear to have very extreme views and questionable
obsessive behaviour.

Foxy,

You are wasting your burns on a mere messenger.

The market will decide. Students will vote with their feet.

otb,

In other words you don't have the evidence
and it is all merely rhetoric on your part.

BTW: - Asking for evidence in any discussion
is not a "burn," its part and parcel of any
well reasoned and intelligent discussion.

Burns are irrational, illogical generalisations against
entire groups of people - without any evidence being
provided.

As for students voting with their feet?

They will vote allright - but not with their
feet - but with their votes against
government policies regarding education, jobs,
et cetera.

Feminism this and FEM that....its getting a little too much, don't you think?

For starters, the every day male has haft male and female DNA or some might think this is simple or boring, trust me, its not! You blokes have this in you or how would you explain on meeting the girl of your dreams in the first place?

Think about:)

Tally

'morning Foxy, Paul1405, susonline and Poirot,

GY's wrap on this topic was "So we'll know feminism has succeeded when the term falls into disuse."

This is called transparency. For example, computer technology will be "transparent" when it is no longer seen. About 2025 with current technological progress.

The main impediment to this IT transparency is the Luddite opposition to storage of information. Those opposing transparency are quite happy to use selective parts of IT progress like social media, but not the rest of it.

Likewise, transparency in feminism is being held back by those who wish to be selective about the parts of feminism that feminists want, but not the rest. It's' called selective feminism.

Those bits they want (as protection) must give way to the bits feminists don't want, which are the consequences of activist feminism.

The moral of this perspective is that feminists are the inhibitors to feminism. What it is they seek to avoid, they create.

Not one single feminist has ever understood this.

Let me put it in a family or social context. When one is not well, has cold or under stress, the last thing one needs to do to the family is to occupy the space that concerned family should occupy. This is because this is not your space it is the family's space.

If you occupy it, you are denying your family the space to be concerned for you, appreciate you and to mitigate your pain.

Feminists need to get the hell out of the space that does not belong to them. It belongs to those who might otherwise like to sympathise but are denied the opportunity because your squawkertariat has already occupied it.

When you can find it in your hearts to stop bullying society into acquiescing to your demands and actually make room for them to volunteer their perspectives, you will achieve your goals.

Dear Spindoc,

Thank you for your civilised take on the issue.
It is appreciated.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Wow. What a surprising and unexpected post from you.
Not up to your usual standard at all.
You complain that much as you can bed any woman
of your choice, despite your age, you could never
bed a "feminazi," and then you go on to inform
everyone on this forum that "feminazis" only
sleep with their "girlfriends," and you refer to
them as "bitches." (gulp).

You really don't need a crystal ball to see the
reason you could not be successful in bedding some women,
all you need is a mirror. I'm sure you'd have problems bedding
any female, apart from perhaps "working girls,"
if you were to refer to them in those derogatory terms.

Dear oh dear!

cont'd ...

Well folks, it looks like we've been had.

It appears that the postings are not from
Shadow Minister after-all but that SM
appears to either have lent the use of his
moniker to either
a family member of a colleague especially
to provoke on this forum, or that someone has hacked
into is moniker.

We all get the joke. However, as a male colleague
once stated about an acquaintance of his -
"If he's going to behave like a dick, he should
at least wear a condom on his head, so he looks
like one!"

Foxy,

It's not SM - or SM's account

(Check out the newest user)

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for clearing things up for me.

Graham appears to have deleted the
joker's posts.

What a relief that it was not Shadow Minister.

We may have disagreed on many issues but Shadow
Minister's posts were not of the low calibre of this
impersenator.

Dear Shadow Minister,

My apologies to you and I am so glad and relieved
that you were not in any way part of this
impersenator's act.