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."