It’s the Return of the Battle of the Sexes

Septimus says:

07:00am | 03/06/11

Yes the slutwalk will be a useful contribution to society.  Walk down the street, feel all empowered, wave your sign, maybe get your head on television…ooo the excitement!

Change NOTHING and go back to daily life.

Very useful.

Women???

Tedd says:

07:26am | 03/06/11

Erick trolling with the first comment.

“Us and them” is so last century, Erick.

Kevin says:

07:55am | 03/06/11

@Eric “The sex war was declared by feminists about fifty years ago. It never ended.”
Lol, you remind me of those Japanese soldiers they’d discover on little Pacific islands in the 1960s who were unaware that WWII was over.
Time to put down the weapon and go home Eric.  Hostilities have ceased.

Mahhrat says:

07:55am | 03/06/11

The only problem I foresee with the Men’s Movement, Erick, is that we’ll keep getting sidetracked by the footy scores in the shop windows when we’re marching up Pitt Street.

Erick says:

08:07am | 03/06/11

@Tedd - “Erick trolling with the first comment.”

Meow.

““Us and them” is so last century, Erick.”

Why don’t you tell that to Kate Ellis down there, turning everything into a men vs women issue?

Anne71 says:

08:18am | 03/06/11

Erick, can you please tell me exactly what rights men have lost as a result of the feminist movement?

Septimus says:

08:28am | 03/06/11

You probably don’t get it Tedd (if you really are a male).

Women divide into ‘us and them’ constantly.  It’s never not equal.  It’s never not a battle.

No one EVER challenges women when they turn it into ‘us and them’.

That’s somehow acceptable.

Chris L says:

08:42am | 03/06/11

@Tedd, Erick didn’t invent the “us and them” mentality. Women did have a struggle to gain the right to be a wage slave and stand on train without some chauvinist offering them a seat, but that battle has been won.

Now that they’re equal it’s time for them to stop demanding special treatment. If they’re called a nasty name, or given a criticism, they can just man up like the rest of us are expected to.

Bev says:

08:48am | 03/06/11

Kevin says:07:55am | 03/06/11

Time to put down the weapon and go home Eric.  Hostilities have ceased.

Funny I haven’t seen the truce or peace treaty.  If anything feminists have stepped up hostilities over the last few years.

Lostie says:

09:00am | 03/06/11

Anne71:

Any rights that women have won in the “equal rights” movement have, necessarily, come at a cost to those who benefited from the old order.

Whether it be the right to vote halving the value of a man’s vote (by doubling the number of voters), reducing a mans right to maintain the standard of living to which he had become accustomed (something that the Family Law Act works hard to maintain for women post divorce)...

I am not saying that these changes are bad, just observing that when ever one person is given right, it necessarily reduces the existing rights of others.

Every change in favour of one gender takes away benefits that were previously enjoyed by the other.

Tedd says:

09:35am | 03/06/11

Erick - Woof!

Can’t disagree with that Erick. These punchers seem to have ignored my more agreeable comments.

By the way the meow-woof thing - my cat beats up all the neighbourhood dogs, so don’t think I was trying to assert dominance with the woof. Moo. baa. quack. How is Tone today?

Septimus says:

09:54am | 03/06/11

@Tedd

Oh you are a cat owner!  That explains it.  Say no more.

Erick says:

09:56am | 03/06/11

Lostie attempts to trivialise men’s issues by framing them as mere losses of unearned privilege. This of course is quite incorrect.

Men’s issues include being discriminated against in law, losing the presumption of innocence in gender related crimes, losing the right to see their own children, losing the right to an equal education, losing the right to equal employment through quotas, losing the right to equal pay through feminist campaigns to pay women more, and a whole raft of real problems.

Just one example of discrimination against men is the huge fuss made over a “meow”, when all the serious issues faced by men are ignored. Men are clearly second-class citizens at best.

Here’s another take on men’s issues.

AliceC says:

10:08am | 03/06/11

@Lostie

“Whether it be the right to vote halving the value of a man’s vote (by doubling the number of voters), reducing a mans right to maintain the standard of living to which he had become accustomed (something that the Family Law Act works hard to maintain for women post divorce)...”

You must be kidding. Doubling the number of voters does not reduce the value of anyone’s vote, each vote counts as one vote. And are you saying that in the instances where a woman has stayed at home to raise children (sometimes at the request of the husband), do not deserve to have those efforts recognised in the event of divorce? Should they just be thrown into the street without a single cent?

Tchom says:

10:13am | 03/06/11

Hahaha I have this terrific picture of Erick in my head, a drifter after the great Sexes War, being chased into the woods by women and then FIGHTING BACK! They drew first blood!

Shane From Melbourne says:

10:21am | 03/06/11

On the face of it, I tend to agree with Eric. Maternity Leave, Middle Class Family Welfare, Family Law, affirmative action, government health priorities- all heavily biased in favor of the female. Can’t ignore the empirical evidence.

Warren says:

10:23am | 03/06/11

@Lostie. What was lost was male dominance. Dominance over one group over another cannot be considered a “right”.

Septimus says:

10:31am | 03/06/11

AliceC,

She does not deserve a single cent.  The kids do, but not the wife.

Lostie says:

10:39am | 03/06/11

@AliceC:

(1) Did you read my whole response?

(2) Did you read my whole response, including the bit where I said “I am not saying that these changes are bad”?

(3) Doubling the voters does deplete the value of a persons vote - it has an inflationary effect, something that could be done with 1 million voters now takes 2 million voters without increasing the number of votes that any individual has. In a brush stroke the values of a man’s opinion in politics, his capacity to effect political change, was halved. He has less power as his vote is only 1 in 2,000,000 of the power needed to achieve an outcome as opposed to the 1 in1,000,000 relationship he had previously enjoyed.

We can demonstrate this - You have one of something and a million are needed to get a result. If someone suddenly hands out 2 million more of the things that you have (to new people) and says you now need 2 million of these things to get your result. The value of the things you have is depleted. IIt now takes twice as many of the things that you now have to get what you had yesterday. You have gone backwards.

As for “recognising” contributions - I was actually referring to a long standing tradition of keeping members of a couple in the standard of living to which they have become accustomed on the dissolution of the relationship (in the absence of children). While it has decreased in practice, it is still an option legally (see sections 72 and 75 of the Family Law Act). Surely on the cessation of a marriage, it is unreasonable that one party should be providing for the other in any capacity except to the extend that they are looking after their own progeny? A share of the joint property, understandable, but ongoing payments to ensure that they maintain the standard of living, when the cost of maintaining two households is far greater than maintaining one.

(4) Again, I did not say these things were bad thing, just that the change means that one group have lost something that they did have - if they were not losing something that they had what exactly is it that the law was changing?

Lostie says:

10:50am | 03/06/11

Warren:

In the 1950’s and earlier did a man have the right to beat his wife with a stick of a thickness no greater than his thumb without legal consequence?

If you answer in the affirmative you have demonstrated that a person can have a right to dominance over another. It was considered as such at the time, even so it is abhorrent to those of us living in the 21st century. Rights are context sensitive and we should recognise that to avoid making statements that are demonstrably false.

Whether you think it was just or not, the point is that a person can have a right to dominance over another - another example is imprisonment and the parent/child relationship.

Perhaps the issue is that we insist on promoting sense of entitlement, of rights, rather imposing under threat of law, a series of duties on each and every individual. Punishing those who fail to live up to their duties rather than for infringing the rights of other individuals.

Lostie says:

10:53am | 03/06/11

@Erick:

Please provide one example “at law” that the presumption of innocence has been waived in gender related crimes.

Actually, outside of terrorism offences, please provide an example of an offence where the presumption of innocence has been legally waived AT ALL.

Septimus says:

10:56am | 03/06/11

@AliceC

To clarify my last comment…property should be divided equally, but the wife is responsible for her own income once there is divorce.

fox says:

10:58am | 03/06/11

Erick is right. while countless numbers of men commit suicide because there aren’t 24/7 hotlines, shelters, government departments waiting on them hand and foot and they have nobody to turn to.. the media reports on a politician saying ‘miao’ to another because she won’t let him speak.

The war is against men, and they have nowhere to turn. To make it seem otherwise the media pick out one instance of ‘sexism’ (if you can call it that) and make it more important than the lives of countless men who have been screwed over by the feminist system. What a woman says is the truth until proved otherwise. What a man says in his defence is completely and utterly irrelevant.

Jack says:

11:05am | 03/06/11

Lostie: if you answer in the affirmative, you are a retard who is just repeating an old wives tale. That ‘law’ or ‘rule’ never existed, nor was it the basis for the term ‘rule of thumb’.

So, uh, that’s kinda awkward for your argument.

progressivesunite says:

11:07am | 03/06/11

@ Erick (who else??) :
1. “losing the presumption of innocence in gender related crimes” - no such legislation exists…but women have plenty of experience being blamed for being the victims of gender related crime (“she was asking for it” gets tossed around at rape victimes, domestic violence victims…)
2. “losing the right to see their own children” - you can’t make such a blanket statement. Some men get done over in the Family Court, other men get what they deserve after mistreating and abusing their wife and children and these wives and children finally get the protection from violence and fear that they need (a few fathers recently have murdered their children on access visits - I know that doesn’t fit your political agenda though)
3. “losing the right to an equal education” - I think you’ll find education used to favour men overwhelmingly (even banning women from studying law, medicine etc) and now there is equal access
4. “losing the right to equal employment through quotas” - which industry please??
5. “losing the right to equal pay through feminist campaigns to pay women more” - I think you’ve misunderstood - feminist campaigns aim at getting women equal remuneration…there never has been a ‘right to equal pay’ because men have been paid more than women because they’re men

“men’s rights groups” sound like little boys enraged that they’ve had to share some of their toys with icky girls

Markus says:

11:09am | 03/06/11

Lostie, the ‘Rule of Thumb’ is a myth.
Look into it, and stop taking feminist lore as fact.

KH says:

11:51am | 03/06/11

‘The war is against men’ - what a bunch of sad little people you are.  Imagine a scale - all the weight is one side, none on the other - the only way to make the sides equal is to take some of the weight off the side that has it all, and put it on the one that has nothing. 
Equality means those with everything had to lose some of it, and those with nothing did all the gaining.  The end result is that some men are bitter and pissed off about losing their control and dominance over women, and the privileges they thought they deserved.  You don’t have less than anyone - you just don’t have it all any more.  The ‘mens movement’ just sounds like a bunch of sulky children who don’t like sharing.

St. Michael says:

11:55am | 03/06/11

@ Erick: my take on it is that we’re actually pretty close to a post-feminist era.  I think that era will be ushered when Julia Gillard is voted out: at that point the idea that a woman is automatically better in a job simply because she’s liberated and educated is smashed.  That sounds sexist, I guess, but it’s merely an observation that a decent contingent of people would have voted for Gillard *because* she was a woman and therefore out of some internalised notion that we have to have affirmative gender action in jobs.  From that point on (if God is good) the election of a woman to the top political job will rest solely on whether she’s any good at what she does, not whether she’s a woman.  Hopefully that example will percolate through to the rest of Australian society, since it’s the most recognisable position in the country.

I also think we’re close to the post-feminist era because feminism itself is getting shrill and screaming louder as its influence wanes.  That’s the same phenomenon as with the union movement: the ACTU seems to be shrieking ever louder even as its collective membership declines past the 20% mark.  We are in a post-unionist era now.  (As a tangent, the unions know it, too.  I would venture if they’re hoping for anything, it’s another Depression, since if the last one is anything to go by, union membership skyrocketed.)

Feminism and unionism probably don’t have a lot in common superficially, but they’re both leftist causes, and when leftist causes run out of steam or proponents, similar things seem to happen: they get desperate, they shout louder, and they press all their influence to push through ever more draconian measures in law, which actually just accelerates their decline since they’re seen as elitist and powerbrokers, not representative of the community.

loulou says:

12:01pm | 03/06/11

Erick is right

Tim says:

12:10pm | 03/06/11

KH,
and the feminist movement sound like a fat kid at an all you can eat buffet.
Too much is never enough.

Lostie says:

12:16pm | 03/06/11

My reference to thumb was perhaps inadvisable. I appreciate that the term was derived actually from measurement rather than the use of force.

However,  “The husband also, by the old law, might give his wife moderate correction . . . in the same moderation that a man is allowed to correct his apprentices or children”.

Further,  Police refused to get involved in such matters in respect of both the sanctity of the home and the rights of a man with respect to his wife - unless it was suspected that the wife may suffer serious harm. The point remains that a man had a protected right to use physical force against his wife, if one rejects the “assault” charge, the former right to force sexual contact is indisputable as marriage was deemed to grant consent. 

Similar rights allowed for the use of corporal punishment on children.

Changes to policy and practice have resulted in the setting aside of these rules and it wasn’t until 1982 that Law NSW specifically prohibited domestic violence (while it may technically have been criminalised in 1901, it was an ‘accepted’ behaviour for many years thereafter).

Bev says:

12:23pm | 03/06/11

progressivesunite says:11:07am | 03/06/11
(a few fathers recently have murdered their children on access visits - I know that doesn’t fit your political agenda though)

Mothers murder children at twice the rate of father and pretty much for the same reasons.
(Australian Institute of Criminology, ABS)

NOTE: another comment questioned those figures suggesting that only where a case went through the court was the murder included skewing the stats.  I clarified that with ABS and received an email response.  ALL child murders are included regardless of whether someone is convicted or not.

Mothers commit over 70% of physical abuse and neglect of children. Fathers come in a very poor second so who are children safer with?.

(I know that doesn’t fit your feminist agenda/propaganda. Tough the truth will out eventually)

Liam says:

12:25pm | 03/06/11

@progressivesunite,
in regards to your 1. there are just as many false accusations of rape that fly around than actual legitimate ones, while the false accusers never get any real punishment, while the falsely accused have their names tainted for a long while afterwards, regardless of the innocent verdict.

2. your taking a small percentage of domestic violence and trying to make a case out of it. The undeniable fact is that women always get treated better in family courts, I don’t see how anyone can dispute this.

3. Got nothing. I think its fairly fair wrt education

4. Defence for one, quotas on all ships and establishments for females. Females getting promoted based on the fact there weren’t enough females of the above rank, even though said females had less knowledge and experience. And the physical requirements of females is less than males yet they still demand equal pay…Even the special forces is under pressure to drop their standards and allow females to serve on the front line

5. It is actually illegal to pay someone differently based on ones gender. At the moment males and females get payed exactly the same for doing the same job, while women still think they are being done over based on the report on the ‘average’ wage of each sex.
I invite you to provide me with a reference to an industry in which males are getting paid more than females

Tedd says:

12:29pm | 03/06/11

Septimus 09:54am,

And a dog owner! The cat and dog get on fine.

Neil Innes says:

12:47pm | 03/06/11

SLUT WALK - I am all for women being slut’s if that is what they really want - it is the ultimate in CHOICE. If I want to be a serial adulterer and screw up my marriage and wreck my family, then that is my DIVINE right of choice. Destructive to me and my family and friends; YES - but my CHOICE, my body, my seed and I’ll squirt it as I please!!! See how I stupid I have become? So what does the slut walk achieve? I’m a slut, sexually empowered…....SO, THERE! This does not help the feminist cause at ALL!

Adam Diver says:

01:13pm | 03/06/11

Equality is great, modern women truely have it blessed compared to their ancestors. Question is, Was equality taken by women or given to them by men?

Giant protest with thousands of women in the west, for “blaming the victim” albeit not directly, whilst millions of women have no right to vote, no right to thier own body, and can be killed for the most trivial of crimes suggest a somewhat selfish disposition, a somewhat ungrateful appreciation of the rights Men gave up (remember they didn’t have to) and makes claims that Men are simply acting like spoilt brats, somewhat hypocritical.

Robert Smissen of country SA says:

01:22pm | 03/06/11

Tted, they, started it

jess says:

03:38pm | 03/06/11

Oh Erick,

If you are going to state that “the sex war was declared by feminists about fifty years ago” please back it up with reference to something other than Andrea Dworkins.

If you are going to claim that the men’s rights movement is the only form of men’s movement alive today, at least address why other forms of movements surrounding men today are not equally as valid as the men’s rights movement.

Claiming that feminism (and, in my experience, the MRM’s definition of feminism is grounded in anything that even remotely seems women-friendly) is the great enemy ignores that many other factors have influenced the sitation that some men find themselves in today.  Ignoring the multifaceted and highly-intertwinned relationship that influence men’s understanding of the world is to ignore huge swathes of knowledge that have already been discovered.

Source: five months following the discourse within the men’s rights movement.

Bev says:

03:50pm | 03/06/11

Lostie says:10:53am | 03/06/11

Please provide one example “at law” that the presumption of innocence has been waived in gender related crimes.

Nobody can.  However DV legislation though gender neutral on paper is vastly different in practice when you apply the protocols adopted by specialist DV courts.  Those courts treat men as guilty before you walk through the door. Its like cattle to the slaughter. In NSW feminists want specialist rape courts they also want the onus of proof reversed. A man must prove consent (virtually impossible).  In NZ feminists want to remove juries from rape trials. Havent quite succeded yet but feminist lawyers keep trying to substitute the unreasonable woman for the reasonable person.

Warren says:

03:54pm | 03/06/11

@Adam Diver. “remember they didn’t have to”. Yes they did have to, because too many men were not prepared to give up their privileges without a fight. And now they expect big a thank you for doing the right thing? That sounds like spoilt behaviour to me.

Geoff - Brisbane says:

05:41pm | 03/06/11

@ Lostie - Duke Lacross (stripper rape case) - 2007/2008 USA.

Even their university professors turned on them calling them rapists. Untill they discovered the strippers were liars.

womble says:

07:01pm | 03/06/11

Its worth noting that in Washington State in the US, has recently changed its laws regarding rape. The accused is now required prove consent was given. ie The assumption of “innocent until proven guilty” has been thrown out..

http://falserapesociety.blogspot.com/2010/12/burden-of-proving-consent-under-rape.html

In other places the “beyond a reasonable doubt” is under attack, by feminists who wish to replace it with a much lower standard of “the preponderance of the evidence”.

Adam Diver says:

08:20am | 04/06/11

@ Warren

“Yes they did have to, because too many men were not prepared to give up their privileges without a fight”

This doesn’t even make sense. Even though you have mis-understood my post, the dominant group does not lose privilege but gives it away. Its important to note, or do you think equality could of been reached without Men agreeing to the changes (remember don’t confuse yourself, we are talking about a whole here, and not the individuals within it)

Aaron says:

05:00pm | 04/06/11

@Progressivesunite… regarding your No 1. In those instances men have lost the right of presumption of innocence as the onus is now on the male to provide evidence that there was consent OR that the events didn’t happen. How do you prove that there was no sex OR that there was consent (short of filming, which is apparently a violation of the other’s rights, or having witnesses, which is also apparently a violation of the other’s rights? Seriously the system needs to be changed so that one side is not preferenced over the other.

VIPervert says:

12:48pm | 05/06/11

fair comment Erick, i see the trolls are out in force as usual, i recognise them by the fact they are the first to make the accusation. of course radical 2nd wave feminism was invented by closet communists for the specific purpose of creating fear, loathing & mistrust between men & women so that families/society could fall apart, more children could be neglected, abused. http://www.themonthly.com.au/node/2298 http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236# http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912#docid=-4733293919754933024

Aussie Born and Bred says:

07:52am | 06/06/11

Kevin said, ” Time to put down the weapon and go home Eric.  Hostilities have ceased.”

You’ve obviously not been watching any sort of competition, sporting or otherwise, that involves men and women.  While hostilities might have ceased (or never have started!) in men’s eyes, women STILL group together in an effort to beat the men.

Aaron says:

07:22pm | 06/06/11

Lostie says:10:53am | 03/06/11

Please provide one example “at law” that the presumption of innocence has been waived in gender related crimes.

Well, Child pornography, for one. If you’re so much as found with an image of it on your computer, you’re guilty. Doesn’t matter how it got there, you’re guilty, could be downloaded with program, could be placed there by someone else, doesn’t matter.

I believe in australia, the laws regarding rape are very one sided. Sexual Penetration without Consent is what rape is called legally in australia (As in, the legal name, not a legal version of the action), and it clearly defines the guilty party as “The one who does the pentrating.” Now, I’m all for rape laws, but the fact is that women have WAY too much power here.

About 3 years ago, one of my mates was accused of raping a girl he worked with. He can be found in this story: http://www.perthnow.com.au/opinion/victims-pay-law-anomaly/story-e6frg423-1111115748570

Explain to me how it is that this girl, who just wanted attention, can accuse a completely innocent man, get off with a “Don’t do it again,” leave the man with $35,000 of debt (member of his church helped him pay it off, thankfully), and he’s now got this to his name, every time he goes for a job, this comes up.

Don’t you dare say women don’t have power.

I think equality is a load of bull s***, I really do, why? Because women and men are NOT equal. We’re not, we’re different, and that’s ok. I’m glad I’m dating a woman and not a man (no offense to the gay community, but I like my women to be, well, women, not men), and I think that the legal system regarding the differences between men and women needs to be overhauled.

RJ says:

08:40am | 03/06/11

If I could re-tweet a THEPUNCH comment it would certainly be this one.

I wonder if Erick is also, ‘laughing all the way to the bank’

Luce says:

11:22am | 03/06/11

You must have been associating with the wrong women then, and if so, no wonder you’re gay!

Kika says:

11:49am | 03/06/11

Ahahaa. Please! Some gay men are the biggest bitches I’ve ever met! Including all the women. All the attitude of a woman + the added testosterone. A lethal combo!

Robert Smissen of country SA says:

05:34pm | 03/06/11

Gays don’t nag? ? ? ? Yeah, right! ! !

mike j says:

06:26pm | 03/06/11

And often is the day that I envy you, sir.

But seriously, most women are great.

Until you look up from their cleavage long enough to hear what they’re saying.

Fiona says:

08:17am | 04/06/11

Wtf is it with the theme that women love to take men’s money?how would a gay man know that, from personal experience??? It was a bitchy comment.

scotty says:

07:19am | 05/06/11

“Wtf is it with the theme that women love to take men’s money?how would a gay man know that, from personal experience??? “

Fiona he knows because EVERYONE knows.  Never heard “No such thing as an ugly rich bloke”?

Or if you think this is a myth I suggest you ask a divorced man to tell you about his divorce proceedings.

marley says:

10:03am | 05/06/11

@Scotty - yeah, there are some gold diggers out there, but to apply that yardstick to every woman is about as rational as arguing that all men buy their women just because a few rich old blokes do.

Madeleine Reeves says:

10:10am | 03/06/11

We actually have the opposite problem, Ian. Men have the privilege of having a go at both men and women and not be subject to sexist remarks. But women often have no such luck. There is a double standard, and it favours men.

Madeleine Reeves says:

10:11am | 03/06/11

We actually have the opposite problem, Ian. Men have the privilege of having a go at both men and women and not be subject to sexist remarks. But women often have no such luck. There is a double standard, and it favours men.

Septimus says:

10:34am | 03/06/11

Madeleine Reeves

You must have missed the feminist movement.

You must not reach the Punch very often either.  There are no articles promoting male issues.  Feminist nutbags are paid to espouse their hysterical dribble here.

Markus says:

10:47am | 03/06/11

“Men have the privilege of having a go at both men and women and not be subject to sexist remarks.”
Yep, if it doesn’t happen to you personally, then it must not exist, eh Madeleine?
The only possible ‘privilege’ that might exist would be that men are generally less likely to be phased by petty insults than women. I fail to see how this is anyones fault but the individual getting so offended by such trivial crap.
Perhaps growing the f**k up might help?

Ian says:

11:52am | 03/06/11

Madeleine, thanks for sharing your view.  Perhaps you are not familiar to the blatant sexism men experience daily?  We do, with every assumption or pigeonhole we are characterized with.  That being said, we are more complacent when it comes to demanding equality of health funding, or raising awareness of the myriad problems associated with manhood.  These things will change, as do the generations.  You’d be surprised how many young men are waxing, grooming, plucking and pampering themselves now.  There will be more and more too, as time goes on, who expect women to pay their shares, as equals, and expecting doors being opened for them too.  Personally, I am stoked my Sisters and Mother, even my Ex, are able to own property, work, study, make choices, walk where they please, swim, laugh and talk openly, etc.  I am also grateful for the sacrifices made by forebears, who have given their lives to provide this way of life.  To think of all of the freedoms which so many have died to protect, and entrench, for the women of Australia.  Do some women think that what they have now they always did?  Or should have always had?  Or that it is a given not a privilege hanging by a thread?  How about some gratitude for what the better men and women of yesterday have left behind for us, and move the cross-hairs onto Nations where true oppression still abounds overseas - where ‘Australian’ freedoms are scarce, rather than another round bashing today’s men.  Remember, men die daily to protect these expectations, a bit more respect from the gender as a whole wouldn’t kill you.

Erick says:

02:09pm | 03/06/11

@Madeleine Reeves - “Men have the privilege of having a go at both men and women and not be subject to sexist remarks.”

What utter garbage! If a man makes an allegedly sexist remark, like “meow”, he’s punished with a media frenzy and forced to apologise.

Yet if a woman makes a sexist remark, calling a man a “poodle”, she suffers no consequences at all.

It is women who have the privilege.

Bev says:

03:24pm | 03/06/11

Septimus says:10:34am | 03/06/11

You must not reach the Punch very often either.  There are no articles promoting male issues.  Feminist nutbags are paid to espouse their hysterical dribble here.

Not quite true there was one about cancer and this one. Cannot think of any others though

Bev says:

03:27pm | 03/06/11

Sorry Tory forgot your article yesterday

Septimus says:

04:19pm | 03/06/11

Bev,

How is this or yesterday’s article about promoting male issues?

Fiona says:

08:26am | 04/06/11

Septimus, why don’t your write male based article then, cause you seem to get very….“passionate” about men’s issues. Btw, I agree theirs more feminist articles ringed here. Ever thought that it increases the hits on the website??
Ian, your post was pretty good.however, I think we all bring personal perspective to the issue. Personally, I’ve been called every name under the sun, groped at nightclubs and had guys try to force themselves on me at parties, but I’ve moved on. I’m sure there’s guys out their that have been called sexist names etc. None of us is an island.

Jack says:

11:46am | 03/06/11

Did you just copypasta straight out of a Young Libs circular?

That sexist hypocrite!

Tiny Dancer says:

12:42pm | 03/06/11

‘Mincing poodle’ for a start; Abbott’s answer to a question which was about his daughters but was hysterically and dishonestly held up by the left as misogynistic .  The left can give it out like champions but posture like wounded martyrs when they get it back.  Grow up Jack.  They all do it.

TChong says:

08:44am | 03/06/11

so, ,septimus, you would act the same to some one you disagree with?
you would make an animal noise?
and, you would be proud of doing so?

Erick says:

08:51am | 03/06/11

True, Septimus. But at least Bushby showed some class by owning up.

Gillard just flat-out lied about what she said - and it was a stupid lie, because the evidence is there for all to see.

Why is a meow by an unheard-of politician a major story, while a blatant lie by a Prime Minister is a non-issue? The reason is the sexism of the media. They attack men and protect women.

Septimus says:

08:58am | 03/06/11

TChong,

Don’t tell me what I would or wouldn’t do.  You have NO idea.

If I did do it, what I would most love is you watching you sook about it.

Septimus says:

09:02am | 03/06/11

If you had any balanced view of the world, you would see that Penny Wong was the aggressor, she was the one who angrily demanded to finish, she’s the one with anger management issues.  I don’t give a shit about either party, clearly it was a committee inquiry, people talk to each other - Wong instigated the whole thing.  It was rightfully noted that she was behaving like an animal.

hillsman says:

09:31am | 03/06/11

hmm…..that attitude is proberly why your unemployed septimus…..

Kevin says:

09:54am | 03/06/11

@Septimus
“Penny Wong was the aggressor”.
Typical.  Ms Wong was speaking when some idiot interrupted her.  Her comments were entirely appropriate.
To troglodytes like Septimus, when a woman stands up for herself she is an “aggressor” but if a man does the same he is simply asserting his right to speak without interruption.
It’s people like Septimus who provide feminists with their ammunition.

Septimus says:

09:55am | 03/06/11

I make more money than you do hillsman.

Louise says:

10:05am | 03/06/11

Actually @Septimus, Penny Wong had been told by the opposition a few minutes earlier to let them finish, which she did - then she was interrupted and so asked for the same respect - and all she got was a meow!  I’m not sure how that could not be a sexist response.

TChong says:

10:11am | 03/06/11

You are defending the action septimus, so thats why i ask, do you do the same?
Would you like some one to make animal noises at you, or your loved ones?
Most normal people would have problems with such behavior, so I’m just wondereing if you do too?

Septimus says:

10:28am | 03/06/11

Louise,

The tape shows Wong angrily demanding to be let finish.  She never asked it was an angry (catty?) demand.

It’s an inquiry, it’s not like people never talk over the top of each other, it’s not like that doesn’t happen in parliament.

Please let me know where anything referred to her being a woman or that she was somehow treated differently to any other politician based on her gender.  They show each other disrespect continually and that doesn’t appear to be based on gender.

Septimus says:

10:37am | 03/06/11

TChong,

If I don’t value the person, I don’t value their opinion, so I wouldn’t care less who meowed at me or ‘my loved ones’.

Teaspoon of cement.

Luce says:

12:03pm | 03/06/11

Ah Septimus… are you actually Erick operating under a different moniker?

Septimus says:

01:21pm | 03/06/11

Kevin,

First of all I realise you are not a man.

Secondly, watch the tape and see the venom and anger from Wong at being interupted.

Thirdly, get a clue.

loulou says:

02:07pm | 03/06/11

Septimus wins

Kevin says:

04:12pm | 03/06/11

@Septimus “I realise you are not a man”.
What because I’m not a big cry baby who thinks life is so terrible because all the big bad “feminists” have taken over the world?
You need to harden up, princess.

Septimus says:

05:10pm | 03/06/11

I’m not crying Kevin.  You imagine that.  No self-respecting man talks like you do.  Get yourself together hun, grab your handbag and toddle off on your high heels to the pub and see if you can find a man to buy you a drink.

jf says:

04:28pm | 04/06/11

Kevin says:04:12pm | 03/06/11

Typical.  Septimus was making a point when some idiot interrupted him.  His comments were entirely appropriate.

To troglodytes like you, if a man acts emotionally (your opinion) he is “a princess”

It’s people like Kevin who provide feminists with their ammunition.

Fiona says:

09:18am | 03/06/11

Well you guys were silly enough to do it (the minority of you anyway). The only good thing that came out of SNAG thing was that some men got their hair cut more often and took more time to play with their kids.
Arts students aren’t only female and which type of arts student are you going on about? The bachelor of arts which usually has a major that leads to a different, more “practical” course, or the fine arts degree, which admittedly isn’t very useful.

Madeleine Reeves says:

09:54am | 03/06/11

I’m curious as to what you would define as a “real job”, Tubesteak?  Because people (women AND men) do complete arts degrees and go onto to have successful careers. Unless you can produce evidence that arts students are more likely to become jobless or something…? In additon, students are increasingly doing double degrees featuring arts (e.g. Arts/Commerce, Arts/Law) as employers highly value the thinking, language and communication skills you learn in Arts.

want fries with that? says:

10:51am | 03/06/11

75% of people with engineering degrees, 66% of science degrees and 81% of doctors are employed within their field of study as compared to 40% of those with Arts degrees.

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_399.asp

Michael says:

10:56am | 03/06/11

I have remained a “Caring Understanding Nineties Type

St. Michael says:

11:44am | 03/06/11

@ Madeleine Reeves:

“In additon, students are increasingly doing double degrees featuring arts (e.g. Arts/Commerce, Arts/Law) as employers highly value the thinking, language and communication skills you learn in Arts.”

It’s probably the Commerce and the Law portion of those degrees that employers value over the Arts portion.

Well, except for one job: politics.  Since Arts for the most part is about how well you can spin bullshit and parrot back to your lecturers what they want to hear, it wouldn’t surprise me in the least if an Arts degree was highly valued in the political game.

(And to forestall you: yes, I did Arts.)

Luce says:

11:50am | 03/06/11

One of the toilet paper dispensers in a bathroom at sydney uni had graffiti on it to the tune of: “For arts degree, pull here”

I chuckled!

Kika says:

11:58am | 03/06/11

Hey I was an arts student at one stage and I have a real job. It’s only bad for you to date them because the woman on your arm might have an opinion on things and a bigger brain capacity. Both very threatening things to chauvinistic males.

Madeleine Reeves says:

12:21pm | 03/06/11

@ want fries with that? While Arts are about 10% below average when it comes to being employed full time in a job “closely related to field of study, 1 year after graduation ” (52% vs. 41%) according to those statistics, it doesn’t give us any employment or salary statistics for those who go onto study post-graduate degrees after completing an arts degree.

Also “not a job “closely related to field of study” =/= jobless. Arts gives you knowledge and teaches you skills that are applicable in lots of areas in life, including outside of the workforce.

Gen Y is predicted to have an average of 5 careers and two degrees, most likely in unrelated disciplines before the age of 30, so “Percent employed full time in job closely related to field of study” is fairly meaningless less days. 

@ St. Michael “It’s probably the Commerce and the Law portion of those degrees that employers value over the Arts portion”

Well obviously, St Michael. I wasn’t meaning to imply otherwise. All I meant by that was that arts teaches practical skills.

Tubesteak says:

01:51pm | 03/06/11

Fiona
I’m aware that “men” do Arts degrees, but I’m not dating them. They’d be the same as the female ones anyway.

Madeleine
It’s been well documented that arts degrees have minimal employment prospects. Even Arts/Law grads are finding it difficult to get jobs now unless they want to work for the Redfern Legal Centre or Help the Lesbian Rainbow Whales Wildlife Fund or the Public Service. It doesn’t teach any practical skills and is just a waste of time.

Michael
That is funny!

Kika
Most arts students don’t have a brain and aren’t capable of critical thought or forming logical opinions. They’re only good at navel-gazing and regurgitating what someone has told them. They also use words they don’t understand or comprehend the meaning of like “chauvinist” or “misogynist”.

John H says:

02:09pm | 03/06/11

I did an Arts degree. Majored in Philosophy, primarily formal logic. Now work as a data analyst on a six figure salary. Use logic every day.

Couldn’t have done it without my BA!

hot tub political machine says:

02:39pm | 03/06/11

You majored in logic? The arguments on here must make you very angry sometimes.

iansand says:

02:40pm | 03/06/11

Arts and Science degrees teach you how to think.  Most other degrees teach you how to do stuff.

Note to our nuttier contributors:  This a complete generalisation, but has more than a kernel of truth to it. 

Further note to our nuttier contributors: I do not have an Arts or a Science degree.

Want fires with that? says:

04:46pm | 03/06/11

Maddie - you didn’t ask for the employment prospects of Gen Y students with a BA minor, who are daughters of gay mothers, have brown hair, false teeth and at least one protestic leg.

You just asked for a study that shows people with Arts degrees are more likely to be jobless.

Wiggle it anyway you want, Arts degrees are worthless.

Aaron says:

05:20pm | 04/06/11

Tubesteak, you must be thinking of an entirely different breed of Arts students, as a major part of the Arts involves the discussion of social rights issues. The Arts, especially Contemporary Arts, have major impacts on society as they control the media. Many Arts students will actually see the world differently to you. By the way it’s Arts students that write the speeches spouted by our Politicians and coach them on body language, how to project their voice, inspire etc.

scotty says:

07:25am | 05/06/11

“Unless you can produce evidence that arts students are more likely to become jobless or something…?”

Madeline

- I used to work in university administration, and I can tell you the most difficult job was selling an Arts degree as a career move.  Look at the stats for graduate employment based on degree and arts are always amongst the bottom 5 degrees regardless of major.

Rose says:

09:10am | 03/06/11

Couldnt agree more Dan. Sluts is a terrible word, as is Whores, but women seem to think by referring themselves as Sluts and Whores it somehow gives them power and takes the derogatory term away from men using it, when in fact it makes them look both hypocritical and trashy.

The majority of women do not support the Slut Walks, it’s generally just lesbian feminists who loathe men. I know, I work with one them, this week she told me I was doing a disservice to my “race” of women by not supporting such events.  I told you I was a part of the human race and that women were a gender not a “race” and she gave me a filthy look and walked off with her coffee.

Lostie says:

09:58am | 03/06/11

What is wrong with the word slut?

Is calling someone promiscuous bad? Is promiscuity bad? I would answer in the negative to both and, consequently, can’t see why being called a slut would be so bad.

If I were not promiscuous I may feel that it was unjustified, but then I could not help but wonder why they thought that. I would look to myself, is it something that I have said and done, is it the day I dress? If the answer is no, I must settle for the reality that either (a) they are deluded or this definition of promiscuous is far more conservative than their own and agree, from their prospective, I am a slut.

I have to decide whether I am going to change my behaviour to satisfy my sensibilities or be more concerned about how I feel about myself rather than the view of some conservative prude [again, a relative term].

Equally whore:

Being paid for sex. Is “wrong”? No. Then it comes to a question of fact, Do I have sex for money? No. Why do they think that - should I change my behaviour to ensure that they don’t think that or are they just deluded and their opinion can be disregarded….

While people go the lazy route of being offended they ignore the much more logical and reasonable route of asking “why” was I described as such and, in that context is it offensive. If so, why do they want to insult me, and why do I care what they think?

Madeleine Reeves says:

10:03am | 03/06/11

Oh of course, Rose - because you “know” one attendee of one of the Slut Walks—you know them all!

It’s interesting that you say that they’re generally “just lesbian feminists” as though that somehow invalidates their postion. To attend a protest like that it is not a requirement to “loath men”. It’s a requirement to loath the attitude of some men who think it’s ok to rape a woman if she dresses in a revealing outfit.

Madeleine Reeves says:

10:03am | 03/06/11

Oh of course, Rose - because you “know” one attendee of one of the Slut Walks—you know them all!

It’s interesting that you say that they’re generally “just lesbian feminists” as though that somehow invalidates their postion. To attend a protest like that it is not a requirement to “loath men”. It’s a requirement to loath the attitude of some men who think it’s ok to rape a woman if she dresses in a revealing outfit.

Michael says:

11:01am | 03/06/11

The word itself is just a sound represented by consonants and a vowel.

The intent with which it is delivered is the part with which one could take offence.

If you called a non english speaking person a slut they probably would smile and nod or look apologetic that they didn’t understand especially if you smiled while you said it. think about it

Michael says:

11:05am | 03/06/11

I like the way your mind works Lostie. Namaste.

Cate says:

11:22am | 03/06/11

I agree Dan. Slutwalk is a great cause with really crap packaging. The name ‘Slutwalk’ grabs media attention certainly, but actually denigrates the idea and muddies the cause. I’d suggest forgetting the word slut and focusing much more on the idea that clothing choice is not consent for rape, violence, bigotry, discrimination or whatever. By using the word ‘Slut’ , we’re focusing too much on the negative (and it IS negative - not only in terms of the meaning of the word itself but also in that it highlights the propensity for name-calling and mis-directed blaming) rather than trying to teach respect, acceptance and responsibility. Slutwalk needs a new name and its organisers need some messaging advice.

Switchy says:

11:35am | 03/06/11

Madeleine, if women walk around with their tits and arse hanging out looking like 2nd grade hookers, what are they after, if not sex?? Its an open invitation and we all know it.

And have you been to one of these Slut Walks? They are indeed mostly radical lesbians who dress like hookers then scream blue murder if a bloke whistles at them.

Madeleine Reeves says:

12:27pm | 03/06/11

Thanks Switchy for proving my point (and the point of the Slut Walks!)

Tigger says:

09:37am | 03/06/11

It stopped being about women = men a long time ago. It’s now about women greater than and/or equal to men as the case may suit them.

Septimus says:

09:47am | 03/06/11

Why?

Women do.

Markus says:

10:23am | 03/06/11

“I’m sure it was pretty obvious to most people that it was a protest against the attitude that women are asking to be raped if they where [sic] revealing clothing”
Given that such an attitude does not exist in any country outside the Middle East, and that according to the co-ordinators it was actually about ‘reclaiming’ the word slut for some reason, no, it was not obvious at all.

Tim says:

10:23am | 03/06/11

Actually It was pretty obvious that Slutwalk was not specifically about sexual assault. 
The amount of conflicting “goals” of the walk and the reasons that people gave for joining in made it pointless.

Madeleine Reeves says:

11:17am | 03/06/11

Markus & Tim - Slut Walk started when Canadian (not Middle-Eastern) policeman told a group women that they shouldn’t dress like “sluts” if they didn’t want to be raped. This explanation for Slut Walk was attached to every news item I saw/listened/read so I don’t know how you would have missed it! On the television news I saw plenty of placards from the walk with phrases such as “No Means No” - so I think the purpose of the walk was pretty clear.

marley says:

11:29am | 03/06/11

Markus - the Toronto slutwalk was specifically a protest against a local cop who basically said that women who dressed in revealing clothing were indeed putting themselves at risk of rape.  So, Canada not being next door to Iran or Lebanon so far as I know, I’d say that the attitude does in fact exist.outside the Middle East.

Tim says:

11:45am | 03/06/11

Madeleine,
yes I saw it.
I also saw a large proportion of people attending and blogs on the internet from people attending saying that they were attending for a variety of reasons nothing to do with sexual assault. Namely:
-I should be able to wear what I want and no one should judge me for it.
-I should be able to behave any way I want and no one should judge me for it.
-I want to be able to decide who ogles me.
- Men shouldn’t be able to think of me sexually if I don’t approve.
Men need to learn that women should be respected at all times.
here’s an example:
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/05/18/the-brocial-network-proves-just-why-we-need-sl-twalk/

If you think Slutwalk was completely about sexual assault, then you are blind as well as stupid.

St. Michael says:

12:14pm | 03/06/11

“FYI - Feminism is about women = men, not women > men.”

The practical experience says otherwise.

Vince says:

12:36pm | 03/06/11

“??? No one’s exactly sure? I’m sure it was pretty obvious to most people that it was a protest against the attitude that women are asking to be raped if they where revealing clothing. I think that’s pretty clearly a feminist issue.”

Ha ha, what larf.  You lot are so off the mark, it’s actually funny.  Here’s a clue: NOBODY is/was saying that what you dress in any way implies consent to sex or that you’re “asking for it”.  Got it?  And that cop in Canada didn’t say that either.  He said that what you wear might put you more AT RISK.  That’s an entirely different thing.  SO, inb short, you were protesting about nothing!!!  That’s why the whole slut-walk thing was a muddled joke - people started shaping in to whatever they wanted.  In the end, it was about reclaiming the word “slut”, and no-one really knows what the heck you mean by that.

Madeleine Reeves says:

01:17pm | 03/06/11

@Vince,

And WHY was that cop saying women AT MORE RISK of being raped when they wear revealing clothing? Because some men think that “implies consent to sex or that you’re “asking for it”.  That’s what the walk was about.

Madeleine Reeves says:

01:17pm | 03/06/11

@Vince,

And WHY was that cop saying women AT MORE RISK of being raped when they wear revealing clothing? Because some men think that “implies consent to sex or that you’re “asking for it”.  That’s what the walk was about.

Tim says:

02:04pm | 03/06/11

No Madeleine,
that’s just what you WANT it to mean.
Reducing the risk of being a victim of crime in no way lessens the responsibiliy of the perpetrator.
It simply means you are less likely to become a victim in the first place.
Geddit?

Vince says:

02:36pm | 03/06/11

“And WHY was that cop saying women AT MORE RISK of being raped when they wear revealing clothing? Because some men think that “implies consent to sex or that you’re “asking for it”.  That’s what the walk was about. “

So, you agree with the cop then?  That dressing as a slut might put you at more risk because some men (ie. rapists) might think it implies consent.  I honestly don’t get it.  I thought you were all up in arms about what the copee said and how so very wrong he was.  He was forced to apologise.  But now you’re saying he was right?!

Do you really even know what the slutwalk was about?  I don’t think so.

BK says:

06:57pm | 03/06/11

@ Vince

It is frustrating, isn’t it? Painstakingly having to explain a simple argument to people making a very determined effort to misinterpret it.

Aaron says:

06:07pm | 04/06/11

Okay let’s talk equality… If I as a male chose to dress and appear like a homeless, unemployed bum what would be your thoughts on seeing me? What if I dressed myself and appeared like a “sleaze”? A skinhead? A rocker? A lawyer? The saying “Clothes maketh the man” does not just apply to men it also applies to women. You dress and act like you’re a streetwalker then you will be treated with the same disrespect that they are treated with, simple as that.

Also if you’re not looking for attention why dress so that your T&A are showing (not to mention other areas when you drop your keys)? You want to feel sexy? Fine then accept the fact that men will think that you are and as a result will make moves on you.

I see so many women these days taking the whole MC Hammer line and running with it… you know which one I’m talking about. Oh and I have been on the receiving end (from women) of what you are talking about and trust me you women seem to think because a male (statistically speaking) has a higher sex-drive that it’s okay to grope them and force yourself on them, and I was wearing jeans and a shirt. So women are as bad as men, but I’m expecting the old “women suffered it for <Enter period of time here> so men shouldn’t complain” line.

Fiona says:

08:12pm | 04/06/11

@Tim, I dunno about you, but the article on the brachial network provided by your link was ok, some of the comments posted under the article proved the point. I personally am not interested in this walk and don’t Think everyone was wlking about sexual assault and clothes, but I’ve seen enough comments on here about whether the protestors are lesbians, fuglies, old etc torealise that most observers don’t mind slinging off qt the marchers regardless of their purpose for participating.

scotty says:

07:29am | 05/06/11

“FYI - Feminism is about women = men, not women > men”

Might wanna call Germaine and the rest of the gang and tell them that!

Direct says:

11:06am | 03/06/11

Denigration? Hardly! It’s an oversimplification which glosses over the fact that feminism pushes individual female advantage to the detriment of not only men, but children, communities, society, nations and the planet.

Tchom says:

11:15am | 03/06/11

I agree with you that this probably isn’t the most tactfully worded article ever written, but take out some of the patronising and reactionary language, there are some ideas in there.

The Slut-walk in Australia, seemed more like a pride rally than a protest. As you probably know, the original walk was in response to the ill-concieved comments of one dumb cop on the other side of the world. We also know that the majority of rapes aren’t perpetrated by strangers, but by family members and people the victim know (and more often than not, the victim is moderately dressed). I don’t believe there is a pervading attitude that people believe that what a girl wears affects their chances of rape. And the ones that do are so set in their ways, I don’t think a march is going to sway that perception much (why would you care what they think anyway?).

What I did find curious was the attitudes of the young women (and a few blokes) I know who attended the march in Brisbane. Most of them had never been to a protest in their life (except the zombie-walk). Yet they dressed up and hit the streets, despite never expressing any kind of indignation or even discussing the issue ever before.

As for reclaiming the word ‘slut’... really? Its a word to attack an individual, not a broad term that degrades an entire united group.

It seems to be a second-wave feminisism mentality in what I thought was a third-wave feminism world. There are still attitudes that need to be adjusted, but unfortunately rallies won’t do it. It needs to be ingrained in our culture and we just have to wait until the indivduals still clinging onto them die out

Vince says:

03:38pm | 03/06/11

@Tchom - the whole “slutwalk” thing was a non-issue dressed up (if you’ll pardon the pun) to be about something that it wasn’t.  Honestly, does anyone seriously think any reasonable Australian man in this day and age really thinks that by wearing revealing clothing women are “asking for it” or that they are implying consent?  Of course we don’t!!!  FFS.

What seems to have happened, as you rightly point out, is that a Policeman, asked to suggest things women could do to stay safe, opined that not dressing like a “slut” might make them safer, based on his experience as a Police Officer.  Does that mean he actually thinks slutty dress implies consent?  Has anyone asked him whether that is what he thinks?

I bet you he doesn’t.  I bet you this whole thing was nothing but a storm in a teacup.

Fiona says:

07:52pm | 04/06/11

Notice not a lot of posts? Hmmm….

St. Michael says:

11:45am | 03/06/11

Its tragedy can be chronicled in the slow, sad dwindling of Joe Satriani’s fanbase.

Kika says:

11:59am | 03/06/11

I’m a Gen Y woman. In the mid 90’s I was 12. I don’t remember marching in any protests!!! Lol.

marley says:

11:21am | 03/06/11

Quite right.  And, using your logic,  you should be absolutely fine with women refusing to automatically regard you or any other man as an equal.

Luce says:

12:09pm | 03/06/11

Whatever happened to judging people based on their inherent merit and ability instead of their gender? Is that such a radical idea these days?

Erick says:

01:59pm | 03/06/11

@Luce - “Whatever happened to judging people based on their inherent merit and ability instead of their gender?”

Feminism happened. Now everything is about gender.

Luce says:

02:56pm | 03/06/11

Mmm cause feminism was definitely the first incident in history…

Kika says:

11:55am | 03/06/11

Excellent point! LOL!!! Totally agree. Though careful subversion and undermining the validity of women’s rights western women are subliminally co-erced into towing the party line… The only difference between eastern and western women’s rights is that the women in the east wear their submission on the outside!!

Tim says:

12:08pm | 03/06/11

progressivesunite,
I find it amusing that you don’t realise how much you sound like Erick coming from the opposite end of the spectrum.
Very amusing indeed.

progressivesunite says:

02:46pm | 03/06/11

@ Tim - goodness, you’re too clever for me…

Someone has to call Erick and his ilk on the rubbish they’re spouting…

Geoff - Brisbane says:

05:49pm | 03/06/11

Its all well and good to be independent but with independence comes accepting personal responsibility.

Once things get a little too difficult women (Gen Y especially) go running looking for a man to deal with / blame for, the problem

womble says:

07:44pm | 03/06/11

There are plenty of “radical lesbian-feminist separatists” left, try looking through the blogosphere (eg “eve bit first”) or even within mainstream feminist sites like feministing.
What concerns me about them is the methods they intend to use to secure their goals. they openly advocate sex selective abortions (killing boys) and even infanticide (again killing boys) to achieve their man free utopia. While you might call them extremists, the interesting thing is that other feminists never attack them, and never oppose their ideas.

They are useful for one thing, they clearly demonstrate that at its core, feminism is an ideology of hate.

Rubber Monkey says:

12:42am | 04/06/11

@Progressivesunite
“Someone has to call Erick and his ilk on the rubbish they’re spouting…
You won’t do that by spouting rubbish of your own.

“As for “radical lesbian-feminist separatist” - I know men are terrified of such notions “
No, you don’t.  You clearly know nothing about men.  We’re not terrified of them, but we defend ourselves when they attack, which they do, often..

Here’s the biggest difference between the genders.  Men openly admit they don’t understand women.  Women think they understand men, but don’t.

progressivesunite says:

12:12pm | 03/06/11

yep - stupid feminism….women were really sold a cr#p deal with that one - reproductive rights, the right to not be financially dependent on a man, the right to say no to sex if you want to say no, the right not to be bashed by your husband, the right to work….bring back the subserviant woman! it’s how the little simpletons are happiest…

The reason ‘having it all’ is still a problem for women is MEN…they’re the problem because they haven’t changed enough - they will though.

Bev says:

01:07pm | 03/06/11

progressivesunite says:12:12pm | 03/06/11

Say what it really is reproductive rights = abortion rights

Women have always had pretty much all reproductive rights abortion gave them total rights.  Men have none. Not enough for some feminists though.

“So, how do we control men’s fertility? Mandatory
contraception beginning at puberty, with the rule
relaxed only for procreation under the right
circumstances (he can afford it and has a willing partner)
and for the right reasons (determined by a panel of
experts, and with the permission of his designated female partner).”
and
“...controlling men’s fertility would not be a
hard restriction to enforce. The fertility
authorities could use a combination of punishments
for men who failed to get the implants and for
doctors who removed them without proper authorization.
The men could be required to adopt one orphan per
infraction and rear her or him until adulthood.
The doctors, could lose their licenses or, in extreme
cases, go to prison.”

Martha Burk feminist pro-abortion advocate
Taken from:
November/December 1997 issue of Ms. Magazine.

The reason ‘having it all’ is still a problem for women is MEN…they’re the problem because they haven’t changed enough - they will though.

So the end product of feminism is reeducation camps for males.

Kassandra says:

01:39pm | 03/06/11

@ progressivesunite: I don’t know why you hate men, but I can promise you that while you think that way you won’t find the good ones (and there are millions of them) who could show you why the man-hating victim mentality version of feminism is so much crap. Men like that won’t touch you with a barge pole. Now me, I love men. Sure there are plenty of bad ones around but that’s true of any group including women. I can promise you won’t find the good ones because they are all avoiding women like you and looking for women like me

progressivesunite says:

02:40pm | 03/06/11

@ Kassandra - I don’t hate men, I just dislike the men who hate women and don’t think that women are their equal… Most men these days are not like this, but those that are shouldn’t get away with their neanderthal views…at least they’re a dying breed….that’s good

Enjoy all the nice ones though…I’ve got my hands full with nice women…

Chris L says:

06:47pm | 03/06/11

“I’ve got my hands full with nice women…”

So that’s where they’ve all gone! Greedy slutwalker!

Dee says:

03:50pm | 03/06/11

I dont know about that bikinis on top. I know a lot of women who like behinds

Ray says:

05:30pm | 03/06/11

bikinis on top. Your war figures are wrong. !02,00 deceasd men from the Great Wars cannot be simply doubled to appease women.

And you are a smart ass who disrespects men who sacrificed everything for you.

Some matters are scared not for flippant arseability.

hungry for a woman-made sammich says:

01:40pm | 03/06/11

Go back in the kitchen where you belong and make me a sammich.

Septimus says:

02:19pm | 03/06/11

From the quality of her posts, I am not sure she can handle a complex a task as a sandwhich.

womble says:

08:10pm | 03/06/11

Actually, you couldn’t be more wrong if you tried. (no offence intended)
As economic growth slows, and the money runs out, western governments are going to face some very difficult choices.
Back in the 19th century the purpose of government was very basic, national defence, roads, police and courts. But since women got the vote and the rise of feminism, the role of government has ballooned, social welfare, healthcare, education etc etc. and most of these new government functions primarily benefit and employ women.
So when the money runs out, which will the government shut down first… The Airforce, or Centrerlink?

Harquebus says:

03:37pm | 04/06/11

The tab womble is, we ain’t gonna feed seven billion.

marley says:

10:06am | 05/06/11

@womble - uhmm - women got the vote after WW1 in most places.  Government was involved in education, social welfare and to some extent health care, long before that.  But of course, if you’d rather government didn’t do anything about any of these things, by all means lets forget them.  I hope you’ve got the money to pay for unsubsidized drugs and your personal kidney dialysis machine if you ever need one.

womble says:

06:26pm | 05/06/11

I’m not saying that there was no government involvement in education or health prior to the 1920’s.But if you take five minutes to look at the numbers, since womens suffrage, the size of government has been continually increasing by a staggering amount. And as a rule government employs more women than men, and provides more services to women than men.
eg. 75% of healthcare funding is spent on women, and 85% of healthcare employees are women. Education employs about 90% women. The only government departments that employ more men than women are police and defence.
Essentially, since womens suffrage, the purpose of government has been to tax men, and provide jobs for women (by supplying services to women.)

It doesn’t matter what I want, every western government is massively in debt, running in deficit, and on the verge of economic collapse.
When the money runs out (about 2020) no one will be getting dialysis, there’ll be no centerlink, there’ll be no welfare mothers, there’ll be no cushy government jobs for women. But there will be homeless people, begging for food by the thousand.

marley says:

09:31am | 05/06/11

The whole point of slutwalk is to make that point that, whatever a woman may wear, it is not an invitation to be raped.  The cop whose comment started the ball rolling, implied that women were inviting sexual assault by dressing scantily.  The fashionistas are saying that women look better with a bit more clothing one.  These are two different things.