I've watched quite a few people being interviewed
on television recently on the topic of feminism
and what it means to them and I was quite
surprised that there were so many people - especially
women who distanced themselves from being labelled
feminists. That is something I find difficult to
understand. After all, I had always assumed that
feminism was not about gender but about equality for
all. Having just recently celebrated International
Woman's Day - I thought it might be interesting to
bring this issue up as a discussion on this forum
and find out your feelings on the topic.

What are your thoughts and why?

Here's a link that may be of interest:

http://www.mamamia.com.au/salma-hayek-feminism/

"After all, I had always assumed that
feminism was not about gender but about equality for
all."

Even you cannot be that naive, Foxy. Feminism is not about gender! Equality for all! This must be part of your goody two shoes act. Of course it"s about gender. As for equality, you faux feminists want superiority over men.

When it comes down to poor, downtrodden Muslim women, you say nothing, but bad-mouth Western culture males as if that is a defence for Muslims, when you know damn well there is no Western, institutionalised discrimination or cruelty against Western women, as there is with Islam.

Perhaps you haven't had any luck with men, Foxy. I could understand your bitterness if that were true; you posts reveal indicate a certain dificulty with life.

The short answer to your question is that women like you - make believe feminists - only use the rights of women as political weapon to vent your spleens. You never speak up about genuine discrimination against women, which has been introduced to Australia by multiculturalism. That would be too politically incorrect for you. Women like you are hypocrites. You are the targets, not genuine feminists.

Foxy,

The problem with many movements is that they start out to address legitimate concerns, then once these are achieved then every person and her dog with a far out political agenda then tries to push it under the same banner, until the original cause is completely discredited.

when Alan Jones claims to be a feminist you can see how confused the world is. When reports are put out to prove a narrative (women are always the victim and don't get paid as much as men) one then treats labels with contempt. If Penny Wong, Julie Bishop, Julie Gillard are feminist I want nothing of it. Usually women who have used every tax payer funded benefit to climb to the top and then claim disadvantage. They have proven every bit as slimy, deceitful and reprehensible as any of their male counterparts while crying victim. The true heroes of feminism in my eyes are the mums who sacrificed in order to nuture and care for kids and supported husbands. These are usually the most content and despised by what many label 'feminist'. The recent slandering of Credlin shows how much the 'sisterhood' will lie, despise and stab anyone not on their side. The silence of abise of women in Indigeneous and muslim communities speaks a thousand words about wealthy 'feminist'who need to keep the victim status rolling.

Dear Shadow Minister,

I can only speak from my own experience as far
as feminism is concerned and that is a somewhat
limited one and it concerns pay rates where
unfortunately there still exists a great deal
of difference for many professions - including
my own - that of librarianship - in having the
same qualifications and doing the same work
yet getting less pay.

BTW: did you read the link I gave in my opening
post? I thought that some of the reasons given for
why some people reject feminism were quite valid.
What did you think?

Let us consider suffrage as an initial example.
As our political system was dominated by the laws established in England it is important to consider the history of suffrage from an English point of view up until we started to make more decisions for ourselves.

In 1432 King Henry IV established voting rights for males who owned property worth at least forty shillings thereby disenfranchising all females and all but the very wealthiest of males (the 1% we would call them today).

Four hundred years later in 1832 voting rights were extended to adult males who rented property of a certain value. This meant that voting rights were granted to about 1 in 7 males and but not to females.

Ten years later in 1843 the first parliamentary elections took place in Australia. The vote was restricted to males who owned or rented property with a very high value reflecting the extension granted to males 10 years earlier in England.

From 1856 as Australian states became self-governing voting rights were extended to all male British subjects over the age of 21. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males were excluded.

In 1895 woman in South Australia were given the right to vote and to sit for parliament.

In 1902 all white males and females over the age of 21 had the right to vote and sit for federal parliament. Voting rights for all Australians would have to wait a while longer.

In a 424 year period there was no suffrage for any females and most males. In 46 years that had changed (for white people in Australia at a federal level and in most states).

Female suffrage was just one part of a very long struggle to win voting rights for all people.

Feminism must embrace facts and not myths. The facts unite people in common causes – the myths divide and cause suspicion.

WFT,

You assert that "From 1856 as Australian states became self-governing voting rights were extended to all male British subjects over the age of 21. Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander males were excluded."

No, they weren't, at least not in SA. I precised a letter from the Superintendent at Poonindie Mission, remarking that he had drive some men into Port Lincoln to vote. And, of course, when women got the vote in SA in 1894, the second place in the world ever to give women the vote after New Zealand, Aboriginal women were included: they voted on Missions at least as much as the men. Aboriginal women in South Australia thus had the vote long before women in the UK, US or France. Turnout for the 1896 elections at one Mission was reported as twice the state average.

It's fascinating to contemplate that my wife's Aboriginal great-grandmother had the vote before my own English grandmother.

But you are spot-on about the rest. Thank you, WFT!.

Joe

Dear WTF?,

Thank You for the information.

I have always believed that feminism(as given in
dictionaries) was the belief that men and women
should have equal rights and opportunities.
That it was the theory of the political, economic
and social equality of the sexes.

What many people like Penny Wong, Julie Bishop,
Selma Hayek, Michaela Cash, to name just a few
don't like is feminism being
hijacked by noisy activists who often have views
on gender which lean towards the extreme.

There are also politicians that go hand-in-hand with
some of today's feminists that not everyone wants to sign
up to, as Penny Wong pointed out on Monday evening on
"Q and A," when she agreed with Michaela Cash in
criticising the extremists.

Thank you Loudmouth for the correction and update. Perhaps my Queensland-centric view of the world is to blame. Obviously social change in some states was more advanced then others at the time leading up to federation.

Yes Foxy, extremist views on any subject, be that feminism, religion, migration, race, sexuality etc, is very off putting to say the least. I don't like extremist feminists who try to tell other women what we should or shouldn't want....in a very negative way.

Many people believe in the myths about feminism through a culture of fear put about by both radical feminists and scared little males with not a neuron between them.
Feminists don't demonize men at all, they just want equality, not enemies.
The vast majority of Feminists have male partners and relatives, so I don't believe this supposed male hatred thing at all.

The silliest feminism myth of all though is the mad idea that feminism has somehow destroyed the 'traditional family unit'. This little gem is usually put out there by men who are unhappy that women in our country now have the freedom to get out of a relationship, rather than back in the good ol' days where they were forced to stay in loveless or abusive relationships because of 'ownership' laws re money, property, and children.

I unreservedly thank the feminist trailblazers of the past for working hard to get women the vote, safe/legal abortions, effective contraception, no-fault divorces, child custody changes, superannuation changes, more job equality (still not enough though), and education choices.
Feminists don't want to be the SAME as men (shudder!), but merely to have the same rights, choices and opportunities. And I would hope all men would also want that for their beloved female relatives.....surely?

Dear Suse,

Unfortunately there are quite a few men and women
who believe in the myths regarding feminism.
They seem to forget that men can be raped as well
and oppressed by a culture that teaches them what
they must do to be "manly."

cont'd...

Talking about feminism myths. I came across the
following link:

http://www.villanova.edu/villanova/artsci/gws/resources/myths.html

which lists the following myths:

1) All feminists are lesbians and bra-burning radicals
who hate men.
2) Feminism has made women equal now and there is no
need for feminists or the current women's movement.
3) Women can't be feminine and be a feminist at the
same time.
4) Feminism is only for middle-class white women.
5) Feminism only liberates women at the expense of men.

The facts are:

1) Being a feminist has nothing to do with sexual
orientation or discrimination of the male gender.
Feminists come from all different backgrounds and
cultures to support equality and equity in general.
2) Women are still behind in many different ways.
They continue to be paid less on average than men,
many jobs are not friendly to mothers, women
continue to be responsible for the majority of
household work.
3) Feminism is fundamentally about giving women
choices, not about finding new ways to limit their
self expression ...
4) Feminism is historically a multicultural cause.
Today's feminists are women and men of all walks
of life who seek to combat racism, sexism, classism,
ageism, et cetera.
5) Feminism doesn't just liberate women. It shows
that men don't have to be "macho" that it's allright
to show weakness and to show their emotions.

Thanks for those facts Foxy. As a feminist, I thank goodness that the number one myth noted above has been exposed as c##p, because I hate going without a bra, and I really prefer the company of most men to many of the women I know :)

I am not really a good little feminist then am I ?

LOL, more manipulative cr@P, courtesy (being gracious there!) of the feminist dinos from the previous Millenium and the best part of a Century ago.

Dinosaurs with long growing noses like Pinocchio.

Any wonder young women run screaming from the self-entitled, egocentric, nagging old trout who demand that youth genuflect in their presence.

Be off you vexatious old dragons, you never were victims. All you are doing is constantly blaming and stitching up more middle class benefits for yourselves.

Lol!

Good old otb. He's regaled us for many years with the most ferocious criticisms of feminism.

But what's this?

otb pretending he's standing up for the new generation of feminists by putting the boot in to Foxy and Suse....how surprising!

Never let a chance go by, eh otb?

And further to that, he's always keen here to hold up his faux forum standards - except when the opportunity arises to hurl a few rancid epithets at the ladies on a feminism thread.

"...feminist dinos from the previous Millenium..."

"Dinosaurs with long growing noses like Pinocchio."

"...self-entitled, egocentric, nagging old trout..."

"...you vexatious old dragons..."

Charming stuff, otb.

What a man!

Dear Suse,

It is great what feminism has achieved thus far.
Today's feminists are women and men of all walks
of life who seek to combat racism, sexism,
classism, ageism, et cetera.
It has always fundamentally been about giving
people choices.

I agree Foxy, but these modern feminists remain a threat to the old boys of yesteryear who still sob over the demise of the good ol' days when men were men and women did as they were told.

OTB...how boringly predictable you are.
Thank goodness most men have moved on with the times.

Dear Poirot and Suse,

Controversial discussions certainly bring out
the worst in some people as this forum has
shown us over the years. Prejudice is a
learned trait. You're not born prejudiced.
You're taught it. Prejudice is also a great
time saver. You can have opinions without
having to get the facts. This is particularly
helpful to people who have delusions of
adequacy.

Well put Foxy : )

Sooo much inadequacy displayed by contributors who regularly feel the need to try to howl down intelligent comments, without actually having anything at all to say on the actual subject matter.

Most feminists strike fear into the Neanderthal hearts of these charming people....

When my wife went to University the only professions available for educated woman were librarian, nursing or teaching. While she was at university a new profession opened up so she became an occupational therapist.

In my estimation she would have made a top-notch mathematician, but that was not a profession available for women at the time.

My mother was a school teacher who had to quit her job when she got married as the school district would not employ married women.

My granddaughters all have the opportunities to be anything they have the capability to become. That fact is the product of the struggle for equal rights for women has made great changes in the status of women. In many cases women still do not get equal pay for equal work so fairness dictates we must continue to work for equal rights for women in the world. Girls all over the world should have the same opportunities for education as boys. I don't see how anybody who is for a fairgo can be against feminism.

Foxy,

I don't disagree with anything in that article.

While I can't comment on your experience, my experience in my line of work is that women do very well to start and are on the same level of pay etc, and move quickly into management particularly 5 chemical engineers that I have worked with. However, as you move up the ladder the jobs become 50-60 hrs/wk with late nights and weekends and these engineers' careers have been derailed in their early 30s when they decided to have children, have taken 1 yr off and have come back to work looking for 2-3 days a week with no overtime work. Not one of these women are in the positions they left even though they could have if they wanted.

The reality of life is that you can't have it all.

Dear Suse,

Thanks for that.

I find my health improving if I simply don't respond
to these people and read any of their rants.
It is troll like behaviour devised to stir.
Nothing productive is every achieved by them.

I suppose that if people in general and women in particular are distancing themselves from the label of feminist as Foxy states then there can be one of two reasons:

1) they do not support the philosophical basis of feminism enough (or at all) to want to acknowledge that as part of their everyday interaction with other people and to incorporate that into their lifestyle.

2) the advocates and authoritative supporters of the philosophical basis of feminism have failed to convince people to begin to either see themselves as feminists or continue to see themselves as feminists.

There could be other reasons but I am not aware of them.

I find that when I ask the question “which females are you talking about” that I can engage in a much more meaningful and honest discussion about addressing the causes of a particular inequality or discrimination.

Foxy: I had always assumed that feminism was not about gender but about equality for all.

Obviously you were mistaken. The rest of us have known that foe 50 odd years. Feminism "was" about getting equal rights for the first couple of years then the movement was hijacked by the Lesbian Movement in the Universities in the late 60's.

The Women's Movement was swamped by very nasty, anti men Feminist & still is today. The women running Women's Shelters are predominantly Lesbians who do all they can to convert their clients. How do I know that. Personal experience & I've known quite a few.

The Courses in Marriage Counselling, etc. all paint men as evil women bashing, philandering bastards. Even if the man is a good man, "He is only being good to the woman to control her." Quoted to me by a Feminist Marriage Councillor.

If you dare question the Course Dictates you WILL be failed. How do I know? One of my friends did his theses on "Female Domestic Violence on Men," His Professor tore it up in front of him & told him that if he dared present it he would be failed & shut out of repeating the Course. You see, "Women are never violent, it's only men."

No Foxy, the Feminine Movement nowadays is the same as all the other Movements. It's all about playing the "Victim" to gain an advantage over their opposite number. Usually for Profit.

It's like moslem's or GLTB's saying they are being picked on because they're different, or refuse to fit in with the rest of Society. "Victimism for Profit." Sounds like a good title for a book.

"Victimism," New word, It's not in the Dictionary.

Hi WFT,

There is another reason maybe, but I am fearful of offending some people.

Bugger it, let's go: because so much of the feminist movement has been hijacked and side-tracked by the completely separate homosexual-rights movement. Discuss. There will be a test later.

Yes, there is some overlap, but each should be treated in its own right: women have many rights issues that have nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality, and vice versa.

As my dear little old grandmother used to say, if you can't say anything offensive about someone, don't say anything at all. That's my quota for today.

Cheers,

Joe

Hi Jayb,

Looking back on decades of obsession about Indigenous issues, I agree with you 100 % that 'victimism' is a dreadfully corrosive attitude for any group which is struggling for equality to attribute tobitself. At all costs, people have to avoid seeing themselves that way, even if they are subject to genuine oppression and inequality.

Anthony Dillon has a brilliant article in Quadrant this week which teases out the 'victim' trap amongst some Indigenous populations - in an era of special rights and benefits. In fact, I'm wondering if one leads to the other - an attitude that people are fully entitled to special benefits BUT they aren't getting enough of them, because of racist whites.

Why is victimism so insidious ? Because it takes away anybody's will to make any effort - it all seems so hard. So daily cultural practices are built up and reinforced that justify, even demand, doing nothing, of pulling down anybody who seems to be actually fighting against that trend by seizing opportunities which actually do exist. Indigenous people all know the story of the bucket-full of crabs without a need for a lid. 'Victims' enforce that story amongst themselves.

Joe

SOL: Feminists don't want to be the SAME as men (shudder!),

That's strange. So why do they, dress like Men, Get haircuts, like Men, have hairy legs, like Men, use filthy language, like Men, & on, & on, & on.

SOL: but merely to have the same rights, choices and opportunities. And I would hope all men would also want that for their beloved female relatives.....surely?

Most men I know already do that, but as I said to Foxy, "They're only being nice to their wives to control them."

It's not hard to see that you are on the side of the very nasty type Feminists in every respect.

I would say that 99% of men have respect for women. There are some A*hole men out there, of course, but there are just as many A*hole women as well. What, or who men don't have any respect for are the very nasty, rabid vocal Feminists. That, then is their problem, not men's.

The following link tells us that many men seem
to assume that in order to provide women more
rights you must take away rights from men.

That in order to pay women more you must take
away from men. That in order to help women - you
must hurt men.

You'll find many answers that reflect this logic.
That any attempt on equal rights is actually a
detriment, an attack on men and so on - down
the line. Everything becomes an equation where to
help women we must hurt men. In other words
feminism by these people is seen as an attack at
the very core identity of men.

There are of course these sort of extremists amongst
women as well.

http://www.quora.com/Why-is-it-that-men-so-often-feel-attacked-by-feminism

' The women running Women's Shelters are predominantly Lesbians who do all they can to convert their clients. '

Amusing. I didn't know women were so fluid. Though being Gender Fluid is the latest trend, and being a tranny has, with Kaitlin Jenner, become popular with the masses.

'I had always assumed that feminism was not about gender but about equality for all'

Well there are different kinds of Feminists. Gender feminists as jayb says have been around a long time.

'Gender studies' is the bastard child of the Identity Politics that has fractured any chance of developing true political unity.

A more accurate title for Gender Studies would be Feminist Studies. You can do a politics degree, a history degree or a sociology degree from a left wing or right wing perspective and still get a distinction. You can do a psychology degree from a psychodynamic perspective or a neuro-cognitive perspective and still get a distinction.

I would love to know if anyone, ever, has done a Gender Studies degree while taking a non-feminist or even anti-feminist stance and still passed, far less got a distinction.

If it is not possible to do that, the field is 'quasi-religious' dogma. I think we all know the answer.

How many students or staff in gender studies departments describe themselves as 'anti-feminist.'

But in general most people are happy enough with the concept of equality (of opportunity) and for people having options in how strictly they conform to traditional gender roles.

It's just that when people who dare to conform to or just happen to want to live their lives more in line with traditional gender roles they don't like to be used as a statistic to 'prove' some sort of inequality or oppression.

It gets ridiculous for example when there is a movement to 'Get women into ... computers, mining, etc', and when no women are interested, and it's considered some terrible tragedy or grand conspiracy. To be solved with affirmative action of course.

Hello Foxy,
I have always defined feminist exactly the same way as you did yesterday ie : “feminism(as given in
dictionaries) was the belief that men and women should have equal rights and opportunities”.

I do not believe that the substantial economic improvement that I and all my female relatives have made throughout our working lives has been at someone's expense.

I do not think that you will get much traction with the “zero-sum-game” economic argument. I dare say those that do adhere to the “zero-sum-game” concept would not show too much reason in most discussions. “Many men” - my experience would suggest very few.

The very important word in your definition of feminism is opportunity. The society that I want to live in strives for equal rights and opportunities. Rights can be legislated and opportunities can be provided and reviewed but a society cannot provide equality of outcomes.

This is where I think most of the discussion is centered around. If two different people freely choose two different life paths they cannot expect equality of outcomes. They will have two sets of outcomes which they should be content with as they freely chosen them. If at some time (and I am sure most of us have done this) we find our outcomes do not meet our expectations we either change our expectations or choose different opportunities.

Dear WTF?,

The following link may be of interest:

http://thoughtcatalog.com/viva-bianca/2014/10/what-the-hell-does-feminism-mean-today-anyway/

I am a mother of 7 children and 4 are women, two choose to work, both in upper management in medical related professions. Two are full time parents; one with almost 8 children, combines parenting and caring for her lawyer husband, with volunteering at both the primary and secondary school. My other stay at home daughter has a law degree; she has chosen to have her family, currently 4 kids, and help her husband who has a trade profession, and she is an excellent household manager. She also holds positions on the local soccer club, and at the preschool, and has a part time job that she can do from home. She plans to go into the at large labour force, when the family is set up so that her husband can work from home. My three boys also have excellent professional jobs! They each pull in more than our combined income ever was, as do my two girls in full time work.

Both my husband and I have been fully employed professionals, until in recent years, when we are able to balance work, leisure and volunteering. Fortunately we all have very good health. I was not always a full time worker; while the children were growing up, I also did the thrifty home-making, but kept my hand in working during the school holidays when dad became 'mum'. I am a feminist; All my girls are feminists, and the males in the family are feminists, but we are all masculinists as well.
Good fortune came our way, and we have always tried to treat every person as unique individuals with unique talents.

The trouble with our 'feminist' society, is the narrow definition of feminine, and the lack of support for individuals!

I agree with Foxy's definition of Feminism & support equal pay for equal work. I have always supported the notion that once you start work & are proficient in your chosen field you should be paid the Adult Rate regardless of your age or sex. But, is it a level playing field?

Growing up in Nth Qld I was payed Adult rates when I came to Brisbane at 17. I received a big awakening. Going from $14 a week plus overtime which took my weekly pay to around $35 a week, to $6 was a big shock. (See the Pound sign instead of $)

Workplace Health & Safety has a lot to say on what Men & Women can & can't do. If I remember right Men can only free lift 25 Kg. & Women 18 Kg. This is only one example there are far too many to mention here. If equality is brought in across the board will this affect all those things such in the WH&S Rule Book. There is a lot to consider. Child Care Rules, Maternity Leave, Time of the Month Leave. Men??

The Army has done much to create an equal opportunity workplace but at the expense of lowering standards. The fitness test has been lowered to meet female standards for one.

This begs the question. "Will gaining Equality lower the expected Standard of the work expected to be done.

In an Office situation all the Clerks, Male & Female, sit on their Bums & tick & Flick all day, very stressful I'm led to believe. I believe theirs is a case for equal Pay.

Cont

Cont.

Apart from this there are fields that men & women are more suited for & personal fields where both men & women feel more comfortable doing & having been done. I'm sure if I was a Care Nurse I wouldn't be sent to bathe a female patient in most cases. Should this be taken into account.

I can just picture SOL reaction when a big burly male rock up to give her a bath after she has been incapacitated. Yair right. Equal rights you know. ;-) Then there is the Sports locker rooms. Are the male TV Journalists & male Camera Crew going to be allowed in while the women are showering like the female Journalists are allowed in to the Male Locker Rooms nowadays? All Questions of equality.

Personally I'm in favour of equality as long as it is totally across the board. Not picked or chosen by the Rabid Feminist Class.

Dear bridgejenny,

Thank You for sharing your background with us.

There is much misinformation about what feminism
actually is. There are so many stereotypes and
myths that mislead people. As well as extremists
who don't really understand and put their own
twists onto things that no one wants to support.

The reality should be that no movements should
propogate tension and hatred between the sexes.

Still, as stated earlier - prejudice is a great
time saver. You can have opinions without
having to get the facts.

Of course feminism should not belittle those brave women that choose the hardest job of all....staying home fulltime with several children! The point that feminism makes is that women should have the choice to do this, or not, whereas back in the good old days women were expected to stay home with the kids, and not work at a paid job.

JayB and others trot out the other old myth about feminists, by suggesting that lesbians started calling the shots in the 1960's. Really?
Lesbians make up only a small percentage of the female population, and there are large numbers of women out there who believe in equal rights with men, so I can't see how these few lesbians can make much difference. Mind you, many men call any woman who isn't attractive or attracted to them, lesbians....even if they aren't.

Feminism doesn’t care who you sleep with. Feminism has nothing to do with sexuality other than wanting women to be free to choose who they have sex with and under what circumstances. Despite the fact that many lesbians are feminists, there are far more heterosexual feminists, so you should not confuse the two things.

Dear Suse,

I'd like to Thank You and everyone who contributed
constructively to this discussion.

I look forward to our next one.

This one for me has now run its course.

Cheers.

Feminism is the selfish self-entitled behaviour and demands of the educated middle class women who ARE feminism.

They are almost always in public employment, including in academia and NGOs where they were always advantaged by excellent employment conditions and entitlements.

They are well off and have remained so for the whole of their lives. They are advantaged by affirmative action and have been so since Whitlam at least. They are adept at managing the media, especially the taxpayer-funded ABC.

Now that many of them are reaching the end of their long taxpayer-funded careers, they are rather looking forward to a leg-up to similar sinecures on the Boards of private companies to match and exceed what they already enjoy in the public sphere.

These are the womyn of the leftist Emily's List doing what they always did, advantaging the mates of mates, the Grrls Club and playing favourites.

It is outrageous that these women who spend their time shopping for chic designer shoes and would probably take their second and third choices in the shop, 'just because', have the gall to market themselves as being concerned about women generally, let alone the women of those 'Struggle Streets'.

Since when (never!) did any of the leftist 'Progressives', the educated, middle class feminists who are so demanding in respect of their own selfish needs, ever express interest in any of the key issues that affect women? What about transport and town planning? What about aged care and mental health affecting elderly women? No, nothing heard, ever!

Feminism is only relevant to the exclusive already advantaged set, to maintain and extend their self-entitlement and advantage.

If only those 'Progressive' feminists were as demanding for public infant nursing and change facilities (or safe clean public toilets, or for covered clean places with seats and some cold water for mums/carers to use) and better, innovative public transport, as they are for Islamic prayer rooms, a big space to be used one person usually.

The super, dooper advantaged feminists like Labor's Senator Wong must be smirking at the number of useful idiots who carry them on their backs.

Penny will never be worried about waiting on a hot nature strip to catch a council bus. Maybe she could get the limo driver to go past some real women in one those 'Struggle Streets' that Labor doesn't have any time for. Penny could ask them what is wrong with them.

Hi OTB,

Well, there's 'radical', and there's 'progressive', in all social fields. I think of radicals as people who are very active in their own interests, and progressives as people who are also, perhaps even more so, active in the interests of groups other than their own.

For example, in Aborignal affairs, 'radicals' are those who are very active, strident, even violent, only in their own interests. 'Progressives', including non-Aboriginal people, are those who are dedicated to the best interests of Aboriginal people, AND those of other people, i.e. for justice and equality for all, wherever, and for whomever, it applies to.

It follows that some people can be radical but quite anti-progressive - concerned about nobody but themselves, on all sorts of confected issues of manufactured grievance, and to hell with anybody else. In fact, that's politics-as-usual, nothing extraordinary or worthy about it. So principle means nothing, winning is all that counts.

And that's about where politics is across the board at the moment.

Joe

SOL: JayB and others trot out the other old myth about feminists, by suggesting that lesbians started calling the shots in the 1960's.

You & your ilk like to push that it's a Myth but unfortunately it's not. It's well known that the Vocal Radical Gay Feminists took over in the 60's & pushed the Progressives out of positions of influence. There were many punch-ups on Campus over this. Something which is purposely forgotten.

Loudmouth is right about the Radicals & the Progressives Feminists. The biggest Punch-up was at the World Women's Conference in Rio in the early 70's & the one in Beijing in the 90's between the Radicals & the Progressives. The Chinese kicked them out of the Country before the Conference finished. Ha ha. Don't tell me it's not true. A friend of mine was at the Conference & came home with a black eye. My wife & I got the whole story from her first hand.

Well said OTB you are correct in every respect.

Loudmouth (Joe),

Would that it would be that the usage and meaning of 'progressive' was as it appears and is commonly understood by the public.

Marxists especially, but many activists too, are known to co-opt and bend the meaning of common words. It is a deliberate strategy of the liar and propagandist.

It works too, where honest men and women are not prepared to point at every use, to challenge and call it out for what it is, bogus.

Bob Hawke is quoted as attributing his win and 'success'(others might agree or disagree) of his government to Fabianism aka the 'Progressives' aka International Socialism.

- However no-one in Labor and particularly not Shorten is mentioning International Socialism or even socialism these days. They use the 'code' instead. How ridiculous and deceptive is that!

'Progressive' is a loaded term employed often by Labor leaders. By all of them from Whitlam on. Whitlam had converted to Fabianism while in office, but didn't imagine it was necessary to mention that to the electorate or explain what it entailed.

I don't go for this secret society, secret squirrel, deceitful stuff and nor does the Aussie public. If 'Progressivism' or International Socialism is what the electorate are actually voting for, or for (say) the 'networking' (read as a package of beliefs and favouritism for jobs) Emily's Listers, then the electorate has a right to know.

Why would Emily's Listers agree in writing to a bundle of beliefs and commitments to one another that would compromise their duty to the Labor Party, not to mention misleading the electorate and NOT inform the electorate and note their membership on Q&A and so on?

Did it matter that (say) Julia Gillard was an Emily's Lister feminist? If she was sworn to prioritise her EL mates exclusively and play favourites, yes!

Importantly who can understand what these interests are about? What about false ones? How does the electorate understand and make sense of them?

Lol!....hold onto yer hats, folks!

It's all a Marxist plot.....with "code"!

otb says so.

The braying Jack (or is it a pear-shaped Jenny?) reminds me of a word I was searching for to describe 'feminism' and 'progressive'. It is 'vacuous'.

Both are murky enough for the most scurrilous rogue to hide behind.

makes you weep when you see all the overpaid abc Emily's listers carry on as if they are victims. What a joke!

I OTB,

I was trying to differentiate 'radical' from 'progressive' in a way that I could make sense of. Oher people may use those words in any manner they like. I suppose, somewhere, there is or has been a Revolutionary People's Fascist Progressive Party, perhaps a Trot offshoot. 'Radicals' have included the entire spectrum from extreme Right to extreme Left. So words are useful only in perhaps idiosyncratic ways, as an aid to making sense of the world.

I didn't know that Whitlam became a Fabian - I always thought of the Labor Party as a Right-wing party, and of its leadership moving, perhaps coincidentally, more and more to the Right, from Evatt to Calwell to Whitlam, eventually to Hawke and Keating, and that there was never anything much progressive about it. Radical in terms of union leadership control maybe, and giving lip-service to other causes, but never really progressive. And coming pretty late to the cause of women. But that's just my perception.

I suspect that the Labor Party has moved away from representing workers - representing union officials, certainly, but not workers - and more towards embodying the professional classes, bureaucrats and 'intellectuals' as they are laughingly called in Australia, since perhaps the seventies. But again, that's just my perception.

And now Turnbull, having won over much of the blue-collar working class, is wooing those same professional classes, or at least their right wing, while the Greens woo their left wing. None of which is remotely progressive, in my view.

Christ, I HAVE become a curmudgeon :)

Interesting times !

Joe

I suppose to the Twitterati - and the 'fact-finding'(bollocks!) ABC is now using surveys of the opinions of Twits to offset any survey that doesn't accord with its Green-Left slant - a 'Progressive' aka Fabian is a fruit fly (sl) who believes that highly destructive bush fires are down to 'poisonous CO2' and 'global warming' and not to Greens preventing reduction of fuel loads.

Oh, and endless handouts from government (taxpayers) from a Big State.

Maybe to put some substance to the deliberately elusive 'Progressive'/Fabian that is about and is represented by the opportunistic, self-absorbed career politicians, Shorten, Gillard and overseas, Hillary, by way of examples,

http://tinyurl.com/zz4zkvx

While accepting that the 'Progressive' aka Fabian and the 'Feminist' (and the lines blur) can never be pinned down, because it doesn't suit them. However all those encountered in public life have a vice-like grip on the taxpayer's teat and are greedy, egocentric moral BS artists, in it for themselves.

Applause, otb,

One was surmising that you managed to restrain yourself quite fulsomely as this thread unwound...however, it all became a tad too difficult didn't it.

And you haven't disappointed us!

There goes your usual unintelligible tirade against all things left.

It's a sight to behold when your dam breaks. A tumbling, effusive diatribe against all things "feminist, leftist, Emily's List, progressive, Marxist, Fabian, International socialism, etc...".

Never mind that we've seen it all before, there's something quite spectacular about your particular style.

More please!

Hi OTB,

I should have added 'left' and 'Marxist' to the list of words which are defined very idiosyncratically. Frankly, I don't think there is much of a 'left' in Australia these days: anti-US, yes, and pulling on the populist cloak, 'anti-Big End of Town', but not a 'left'.

The last fifty years has seen a massive growth of the parasite classes, 'professionals', bureaucrats, 'intellectuals' (ho ho ho), yes, all those people unconnected to either capital (hsssssss! ) or actual work (those bogans and yobboes) which ultimately, through our taxation system, provide for their unearned sustenance. That's probably a bit unfair, since some - especially women in the professional classes - actually do work, and work of a socially valuable nature - teachers, nurses, telephone sanitisers, etc.

Neither do I think there is much of a 'Marxist' element in Australia - Gramscian, yes, parasites dedicated to tearing down all the institutions of society (marriage and gender are currently the focus focus).

But one problem with Gramscianism is that it is infinitely regressive - a Gramscian movement is just as subject to neo-Gramscian undermining with new forms of an incredibly radical nature (such as gender indistinction, futility of defining anything) as bourgeois institutions themselves - and in turn, that neo-Gramscian undermining can be undermined by yet another idiotic 'movement'.

So idiotic movements move further and further away from common-sense. If I'm right, all we have to do is wait for each new wave of idiocy to consume the earlier one, and just get on with our lives, while neo-neo-Gramscianism disappears up its own orifice.

So the equal rights for women movement of forty and fifty years ago is now swallowed up by the homosexual movement, which is turn is being nibbled away by the LGHTBETTFBNQ movement - which, one day, will be subsumed by yet another movement - perhaps one in which adherents refuse to be defined as even human - the nature of which one can only wonder at now.

So take heart, OTB: everything in its season.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth (Joe),

Thank you for taking the time to pen another most interesting post. I have also read with interest your comments on the subject in other threads. There is much there that I agree with, as you would realise.

Foxy, if you are really interested, obtain a copy of the Rantings of a Single Male and read it.

I doubt that you could read it cover to cover without suffering a stroke.

Looks like a good read. A link and some useful reviews,

http://tinyurl.com/hfnnnzm

Foxy,'

Quote:
"If you want to show that the media is biased against women, you have to prove that articles which appear to be even-handed are actually sexist. But for those of us who want to demonstrate media prejudice against men, life is much easier. We just open the papers and there it is. Nobody bothers to hide it because no one thinks that it matters."
- David Thomas, journalist and former editor of "Punch" magazine.
20 years ago, feminists started attacking the way in which women were portrayed in the media. They pointed out how women only rated a mention as the mother or wife of someone-or-other, mindless housewife, or as the page three girl. These days, a headline containing "woman" or "women" probably means that a woman has done something good, or something bad has happened to her, such as being a victim of crime or discrimination.

If the headline contains the word "man" or "men", expect a story about a man or men having done something bad such as committing a crime, or failing to do something good such as paying child support or doing the housework.
Unquote

http://www.certifiedmale.com.au/sum95/nonews.htm

Dear Wolly B.,

Thank You for all the information that you've
provided. And I shall try to get hold of the
book you've recommended. However I need to
tell you that:

I don't like feminism (or any other issues) being
hijacked by noisy activists who often have views
which tilt towards the extreme. These extremists
have views that most people do not want to sign
up to.

Being feminist has nothing to do with sexual
orientation or discrimination of the male gender.
Feminists come from all different backgrounds and
cultures to support equality and equity in general.

Today's feminists are women and men of all walks of
life who seek to combat racism, sexism, classism,
ageism, et cetera.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/geraldine-doogue/6312606

Foxy: Today's feminists are women and men of all walks of life who seek to combat racism, sexism, classism, ageism, et cetera.

Wow foxy, I believe you & I would like to think the same, but I think you are living in a different world to the rest of you Feminist mates. You must be one of the Progressive we hear about but get drowned out but the noisy Radicals. Keep up the good work. Truth will shine through one day.

Oh don't be such a crybaby WollyB!
I decided to test your theory about some sort of anti-male conspiracy in the media.

I went through the Sunday paper this morning and found the bulk of articles are about men, as usual, but mostly about their various fab sporting prowess, business success or not, and yes, about their crimes, and as victims of crimes by other men.
There were some good news stories about men, like there always is, including about rescue operations and firefighters.

I didn't see many stories about women at all, except in the society pages, dressed in revealing clothing, or as models in advertisements, and yes, as victims of crime.

Why would the media not report crimes? It has always been a fact of life that men perpetrate the bulk of of all crimes. That is just the truth. And what has any of it to do with feminism? You can't keep flogging that old horse for all the world's problems forever....

SOL: went through the Sunday paper this morning and found the bulk of articles are about men, as usual, but mostly about their various fab sporting prowess, business success or not, and yes, about their crimes, and as victims of crimes by other men.

Quote: "You see's what you want to see & you hear's what you want to hear. " Said the Rock Man to Oblio. From "The Point"

Susieonline,

I had been trying to find a letter from David Thomas author of Not Guilty in defence of the Modern Man.

Sadly I couldn't find it on line anymore.

So I came across that article so I thought it might add to the debate.

WollyB and JayB, the truth hurts.

However, you should always remember that behind all those negative stories about men you lament about in the media, are all those men's devastated female relatives and friends.

You seem to think that everything is always just about the men. Try looking at the bigger picture if you can. You may just find that women really aren't your enemies at all....

Suseonline, "You may just find that women really aren't your enemies at all...."

Very likely so and no-one is disputing that.

Feminists don't represent most or even many women, just the already privileged educated middle class leftists who are out for themselves.

SOL: You may just find that women really aren't your enemies at all..

Us men know that. It's only the 12.5%, the Radical Feminist that are the enemy & they are of no consequence really. What do they say. "An empty can makes the most noise."

Easy to spot the Radical Feminist. Boiler suits, Tit's hanging out, Spiky coloured Men's haircuts, dirty faces, hairy sore covered legs, Rubber thongs & Unwashed & smelly. Yep, know 'em anywhere, oft seen at Demonstrations for just about anything. Screaming like banshees & filthy mouths like fishwives. ;-)

However most Feminists are Ladies & work tirelessly behind the scenes. They are the ones that make a real difference & are respected by everyone.

Waiting.... waiting.....

Feminism? Who needs the nagging matronsplaining and demands to kowtow to disapproving, angry, old-fashioned, egocentric old tatars?

Why sign up to radfem baggage and a discredited belief system based on shonky 'research', that trashes one's loved ones, the men and boys of family, friendship, colleagues and community?

Is it any wonder young women especially are calling out the feminists and making their own choices?

http://womenagainstfeminism.com/

Dearest Foxy,

"Today's feminists are women and men of all walks of life who seek to combat racism, sexism, classism, ageism, et cetera."

Well, yes, of course. In spite of Suse's manufactured outrage, most of the blokes on this thread agree with you.

So where do we go, and where does feminism go, from here ? I would suggest that feminists keep pushing for equality of opportunity, equality of outcomes-for-equal-effort, for an equitable sharing of household duties, etc., and for a definite and conscious effort to keep a respectful distance between the feminist movement and the homosexual movement, with which it has very little in common.

Love always,

Joe

Because Foxy, 'Feminism' is a cause pushed by mental retards.

Feminism doesn't even make any sense.

Women want the right to dress and act like prostitutes, whilst at the same time say they shouldn't be seen as sex objects.

They are not a valid movement any more than a bunch of mentally challenged individuals.

Go burn your bras ladies and let your boobs get saggy till they touch your knees..
Why should I care...

Just don't try to insult my intelligence and tell me that women don't get the same wages as a man in any award rate job they do or that they have less corporate or political opportunities when they are all out spreading their legs to get a easy meal ticket and a baby bonus.

We already have Equality of Opportunity.
These morons are arguing for Equality of Outcome.

And for those women who complain of mens attention maybe they should be grateful for their blessings or maybe they would rather be reminded how ugly they look or how big their bums are getting..

I'd happily take a compliment over criticism..
Just my 2 cents...

Plenty of REAL WOMEN see Feminism for the truly pathetic cause it is.

Oh, and btw, I'm not against equality if you wrongly assume I am.

Lol! - Armchair makes otb's rants look like a class act.

What a smutty little mind he demonstrates.

Loudmouth "Well, yes, of course. In spite of Suse's manufactured outrage, most of the blokes on this thread agree with you. "

Lol Loudmouth! Any apparent rage you imagine you see from me pales into insignificance compared to the scared, angry bitter little boys on this forum who are frightened of some nasty, scary feminists.

I can't believe that one of the more reasonable blokes on this forum such as yourself still believes that somehow lesbians and feminists go together. No doubt some of the few lesbians around (a scary 4.6% of the Aussie population are gay) consider themselves feminists, but I doubt all the 'activists' we see calling for equal rights for women (or whatever) are all lesbians.

Just because some lesbians don't act or dress to be attractive to males of course, doesn't necessarily make them anti-male. I would suggest they all have loved male relatives and, like most women (feminist or otherwise) only dislike misogynistic, Neanderthal, chauvinistic males who actively choose to target women in nasty ways.
Nothing strange there...

Actually the whole bra burning fad was before I was born in the 60's.
So it was you guys generation not mine and the 'feminists' themselves that started that fad.

Don't say I've got a smutty little mind when a good deal of you are happy to defend teaching anal sex to grade 3 kids.

And no I'm not scared at all of the feminists.
I just think they are social retards with serious anger and emotional issues.

I'm not against equal opportunity, I'm for it.
But I won't buy into some crazy persons agenda and won't shy away from calling it the way I see it.

WollyB and JayB, the truth hurts.

Posted by Suseonline, Sunday, 13 March 2016 12:31:08 PM

So Susie have you read, Not Guilty in defence of the Modern Man. or David Ellis's book The Rantings of a Single Male?

What is the truth Susie??

Feminists remind of the Parable about the three blind men who went to see an elephant.

I think you are tilting at windmills Susie.

It may surprise, but I am all for the womens movement.

I don't like those that just lay there.

Oh dear Banjo, don't you know that some women 'who just lay there' do so out of extreme boredom...?

Very good Suse,
You know, I seek the perfect woman.
A man could ask no more.
Than she be young and fresh and over sexed.
And own a liquor store.

Max Miller: Vaudville comedian.UK

Suseonline, "..some women 'who just lay there' do so out of extreme boredom...?

Fembot indulging herself in femsplaining and men blaming.

Fortunately young women communicate and participate. Yay, makes for great sex! They have no need for feminist matrons telling them what and constantly giving them the bum's steer.

They are so unlike those 'lay back and its all men's fault' Boomer princesses.

But then again Suseonline, since you are forever going on about 'bum sex', anal sex, for women and you say from your previous Roman Catholic upbringing that rear entry (and resultant dribbling bottom syndrome) was de rigeur for RC women, doubtless the frozen 'starfish' is explained by the discomfort they suffered and their reasonable fear of harm and STIs.

Any wonder so many feminists are ex-Catholics. They are likely suffering from PTSD or Stockholm Syndrome. They need one-on-one counselling.

If feminists were at all interested in real, not fudged research, they may have learned that earlier. That it wasn't 'men' at all, just some of them and definitely their mothers for making them go to that RC church. Women WERE the strength, the backbone, of the RC Church and probably still are.

Feminism is as term focused on half the human race. Very noble. Is there a term for focus on all of it?

The movers and shakers of feminism - those who have the ears of editors and politicians alike - are white, educated, leftist and middle class. You can bracket an age group and occupational groupings (eg., government funded) too if required.

While the rhetoric is broader to have broader appeal, when it comes down to political demands, they represent the interests of their own already well-entitled demographic, exclusively.

They're NOT humanists NOR egalitarians, but quite the reverse where their behaviour is concerned.

Emperor Julian "Feminism is as term focused on half the human race. Very noble. Is there a term for focus on all of it?"

A term has already been out there for some time of course...MANkind.
Obviously this term was brought to us by only half of the population too.
Not much difference there then is there ?

No wonder the word feminism strikes terror into the hearts of...MANkind.
Scary stuff.

"Mankind" is a term I never use. It's skewed language, like "feminism".

It's interesting how, in discussing feminism, which really is about women being accommodated into the capitalist consumer paradigm, that some men here choose the tactic of reducing females to sexual baggage.

He's a charming selection:

"Women want the right to dress and act like prostitutes, whilst at the same time say they shouldn't be seen as sex objects."

"Go burn your bras ladies and let your boobs get saggy till they touch your knees.. "

"Just don't try to insult my intelligence and tell me that women don't get the same wages as a man in any award rate job they do or that they have less corporate or political opportunities when they are all out spreading their legs to get a easy meal ticket and a baby bonus"

"And for those women who complain of mens attention maybe they should be grateful for their blessings or maybe they would rather be reminded how ugly they look or how big their bums are getting."

"Fortunately young women communicate and participate. Yay, makes for great sex! They have no need for feminist matrons telling them what and constantly giving them the bum's steer."

"But then again Suseonline, since you are forever going on about 'bum sex', anal sex, for women and you say from your previous Roman Catholic upbringing that rear entry (and resultant dribbling bottom syndrome) was de rigeur for RC women, doubtless the frozen 'starfish' is explained by the discomfort they suffered and their reasonable fear of harm and STIs."

It's a tried and true tactic - which I like to call the "Caveman Strategy"

Seems quite fitting here : )

........

Suse,

MANkind - touché

Poirot,

It is telling that along with Suseonline you would be defending and promoting anal sex for women. Anal sex is Tres 'Progressive', no doubt.

That is despite the dangers and how ill-advised it is for young women of childbearing age or younger :( and the risks to their offspring. Obviously too, anyone who proposes anal sex is highly likely to be indulging in other high risk behaviour.

Of course too as a feminist you are ill-disposed and scolding towards young women who let the side down in the gender war as you foolishly see it, by communicating to their male partners what they want in sex and relationship. Damn, that IS bad news for the self-centered Boomer princesses, isn't it? -Who made their desires a riddle and their climax (no chance!) the responsibility of their male partners, did the unresponsive 'starfish' and later complained to their friends. They got their buzz out undermining their men and bellyaching, instead of being forthright and active.

You want young women to waste their lives as you have done, dumping on boys and men and using them as your whipping boys. They are your excuse for not achieving what you could have done with your life. Above all, you are not at all concerned about the health, wellbeing and happiness of young women.

The OP asked the wrong question, one that assumed that the greedy educated middle class leftists, the carping and demanding Boomer Princesses who ARE feminism might have some toehold to maintain their assumed victimhood and seats on the guvvy gravy train forever.

No, they are being sloughed off, but too slowly. The difficulty is dislodging their pear-shaped posteriors form the many jobs in academia, in the public bureaucracies (that also suck mightily from the taxpayer's teat) so that young people can finally have their day in the sun.

The real question is how to dislodge those vexatious, unproductive seat polishing feminist dinosaurs, whose only 'contribution' is in exercising their long-honed skills in the dark art of troublemaking and undermining, and constantly making everyone around them unhappy at work.

otb,

"It is telling that along with Suseonline you would be defending and promoting anal sex for women. Anal sex is Tres 'Progressive', no doubt."

What a smutty little "no-thought" reply.

Where have I defended anything of the sort?

Why is it you immature men can't stop referring to anal sex....it's becoming a crude obsession with you guys.

These threads always attract an oafish lewd outburst from the usual suspects.

Why don't you grow up, otb?

//Of course feminism should not belittle those brave women that choose the hardest job of all....staying home fulltime with several children!//

Really?

I think fire-fighters probably have the hardest job of all - when they're not fighting massive bushfires they get to have the joy of pulling dead bodies out of crashed cars. Small children can be difficult, but some mothers really need some perspective on what constitutes a hard job.

-10 points for Hufflepuff.

//It has always been a fact of life that men perpetrate the bulk of of all crimes. That is just the truth.//

It's always been a fact of life that women get paid less than men.

It's always been a fact of life that men have a higher suicide rate than women.

It's always been fact of life that women experience higher rates of domestic violence than men.

It's always been a fact of life that men have higher rates of workplace deaths than women.

Just because something has 'always been a fact of life' doesn't mean we shouldn't work to change it and better ourselves.

-10 points for Gryffindor.

//Go burn your bras ladies and let your boobs get saggy till they touch your knees..
Why should I care...

Just don't try to insult my intelligence and tell me that women don't get the same wages as a man in any award rate job they do or that they have less corporate or political opportunities when they are all out spreading their legs to get a easy meal ticket and a baby bonus.//

+10 points for Slytherin.

//It's a tried and true tactic - which I like to call the "Caveman Strategy"//

That's probably a bit unfair to real palaeolithic people: they were too busy trying to survive to worry about belittling women on the internet. Those tendencies probably didn't start to appear until at least the neolithic period.

//Poirot,

It is telling that along with Suseonline you would be defending and promoting anal sex for women.//

+50 points for Slytherin.

Gryffindor: -10
Hufflepuff: -10
Ravenclaw: 0
Slytherin: 60

Something that puzzles me is the combination of feminism with being soft on Islam. The oppression of women by Sharia is even more misanthropic than its oppression of men.

Toni Lavis, personally I think I would prefer to be out there fighting fires than be a stay at home mother of several children....but that is just me :)

Emperor Julian, where on earth did you get the notion that '...feminism is soft on Islam'?
Feminism has nothing to do with Islam or any other religion. Feminists hate violence or subjugation of women of any race, religion, colour or creed.

If what you mean is the worry about Sharia law, then of course there are aspects of those laws that should worry women in particular, just as there are problems with how all religions treat women.

As long as feminists the world over still push on to attain more equal rights for women in all aspects of life in all countries, I will continue to be proud to call myself a feminist.

I didn't express myself clearly. Try this.

What puzzles me is individuals who combine feminism with being soft on Islam. Islam oppresses women even more than it oppresses men.

In the light of Suse's post I might go on to add:

Suggesting that Islam is not uniquely different from other religions in its misanthropy is being soft on Islam. Google "Sharia".

It is always amusing to hear from the fembots who are the 'useful idiots' whose heads that the 'big swinging dicks' of Western Feminism stand on while constantly advantaging themselves personally and riding the gravy train, abusing the bucket of taxpayers' money.

The feminist career politicians (and the exasperated public knows them) who can find 'misogyny' in a happily married man with daughters he loves who happens to look at his watch, flit through the status positions they are afforded a leg-up to, only to retire young with a huge taxpayer-funded golden handshake for life. Then they are up for a second and third dip.

As has been said before and no-one has managed to dispel the obvious fact, Feminism is the selfish self-entitled behaviour and demands of the predominately white educated middle class women who ARE feminism.

They are almost always in public employment, including in academia and NGOs where they were always advantaged by excellent employment conditions and entitlements.

These are the womyn of the leftist Emily's List doing what they always did, advantaging the mates of mates, the Grrls Club and playing favourites. They are so arrogant that they don't usually bother to drape the 'affirmative action' (for THEM!) camouflage net over their mateship deals and their greed and excesses.

The question has already been posed but there was the usual silence in the face of the obvious truth,

"Since when (never!) did any of the leftist 'Progressives', the educated, middle class feminists who are so demanding in respect of their own selfish needs, ever express interest in any of the key issues that affect women? Examples being transport and town planning and aged care and mental health affecting elderly women.

What about those 'Struggle Streets' that the taxpayer-funded national broadcaster identified, then promptly dropped the subject itself after the issue rebounded on the leftists, Labor and Greens?

Feminism is only relevant to the exclusive already advantaged set, to maintain and extend their self-entitlement and advantage.

No way they would ever admit facts like this either,

"Male teachers face shocking prejudice"
http://tinyurl.com/j5eq3xa

Lol!...

All the ingredients of week-old otb stew.

fembots

useful idiots

womyn

Emily's List

Grrls Club

Leftist Progressives

Struggle Streets

...and for originality this time, he's thrown in " 'big swinging dicks" (although it's interesting that he feels the need to reference male genitalia to make his point:)

Excuse me if I don't click on yer tinyurl...I recall you linked to a dodgy site a while back.

More BS forum bait from the game playing Poirot. -Who would have already checked and found that it is a report in The Canberra Times.

Inconvenient truths that are routinely ducked by the educated, middle class leftist women who ARE feminism. They farm the 'useful idiots' who need to blame men for their own poor decisions, lack of ability and laziness, the real reasons they are failures and whining about it.

Key Issues affecting the Big Swinging Dicks of Oz Feminism in March 2016

Key Issue No1, helping out Barack Obama (gun crime in the US)
- Into US politics and giving the Yanks her advice, presenting the VERY well travelled and still travelling (but of course!) ex-Senator Natasha Stott Despoyer (who put her own career interests ahead of the Democrat Party she helped to destroy). Natasha 'Two Dads' is Australia's 'ambassador for women and girls'.

It would be an outlandish thought to the Big Swinging Dicks(sl) of Oz Big F Feminism, those educated middle class careerist feminists who have their own entitlements to think about,

but,

wouldn't it have been nice if the Key Issue No1 could have been some interest in the wee mite of a 10yr old aboriginal girl in the small bush community of Looma, Western Australia, who allegedly committed suicide? What about some support for the Coroner who, since no-one else has done it, is suggesting there should be a public inquiry into young indigenous suicide?

"More BS forum bait from the game playing Poirot. -Who would have already checked and found that it is a report in The Canberra Times."

Lol!...wrong otb.

I don't go anywhere near your tinyurls.

(especially in the wake of that dodgy link you posted that we were warned about)

If I can't identify the site on sight in a link (as is the case with tinyurls) then I don't bother with them.

I see you're ramping up your "big swinging dicks" epithet.

How old are you - 16?

Lol Poirot, in my experience, any bloke who has to make inappropriate sexual comments like 'big swinging dicks', are usually shortchanged in the .....intellectual department : )

Suse,

Indeed....

: )

Feminism is on a collision cause with radical Islam.
In a religion that forces women to be placed behind men because men may have sexual thoughts about the women they are praying with indicates that women will never be free.
Women are seen only as a sexual object can be seen as Muslim youths raped women though out Europe on New Years Eve and in Melbourne.
Western youth have always been taught to have respect for females.
Women can wear a bikini on a beach in western countries but in Cronulla Muslim men and women took it upon themselves to call these women every foul name possible and kick sand in their eyes and spit on them.
Our politically correct community has allowed radical male dominated Islam to grow in our prisons and general community.
The death throws of feminism have arrived.

Re Brock

This is why the contradiction between many vocal feminists and their neutrality towards and even defence of Islam is so extraordinary. The elephant in their lounge room is called "hypocrisy".

Hi Brock,

"Feminism is on a collision cause with radical Islam."

Yes, you would think so, wouldn't you ?

Maybe women need to be carefully taught again what feminism is and what equality is, those sorts of elementary matters, and have it all explained to them, all over again. Our task is never complete.

But unfortunately, many have accidentally undergone courses in anti-Marxism, a.k.a. post-modernism, at universities and in elementary TAFEE courses. The jump from workers' Revolution to poofters' and pedophiles' preoccupations instead - a Gramscian turn that even Gramsci would be appalled by - waving a pretty flag is certainly a lot easier than throwing oneself on the barricades. As long as one also stays a long way from Syria.

And this idiocy, that all cultures are equal, i.e. all cultural practices - seems to have totally disarmed the partially-educated. What - the culture of Brahms and Mahler and Schubert and Mozart is 'equal' to that of the Nazis, since they were both German ? The culture of Dr Martin Luther King and some southern hick is 'equal' by virtue of both being 'American' ? Marx would be disgusted at the laziness of thought involved in that infantile equation.

Is it timidity ? is it brainlessness ? In the past, women have been accused of having both at once. I hope those attitudes are inaccurate in 2016 - perhaps a faint hope. Still, what can you do ? You can lead a horse to water .....

Joe

Loudmouth asks of feminists who go to bat for Islam "Is it timidity ? is it brainlessness ?"

I don't think it's either. I think it's multiculturalist ideology, which ascribes a value to diversity as something to be sought and aspired to rather than merely being routinely accepted where relevant.
This ideology gives an uncritical leave pass to evils (such as oppression or bigotry or misogyny) if their origin seems exotic, and fosters openness to closedness.

Hi Jules,

No, I wasn't saying that feminists are going into bat for Islam, or Islamism, but that they were perhaps too timid - or brainless - to come to the support of their sisters oppressed by Islam, since after all, they've made it.

Clearly, Muslim women will have to fight their battles pretty much on their own, they won't get much support from the latte set or the cultural relativists or the Gramscians. We won't hear much from 'feminists' about FGM, or multiple marriages, or honor killings, or equal rights for Muslim women even in Australia (after all, we must above all respect people's culture no matter how oppressive it may be for women - I think that's the argument).

How did feminism become such a upper/middle-class, elitist preserve ? Perhaps as William Morris wrote: "I pondered all these things, and how men [and women] fight and lose the battle, and the thing that they fought for comes about in spite of their defeat, and when it comes turns out not to be what they meant, and other men [and women] have to fight for what they meant under another name."

Is that how it's going to work ?

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmoth),

Women will be truly equal to men the day
an incompetent woman is given a high
level job.
(Francoise Giroud).

Affirmative action has seen many incompetent women get a leg-up to senior managerial posts in the public sector in particular.

Then there is ex-PM of Oz, Ms Julia Galah'd (well named by Obama), who even voted herself pay higher than Barack Obama and the UK PM (all with ten times plus the population of Oz). What a self-serving disaster she was!

From the Liberal side of politics there is the example of Ms Sallyanne (Salaryanne) Atkinson, who presided as CEO of a major childminding business that went belly up, becoming a national scandal. There was no saving 'Salaryanne' was clueless about her fiduciary responsibilities, especially of the financial sort, but insisted that she was there because she was such a great communicator!

'Salaryanne' mirrors the failed 'Galah'd' who similarly is re-writing history, blaming others others and similarly still did very well for herself.

Competent, deserving women will, like their male counterparts get there through their own ability and demonstrated record of exemplary performance.

Affirmative action draws the (ahem) 'entrepreneurial' do-getters.

go-getters

Dearest Foxy,

Yes, I have to admit I've worked under some utterly incompetent Indigenous male 'leaders', but once or twice in association with incompetent Indigenous female 'leaders' as well. Come to think of it, I've never worked under a competent Indigenous leader, male OR female. But that's just one of the problems with probability.

I remember one Indigenous male boss who I disagreed with (on the phone) and who threatened to come out and punch the daylights out of me. End of that annual contract, of course: never, never disagree with an Indigenous boss. I recall another female boss in Indigenous student support who worked from home [how do you DO that ?]

To get BTT, perhaps the fork in the road, at which point feminists chose the wrong fork on the whole, was in the mid- to late eighties, perhaps earlier, when feminists mostly chose identity over equality politics, as outlined in a magnificent article by Joan Wallach Scott: i.e. they couldn't see that equality meant far more than 'sameness', if it ever meant that at all. Perhaps each generation has to re-learn all the dopey lessons of its predecessor - and sometimes they don't.

Joe