In Europe, a Ukrainian feminist movement protests against prostitution and for women’s rights by getting their tits out, donning long blonde wigs, putting flowers in their hair and getting in lots of trouble.

The modern equivalent of a hair shirt. Pic: AFP

Femen’s latest protest ended with the KGB arresting an Australian filmmaker, and three other women were reportedly forced to strip, doused in petrol, and abandoned in a forest.

While it has ended badly for the individuals, the movement itself has worldwide coverage of its uncovered members and its causes.

Whatever you think of the methods, a protest can be judged by the attention it garners, and breasts (and nudity in general) are definite winners.  Any marketing textbook should probably devote a chapter to the drawing power of nipples.

PETA (People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals) learned that lesson years ago. Nudity = media coverage. According to their website their Naked campaign has been hugely successful:

Not surprisingly, colorful and “controversial” demonstrations and campaigns like activists stripping to “go naked instead of wearing fur” consistently grab headlines.

See? Practically naked but decent enough for the 6 o'clock news. Pic: Tim Hunter

And they liken themselves to Lady Godiva – who, almost a thousand years ago, rode naked through Coventry on market day to protest against her own husband’s tax regime. It worked. Leofric, the Earl of Mercia, lifted the taxes and had a religious epiphany.

Practically the mother of the Tea Party

Just because it’s nearly Christmas, let’s visit some of the other naked protests the world has seen:

Down with chafing! Down with chafing! Pic: AFP

To conventional headwear we say no! Pic: AFP

Fighting for the right to bare arms. Pic: Supplied

Better pay for horror movie extras! Pic: Supplied

Occupy Andrew Symonds! Pic: Darren England

As The Punch exclusively revealed, the Occupy Everything movement is in a little trouble in Australia at the moment, and could use a PR boost. Maybe they could learn from these and other successful naked protests. Oh, wait, the police already tried to help them with that.

C'mon miss, it'll get all the cameras here… Pic: Sean Meaney

Most commented


Show oldest | newest first

    • Holly says:

      12:58pm | 21/12/11

      I usually love what you write Tory but making light of the situation of that girl at Occupy Melbourne is not on. She explicitly said that she did not feel comfortable and I would have thought you of all people would be standing up for her rights not to be sexually assaulted.

    • Erick says:

      01:14pm | 21/12/11

      @Holly - There is no “right to feel comfortable” when you’re breaking the law. And the silly girl wasn’t sexually assaulted. Why do feminists insist on making things up?

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      01:15pm | 21/12/11

      I was having a go at the police, not the woman…

    • John Smythe says:

      01:21pm | 21/12/11

      Absurd Holly. Absolutely absurd. She didn’t need to be naked under the tent. She did it specifically knowing they would remove the tent, and used it as a pathetic stunt.

      gd oxygen theives.

    • Winston says:

      01:25pm | 21/12/11

      If she didn’t feel comfortable why did she pre-plan turning up in JUST her underwear, wore a tent which she knew was banned and thus be confiscated and how on earth do you imagine she was sexually assaulted?  Women are their OWN worst enemy.

    • amy says:

      01:38pm | 21/12/11

      I dont know…why wasnt she wearing anything under the tent?..intentional? dont know…just saying

    • wearestardust says:

      02:28pm | 21/12/11

      Some fairly unpleasant responses to Holly’s comment.  Protestors had been banned from erecting tents.  In traditional Aussie piss-taking style, some of the protestors fashioned costumes out of tents.  Sure they were taking the piss.  But they hadn’t erected tents.  Then the police came along and forcibly removed the tent-costumes.  Noting this is under investigation, it looks like the police rather exceeded their powers.

      @Erick in particular: what law was she breaking?  Just the law of “I don’t like it because they’re ratbags”.  You right-wing conservatives are all about individual freedom, aren’t you?  I’d be careful on that score lest you give evidence in support of the leftie commie assertion that conservatives only like freedom for themselves but are happy for state power to be used forcibly and arbitrarily against those whom the conservatives don’t like.

    • Egg says:

      03:05pm | 21/12/11

      @Erick, so what would constitute sexual assault for you? Clearly if I approached you in the street and ripped off your clothes, that wouldn’t count. Would I have to handle your junk or what?

      And as someone else pointed out… what law was she breaking, hmm?

    • PleXD says:

      03:09pm | 21/12/11

      Wow do know what you are talking about?  She did erect a tent.
      So what your saying is if I drill a hole in the roof of my car and 2 holes in the floor I can take my car anywhere I want cause its not a car any more its a peice of clothing?

      Just wow…

      I am with John Smythe on this one GD oxygen theives.

    • Erick says:

      03:14pm | 21/12/11

      @wearestardust - Nothing arbitrary about it. Camping in the area was unlawful, and the protesters set up tents. Cutting holes in the tents and pretending they’re “clothing” is cute, but it doesn’t change the reality.

      The “occupy” people aren’t lawful protesters. Their goal is to occupy - that is, to forcefully take possession of land that isn’t theirs. They have no more right to seize public land for themselves than I do. You are trying to set a double standard by claiming that just because they have a left-wing motive for their actions, they somehow have more rights than everyone else.

      Finally, the woman involved attempted to invoke female privilege, with her false accusation of sexual assault. That brings genuine cases of sexual assault into disrepute.

    • Dave says:

      04:41pm | 21/12/11

      Uh, Erick, whether you like it or not, wearing a tent isnt illegal. Nor is it legal for anyone to remove anyone else’s clothes. It doesnt matter oif theyre wearing trousers or a dressed in a rubber balloon. Removing the clothes from someone without lawful authority is illegal. Its called assault. Removing something from someone’s body just becuase you happen not to like it or because you mistakenly think that its a tent being used to camp in is also illegal. Thats also called assault. It may not suit your little misogynistic brain but the government and its servants cannot simply do what they like without the authority of the law just because you like what they do. And that too is a fact. You should learn to live inside the law instead of assuming your prejudices ARE the law.

    • wearestardust says:

      04:48pm | 21/12/11

      @ Erick and PleXD

      They were walking around, wearing - note that, “wearing” - tents.  I’m not sure in what dictionary one “erects” something that is being worn.  Note that the police (or rather, the council worker ‘supported’ by nine - nine - police) did not remove the woman from the tent, they removed the tent from the woman.

      Yes, PleXD, if perchance you were strong enough to walk around wearing your car - or indeed carry it - instead of driving it, I would say that you would be subject to different rules than if you were driving it.

      “Seize” public land?  They were walking around or sitting in a public space. 

      Is it illegal to possess a tent in the area concerned?  Would it be permissable, for example, if you bought a tent from the nearby shops and were walking through the park carrying it, for council workers and police to surround you and strip you naked?  She may have been carrying the tent in an imaginitive way, but the tents weren’t “erected” in any meaningful sense.

      Note also that a council worker was the one who removed the tent, with a knife.  As far as I know, council workers don’t have powers to physically handle people. 

      Now, of course, perhaps the tent-wearers were being a public nuisance (just like, if one were strong enough to carry a car, one might reasonably be considered a nuisance if one were to attempt to walk through a shopping mall with it). But she wasn’t manhandled and stripped for being a nuisance; she was manhandled and stripped for wearing a tent under the fiction that wearing a tent is the same as erecting a tent.  I don’t think it is any defence to the police and council’s actions that had they sought an alternative basis for their action, then it might have been OK.

      As for the alleged sexual assault: technically what might be referred to is indecent assault under the Victorian Crimes Act 1958.  An indecent assault is an assault conducted in indecent circumstances.  I gather that in practice “indecent” in this sense tends to mean touching breasts or genitals without consent.  So I suppose, in a strict sense, perhaps she wasn’t indecently assaulted.  Got me there (not that I raised that particular issue). 

      I have to say, though, I still think plain assault is a bad thing, and I think it is a bad thing for police to strip people in public in the course of exceeding their powers and/or doing it unnecessarily (police do sometimes have to strip people but usually find somewhere private to do it) even if it were the case that, surprisingly, it does turn out to be illegal to carry a tent through public areas in Melbourne and it somehow turns out to be reasonable for it to be required to have nine police officers plus knife-weilding council workers to remove said tents.  But perhaps, Erick, you and I will just have to differ on that.

      As I also suppose we will have to disagree, Erick and PleXD, on whether it is OK for government bodies and police to just make up laws, manhandle people and strip them in public, as revenge for taking the piss.

    • John Smythe says:

      05:18pm | 21/12/11

      dunno if you saw the video or not weare, but they clearly were sitting in the tents, with their heads popped out the entrance, waiting for the police to come by. So for all intensive purposes they were NOT wearing tents. Not until the police came to ask them to remove the tents. It was then, that they popped their heads and legs through and started “wearing” the tent.

      It was a stupid stunt by stupid people, purposely antogonising the situation. Defense of this stupidity is embarrassing to say the least.

      And it should be thieves…as in Oxygen thieves that they, and the people who support the ridiculousness of these idiots.

    • Erick says:

      05:23pm | 21/12/11

      @wearestardust - I guess we’ll just have to disagree on this. But I do appreciate the fact that you use reasoned argument to make your points. Should be more of that.

    • I, Claudia says:

      05:36pm | 21/12/11

      @ Erick - I laughed when you bleated that you’d like to see more rational, logical debate on The Punch despite the fact that you’re usually the first person to spit vitriolic garbage within seconds of a new blog being posted, but now I’m starting to think that you’ve actually deluded yourself into believing it.

    • wearestardust says:

      06:27pm | 21/12/11

      Yes John Smythe I did see the video.  I carefully watched it, looked at various photos, and read a range of sources before forming a view.  Is sitting illegal now?

    • John Smythe says:

      09:03pm | 21/12/11

      I think you will find that there are laws against erecting tents in parks. This was all covered in one of the other article the punch brought in. Your persistence to try and remove the idiocy of this entire affair by the wannabe rebels, and trying to nitpick the law is as absurd as Holly’s original statement.

      I particularly like the way you tried to be smart about how you formed your own opinion. Pretty sad really. Childish behavior is just that. I feel sorry for the police involved.

    • wearestardust says:

      10:13pm | 21/12/11

      JS, have you actually read my comments?  I know there are laws against erecting tents in parks.  My argument is that walking around wearing a tent is not the same thing as erecting a tent.

      And last time I looked, being childish is no reason for one to be accosted by police and knife-weilding council workers and stripped naked in public.  And it is hardly nit-picking about the law to assert a difference between erecting a tent and bearing a tent, when the cost is being thusly accosted.

      I gather you don’t like the ‘occupiers’.  I actually haven’t said, so far, what my views are.  Frankly, I think the Melbourne occupation activity was somewhat unguided and silly.  But being unguided and silly forms no basis for having one’s rights and dignity stripped from one.  Either one believes in rights and freedom from the effects of arbitrary law, or one doesn’t.  In a similar vein it is at least intellectually lazy, and bordering on intellectual dishonesty, to give a free pass to bad arguments just because they are congenial to one’s own viewpoint.  And it is tremendously sad to think that standing up for the rights of another is to be accused of partiality to a cause.

      (*) despite the rhetoric I make no claim to personal perfection in these regards. I happily make an exception for Kyle Sandilands, for example.

    • Christopher says:

      05:47am | 22/12/11

      In the photo shown where they were beginning to remove the tent, she is smiling…....

      They “wore” tents purely because they knew erecting tents in the area would be problematic. So they were avoiding a technicality with full knowledge that is what they were doing.

      For those arguing it is clothing and wasn’t an “erected” tent, go look up definition for “erect” and look at the photo again, it looks like it is in an upright or vertical/horizontal position to me, therefore it is erected.

    • Pickles... The Drummer says:

      07:57am | 22/12/11

      So if I wore a suit of knives I wouldn’t be “carrying” a knife, because its part of my clothing? Can I do the same for bombs or guns too? Oh wait can the suicide bombers claim they were just wearing a bomb as a fashion accessory. “No Mr policeman, I had no intention of blowing it up, its just my clothes, don’t take it off me, that’s assault”.

      Your argument is stupid to say the least.

    • Winston says:

      08:52am | 22/12/11

      The semantics are cute wearestardust, but that’s all they are - semantics.

      I note naked is mentioned over and over when she was not.

      The semantics are continually used to your advantage.

    • John Smythe says:

      08:54am | 22/12/11

      weare, I ask you the same question. Have you read my comments, or any of the others who are NOT talking about the Occupy movement, but the actions of some idiots. You ARE nitpicking the fine lines of the law to try and excuse antagonistic behaviour.

      Your stubborness on that, and the fact you state you have no particular view on the movement, show you are simply trying to make an argument on behalf of stupid, antagonistic people. You make no acknowledgement of the fact these people did NOT need to be naked (/wearing just underwear) under the tent. You refuse to further acknowledge that this was done antagonistically as the police had been tasked with removing tents in the parks.

      For someone who proclaims to have seen the photos and videos, explain to us, why it was all a game and laughs as soon as the police came, and then, with force only necessary to restrain them would it be considered sexual assault? Or even assault. If an authority figure tells you to stop and stand still, it’s OK for you to try and run away? It’s OK to not stand up and accept responsibility for retarded actions?

      The whole defense is as retarded as the people conducting their little “go at the police”. The police aren’t even the target of the movement ffs.

      I believe there IS a law that they are infringing on, and it’s obstruction of duty. For the police to have to stop and deal with people on full retard, it’s an obstruction of their (normal) duty.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      09:17am | 22/12/11

      There appears to be a very fine line between Australia today and a police state and by what most of the commentators so far have said they appear to condone it. People occupied a public space - I say again a “public space.” When the elite were no longer amused they sent in their enforcers the police force to vacate the public space. There was of course another option - to supply extra portable public conveniences and refuse bins as they would have if say the Queen was visiting or a big rock concert was held in the or a similar public space.
      No the elite decided to “put an end to ...” and sent in the police.
      It becomes a police state when one section of society, the Bourgeoise does not or will not allow another section of society the Proletariat the right to express their views in protest or demonstration; when one section of society imposes its will on another using the police as enforcers.
      There can be no law to simply circumvent protest.
      I cannot emphasise more fervently the social manipulation in favour of the wealthy elite by succeeding government staring with the gold licence that lead to a forceful suppression by the army at Eureka in 1853, the army against the Shearers’ strike in 1899 the Coal miners strike in the 1943 even the surreptitious use of army personnel in the recent Water front dispute. Not also the massively restrictive strike prohibition laws with our corresponding laws on employers. Eg lay-off and lockouts, treating workers as “Factors of Production” not people.
      This all leads to the dehumanising and reduction by police of protestors as “targets” hence to the mistreatment of human being who are foremost entitled to the protection of police, not persecution by police.
      By all means treat harshly any criminal, but homeless men in Queen Street Mall, demonstrators in public spaces are not enemies of the state or public belligerents intent on causing crimes against the nation.
      Those of us who sit on our arses and pontificate about people who put their convictions onto public view are assaulted (and yes stripping the clothes of a girl in public or in private without her consent is sexual harassment more evil because it was done by police who are their to actually protect her rights) allow sand condone the encroachment of a police state.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      09:33am | 22/12/11

      Eric: We have to disagree ... Bullshit!
      Stardust was right and you were wrong!
      While people continue to “agree to disagree” there is no logical progress.
      That’s the attitude that maintains the range between science and religion.
      F#$*k! Your pontifical patronising bullshit has enraged me enough to mention you in person a thing I eschew to do.

    • neo says:

      10:22am | 22/12/11

      Clothes made out of tent material are not tents, you people really need to look at what you’re saying because it’s downright ridiculous. Just like someone wearing a fur coat is not wearing an animal, and should not be prevented from going into areas where animals are not permitted.

      The girl was sexually assaulted by members of the Police force and council workers, and the culprits should be prosecuted according to the full extent of the law which they broke. Punishment should be on the harsher end of the scale, as these people were in a position of power and should have known better, with those giving the orders receiving lengthy jail sentences.

    • Pickles... The Drummer says:

      10:36am | 22/12/11

      “Clothes made out of tent material are not tents, you people really need to look at what you’re saying because it’s downright ridiculous”

      So by that logic, clothes made out of explosives are not explosives? Suicide bombers rejoice! Just claim it is clothing and you are free to wander aorund with a bomb stiched into your shirt.

      Nice work Neo, encourage terrorism. I guess you want a gun, knife and AIDS needle shirt too, to go with your poison dart shoes, which of course are just clothing that no one should have a right to take off you…

    • John Smythe says:

      10:54am | 22/12/11

      neo, come on mate, you are better than that. She wasn’t wearing clothing made out of canvas or whatever synthetics they use today for tent material. (remember the parachute pants of long ago?) She wasn’t part of some fashion parade of whacky fashion designs.

      It was a planned, and targetted action specifically trying to be antogonistic toward police, who they knew would have been given the directive to remove tents from the park. Read the comments above. Look at the video. It was a tent, slightly modified so legs and heads could protrude from within.

      This entire semantic argument is as retarded as the individuals seeking their 5 minutes of fame by being antagonistic toward police who have better things to do. The sheer claim of sexual assault while police were trying to remove her (unknowingly to them she had no clothes underneath - even more retard right there) tent was just as ridiculous as the entire concocted scheme.

      This is no where near police brutality, or police abusing the power of authority. As I have said before I feel sorry for these cops having to deal with these idiots.

    • neo says:

      11:56am | 22/12/11

      Pickles, clothes made out of explosives are explosives, clothes that resemble explosives are not explosives. Either way, camping is prohibited, not possession of tents.

      John, of course it was planned to antagonise the Police. That still doesn’t give them the right to sexually assault her. As with the Belarussian KGB officers, you can understand why they did it, but it is still unacceptable. I can imagine it would get a bit hot to wear clothes under the costume.

    • naughtboy says:

      12:57pm | 22/12/11

      since when is wearing a tent against the law?

    • neo says:

      02:18pm | 22/12/11

      ^^ exactly. And that is all that needs to be said.

    • Winston says:

      01:01pm | 21/12/11

      Except Occupy wasn’t naked, wasn’t genuinely upset and deserved to be arrested.  Anyone silly enough to break the law in Russia or it’s former States knows they don’t muck around.  Shame we don’t have that here.

    • Blind Freddy says:

      01:49pm | 21/12/11

      Yeah, more totalitarianism- that’s what we need. No matter what the law in whatever country- all law breakers deserve to be punished - idiot!

      Just about every piece of civil progress has derived from the actions of law breakers and protesters

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      09:48am | 22/12/11

      This is the best of the post that I’ve read. Haven’t laughed so much in years. Winston you are true democrat and I’m so proud of you. You would make a really good police officer, one that bashes homeless men who change in toilets rather than the open, who delight in dragging protesting teenagers by their hair and thrash helpless girls with batons. I bet you’d just love to use capsicum spray on wheel chair bound geriatrics who demonstrate for more mobility ramps.
      Let’s see, what have I forgotten - you’d enjoy enlistment in a SWAT team so you could shoot people’s pets, smash down doors and shoot dope smokers.
      Naked or not the removal of outer clothing is a sexual assault. It is clothing that protects sexual identity. If nakedness was not a criminal offence then perhaps the action might have been mitigable but the police do not have aright to commit an offence because they are police - that is the most corrupt of corruption.

    • Winston says:

      10:01am | 22/12/11


      Love the rant, no really, perhaps you should read the laws of this country before claiming to know what constitutes sexual assault.  So the Police have committed no sexual assault.

    • neo says:

      10:27am | 22/12/11

      Russia is a state in itself and does not have any “former states”. I think you meant to say USSR.

    • Ned says:

      01:05pm | 21/12/11

      The internet says the KGB was disbanded in 1991 with the collapse of the soviet union? They are now the FSB. Where do these stories come from?

    • Erick says:

      01:15pm | 21/12/11

      @Ned - The KGB plants them.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      01:17pm | 21/12/11

      Hm, all the reports refer to the KGB. I’ll try to work it out.

    • marley says:

      01:48pm | 21/12/11

      @Tory - I know for dead certain that the KGB successor in Ukraine is the SBU (State Security Service).  It derived out of the old KGB but is a different kind of agency these days - with a lot of emphasis on border control.

    • James1 says:

      02:06pm | 21/12/11

      KGB is just Committee for State Security in Russian abbreviated.  The FSB is the KGB’s sucessor in Russia.  Belarus is an independent country, and its state security force still styles itself KGB. 

      Minimal details can be found here:

      Don’t ask why I know so much about secret police in eastern Europe, or my Comintern masters will have me recalled.

    • James1 says:

      02:47pm | 21/12/11

      Sorry marley - should have added more context there.  The topless feminists in question were Ukraine-based, but were protesting in Minsk, the capital of Belarus, at the time of their arrest.

    • SimonFromLakemba says:

      03:24pm | 21/12/11

      I said that the same this morning on facebook page.

      Apparently the KGB still goes by the same name in Belarus.

    • marley says:

      06:12pm | 21/12/11

      @Simon - well, Belarus is in a bit of a time warp, so it’s not too surprising that they still call their intelligence service the KGB (and I’ve got little doubt, it’s still run by Moscow, just like in the good old days).

    • neo says:

      10:37am | 22/12/11

      FSB is something in between Australian Federal Police and ASEO, concentrated on domestic affairs. Intelligence work is undertaken by other agencies, although they do work with FSB.

      KGB is just what James1 said, there’s nothing sinister attached to it, it’s just an abbreviation, just a name. Belarus still uses the same name for their federal security agency, again, nothing sinister. Sounds like they wanted to teach those Ukrainian girls a lesson, the oldschool way - the old dig your own grave stunt. I can imagine they were pretty pissed off at having to put real work aside to take care of a bunch of protesters. Doesn’t justify their actions, but certainly explains them.

    • Winston says:

      01:09pm | 21/12/11

      The ladies in the first picture appear to be Italian and protesting against the PM.

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      01:21pm | 21/12/11

      Yep. Femen protest across Europe, including against Berlusconi and DSK… and I used this pic so I didn’t have to pixellate nipples.

    • wolf says:

      01:57pm | 21/12/11

      In which case Tory, shouldn’t you pixellate the nipples on Venus de Milo and the chap who took on Symonds? Suprised our resident mens rights activists haven’t picked up on your double standards yet. :p

    • cynic says:

      01:09pm | 21/12/11

      Feminist going topless to make a point. I think they missed the entire point and only managed to draw attention to two points. How ironic is that

    • Condor says:

      04:06pm | 21/12/11

      Anything that gets hot women to take their tops off should be encouraged

    • Chris L says:

      04:34pm | 21/12/11

      I agree with Condor. Don’t mess it for us Cynic!

    • Pickles... The Drummer says:

      08:00am | 22/12/11

      I agree with Condor, but cynic is right. Protesting against men seeing women as objects, whilst you are topless, is kinda stupid and misses the biological point.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      09:24am | 22/12/11

      There are often big placards in protests and often these are controversial, even obscene. If bare little boobies can draw attention to a cause then for goodness sake isn’t that preferable to obscene placards. If I were to take a peek at boobies and happen to see the protesters’ message I’d be ‘titillated’  and inform ate at the same time.

    • AdamC says:

      01:10pm | 21/12/11

      Maybe SlutWalk would have seemed less pointless if the sluts had disrobed entirely ...

    • Alf says:

      01:12pm | 21/12/11

      I was recently confused by the objective of the ‘Slut Walk’.

      Even though it was carfully explained to me that it is all about “challenging the mindset that victims of sexual assault do not drawing attention to themselves by the way they dress or act”.  I am still not totally over the irony of the whole thing.

    • Markus says:

      01:28pm | 21/12/11

      That what’s the objective was??
      All the interviews I read at the time had the organisers claiming it was some attempt to stop society from using the word ‘slut’ to describe sluts.
      As impractical as the objective you describe is, it definitely makes a lot more sense than the one I heard.

    • marley says:

      01:54pm | 21/12/11

      Slutwalk started as a protest against a cop who came very close to blaming the victim of a rape for being scantily clad at the time. It evolved into a movement to tell the world that women should be able to dress as they wish and have a right to be safe doing so.  It was about making people aware that being dressed in revealing clothing is not an invitation to be raped.

      Idealistic, no doubt, but there was a kind of logic to it.

    • Alf says:

      02:13pm | 21/12/11

      @Markus.”... it was some attempt to stop society from using the word ‘slut’ to describe sluts”.

      Errr…right. *roll eyes*

    • Tim says:

      02:20pm | 21/12/11

      No the cop simply told some girls that dressing appropriately would lower the chances of being attacked.

    • marley says:

      02:53pm | 21/12/11

      @Tim - mea culpa.  I wrote that off the top of my head.  The cop was actually speaking at a university, and what he said was:  ““women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimized.”  I think that’s pretty close to blaming the girls, isn’t it?

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      03:40pm | 21/12/11

      Actually, a friend of mine says that a slut is a woman with the morals of a man, but she is a bit strange.

      Despite having great tits.

    • Condor says:

      04:54pm | 21/12/11

      Slutwalk was all about telling women that they shouldn’t have to take responsibility for themselves or the situations they place themselves in

    • I, Claudia says:

      05:39pm | 21/12/11

      Condor - so if you were to be raped, it’d be entirely your fault, yeah?

    • BJ says:

      06:16pm | 21/12/11

      So is Tony claiming thast he has never heard men being criticised for sleeping around. Poorakistan is clearly quite different to Australia.

    • Erick says:

      04:53am | 22/12/11

      @Claudia - You are being dishonest. That is not what Conor is saying, or implying, at all.

    • MarkS says:

      08:54am | 22/12/11

      Should women be able to dress however they want without increasing their chances of being raped. Sure. In fact they should not be raped at all, full stop. Also every child should have a loving home, nobody should be poor etc etc.

      In the real world, you know the one we live in. if you dress in a certain way you do increase your chances of being raped, protesting against it may make you feel better, but it is useless otherwise.

    • Tom says:

      02:25pm | 22/12/11

      MarkS, the fault, as always is with the men who would rape. Just as the fault is with the man (or woman) who burgles your house or steals your car.

      However, someone who leaves their front door wide open is asking for trouble as is someone who leaves their keys in the ignition.

      It is hard to garner sympathy for a person who refuses to accept that the world is as it is and act with common sense given the realities.

      Hence, the society has less sympathy for someone who asks for trouble in the way they dress.

    • Richard says:

      01:21pm | 21/12/11

      Well fine, if you’re going to glorify women’s use of their biologically inherent superior aesthetics for since post protest, Tory, I look forward to your imminent article glorifying men’s use of their biologically inherent superior physical and intellectual power in, say, deservedly earning better wages than women in the workforce.

      The indisputable scientific fact (you love science don’t you Tory) is that men are objectively, verifiably, proven to be, more intelligent than women. This is a scientific fact. Isn’t about time feminist hags shut up and accepted the fact of nature that women are better at some things (namely looking pretty with their clothes off) and that men are better other things, such as work, leadership, creating creation, destruction, building, mathematics, finance, etc., and deserve to be remunerated fairly in lieu if their biological superiority in these matters?

    • Mayday says:

      01:41pm | 21/12/11

      Your days are numbered - attitudes like this belong in the cave or the middle east.

      Not sure how good your memory is but over the last ten years at least girls have outranked boys in the HSC and continue to lead through University and they will make as much if not more money than men.

      Other than the biological imperative of pregnancy and childbirth which takes time and money from the females capacity to earn we are taking the lead and then there is the fact that we are far superior with our xx rather than your xy.

      So with our “superior aesthetics” we are in front all round.

    • bunker says:

      01:54pm | 21/12/11

      Source for this “indisputable scientific fact”? If you know anything about science, you’d know that you can’t prove anything.

      Have a read of this review article, and tell me it is still fact that males are indisputably more intelligent than females.

      Also, going on your reasoning, I suppose Asians should earn more than Caucasian Australians, who should earn more than African Americans, because of “biological superiority”? After all, there are differences in AVERAGE intelligence for these groups.

    • wearestardust says:

      02:02pm | 21/12/11

      It’s probably unremarkable that men are, on average, physically stronger than women.

      I’m intrigued, however, to know how it has been demonstrated that men are more intelligent? 

      I’m also intrigued to know how superior physical strength also justifies women being paid less, on average, than men, given that the highest-paying jobs are almost entirely in relation to use of individual intellectual capital?

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      02:19pm | 21/12/11

      Richard! You didn’t even bother providing links to the discredited studies you obviously rely on!

      But let’s go point by point.

      1. I didn’t glorify going topless, I just said it worked.

      2. I disagree that women have biologically inherent superior aesthetics. I imagine you’re just reasserting your heteroness, yeah?

      3. I could easily write that on average men are stronger than women. I’ll file the idea alongside my ‘Sky is blue’ piece.

      4. Intelligence is actually a really interesting conversation, I might take you up on that! Of course your claim that men are more intelligent is bullshit.

      5. The rest is just troll-like bullshit and I wish you’d just drag back into your cave with you.

    • HappyCynic says:

      02:56pm | 21/12/11


      I know women that would kick your arse in maths, finance and leadership.  I’ve had some great female managers and some great male ones too.  I know some pretty awful managers of both sexes too.  On average I’d say it’s a wash.

      Having said that, I work in finance and just trying to imagine your utopian ideal of a sausage-fest in every bank, broker and finance company is so depressing that I’d take it on myself to shoot anyone who proposed such a daft idea.  Women make a workplace a little more bearable, especially in summer smile

      I suspect that rather than being a deliberate troll you’re overcompensating for some sort of inadequacy by reverting to overtly “traditional” gender roles, trying to hide your latent homosexuality perhaps?  Or maybe you just have a tiny d*ck - according to South Park this is the most common cause of anger in men!  (A “fact” that is probably more accurate than your entire post)

    • Erick says:

      03:20pm | 21/12/11

      Mayday’s comment was just as sexist as Richard’s.

      But nobody challenged her claim of female supremacy.

      That’s sexism for you!

    • bunker says:

      03:38pm | 21/12/11


      No doubt about it, Mayday’s comments were as ridiculous as Richard’s. Well, apart from the first sentence.

    • HappyCynic says:

      03:47pm | 21/12/11


      Well it was a little more factual and far less absurd than Richard’s silly post, also they outnumber us and I like having sex quite regularly (usually with females) but if it makes you feel any better…

      Bad Mayday, naughty girl!

    • Erick says:

      04:34pm | 21/12/11

      @HappyCynic - There you go with your mummy issues again. So your mum made you all sad - can’t you get over it? Why pollute all the public message boards with your personal problems?

      Seriously dude, get therapy.

    • amy says:

      04:41pm | 21/12/11


      obviously your not smart enough to realise you cant go saying words like “scientific fact” without using scources and evidence….mmmmkay Richard? thats called “Credibility”


      while I dont agree with Mr “duuurrr hurr science!!!!” up there, there is a certain argument that the school systm is geared towards grils and not boys

    • I, Claudia says:

      05:40pm | 21/12/11

      Please provide us with a link to your peer-reviewed research on this topic, Richard.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      05:52pm | 21/12/11

      I’m a little surprised, my post arguing against Richard’s hypothesis that women are less intelligent than men wasn’t used.

      Oh well to cut it down: There have been women who have made discoveries that were ridiculed by men and then later “discovered” by men.

    • marley says:

      06:14pm | 21/12/11

      @Richard - if you take your information from the Daily Mail, then I would have to say you have just proved you are not more intelligent than anything much above the slime mould category.

    • wearestardust says:

      06:41pm | 21/12/11

      I was going to take a punt that any argument put forward by Richard would be a circular one - ie women perform less well in society because they are less intelligent, demonstrated by their performing less well in society, but thought better of making such a brave prediction.  I now wish I had; that’s exactly the argument that’s been linked to, just replacing “in society” with “academic science”.  There’s no science in that article, just a load of assertion and guesswork.

      The idea that there is any significant difference between sexes or races as measured by IQ tests, brain size of any other measure, has been comprehensively debunked.  For a start I recommend “the mismeasure of man” by Stephen J Gould.

    • Richard says:

      06:49pm | 21/12/11

      Pooh-pooh the source if you want to marley, but the article’s author was Richard Lynn, who is a Professor Emeritus of Psychology at the University of Ulster. Pretty sure that if you want to discredit him, you need a stronger argument than “WAAAH DAILY MAIL, WAAAAAAHHH!”

      The article goes on to say: “In recent years, the forces of political correctness have made the reporting of this sort of statistic virtually impossible.
      Yet as a psychologist who has dedicated his career to the study of intelligence - and, in particular, to how it differs between the sexes - I can tell you that in my academic circles these IQ figures are barely disputed.
      Ever since the Frenchman Alfred Binet devised the first intelligence test in 1905, study after study has confirmed the same result. When it comes to IQ, men and women - at least once they’ve gained adulthood - simply are not equal.
      Boys and girls may start out with the same IQ but by 16 or so boys are starting to inch ahead. The ever-growing success of girls at GCSE, A-level and now at university would seem to refute this - but the blame lies with our exam system, with its emphasis on coursework, which rewards diligence more than it does intelligence.
      The undeniable, easily measurable fact remains that, by the time both sexes reach 21, men, on average, score five IQ points higher than women.”

      Read more:

    • Lee says:

      07:45pm | 21/12/11

      Cordelia Fine’s ‘The Gender Delusion’ is another great piece that thoroughly debunks the ‘scientifically proven’ idea that the human brain is gendered.

    • amy says:

      08:43pm | 21/12/11


      ok then

      if what your saying was true, then what exactally is your point?

      obviously women are still smart enough to be doctors and lawyers and leaders…are you saying you want to take that opertunity away from us? in fact I hardly see what intilligence has to do with this article….that because women are suposedly less intelligent then they dont need rights?

      how about..I tell you that your only allowed to work as un unskilled labouror..and I say that because its scientific fact that men are stronger then you should shut up and not complain…you ok with that?

      and no, Im not for a second entertaining the Idea that what your saying is true..I just want to know what yoru getting at with all this

    • Richard says:

      09:30pm | 21/12/11

      Amy, all I’m saying is, we hear a lot from feminists these days about how terrible it is that women don’t earn as much as men, how terrible it is that there are less women board members and ceo’s etc, and all I’m saying is that, yeah, too right there are more well-paid, powerful men amongst the baby boomer generation, and its a good thing, and if this wasn’t the case, not only would it be depriving men of a fair level of remuneration (which ought to be higher than women’s by virtue of their superior strength and intelligence, and thus capacity for most kinds of work), but that also society as a whole would become less efficient and therefore everyone would be worse off.

      In a perfectly fair world where people were paid based on their merit and the quality of work that they were capable of performing, most men would and should earn more than most women. Alas, amongst my generation the opposite is largely true, whereby women are given much more opportunity in the work force TVby all, and I’m saying that this is a tragedy.

    • wearestardust says:

      10:01pm | 21/12/11

      A few observations that I suspect may not penetrate Richard’s thinking, but which may be of interest. 

      It is somewhat unsurprising that Richard Lynn finds that his academic circles don’t question IQ differences between men and women.  Lynn is notable for pursuing ‘research’ into heritable racial differences in intelligence as well.  Among other things Lynn is on the editorial committee of “Mankind Quarterly” journal.  I have seen this journal described as an organ of white supremacy.  I don’t know enough to judge that for myself, but it certainly seems to be preoccupied with matters related to race, clashes of culture, why immigration is bad, and so forth.  Have a look for yourself

      Having got that out of the way, it is simply not true that there is a general consensus in the relevant academic communities that there are differences in intelligence between men and women.  The American Psychological Association, for example, rejected the idea in its 1996 response to the (now generally considered to be discredited) 1994 book “the Bell Curve” (which also asserted racial intelligence differences and was based in part on Lynn’s work).

      The suggestion that differences between male and female IQ scores has been accepted since Binet is surprising given that he didn’t undertake broad population-based intelligence testing.  Indeed he cautioned against any such efforts; his work (which provided the first task-based intelligence tests but not, incidentally, the concept of IQ which was based on Binet’s work) was aimed at identifying school children who needed additional help with learning.  IQ testing was popularised in the US by Henry Goddard, but mainly (and excuse the abbreviation of the story here) as a means of testing and excluding dangerously unintelligent immigrants who might dilute the North American gene pool.

      Now, it might be noted that in the preceding I’ve been a bit casual about distinguishing between intelligence and IQ.  I should sharpen up this distinction now.  Despite my comments so far, there is research that suggests IQ differences between ethnic groups and between genders.  “IQ differences” is not the same thing as “differences in intelligence”.  As this is long enough I am sure that anyone having bothered to read this far can joining the remaining dots in terms of cultural specificity, demographic factors, educational differences, the specific kinds of knowledge that are privileged by societies that create IQ tests, and so forth.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      10:10pm | 21/12/11

      @Richard- “In a perfectly fair world where people were paid based on their merit and the quality of work that they were capable of performing,”

      In that world most politicians and Wall St executives would be paid 10 cents an hour…....

    • amy says:

      10:27pm | 21/12/11

      “which ought to be higher than women’s by virtue of their superior strength and intelligence, and thus capacity for most kinds of work)

      so men should be paid more by defult because they are men? not by how well well said man or women is doing in their job (never mind if she is doing better than her male counterpart)

      SURE men might be stronger generally than women…BUT I imagine there are somone women out their who are stronger than some men, because somtimes on an induvudual basis things liek this happen, we shouldnt be judged on averages all the time

      and in the end I prefer to put being a person before being a gender..some people get too hung up on it

      ans you dislike feminists so much yet your just the same..on the othe side and just as annoying (like our good freind Erick)

    • Elizabeth1 says:

      06:23am | 22/12/11

      Richard I am amazed by the arrogance of your thinking. You really believe you are smarter than all women. And yet you must have met with more than a few challenges to this view in your own life experiences. That you have been able to rationalize these moments tells me you have low emotional intelligence, little self awareness and rigidity in your beliefs. None of these traits are signs of intelligence. That research you quote is unsophisticated and incomplete.  It uses IQ and has no exploration of confounders such as stereotypical bias, self efficacy beliefs, researcher bias etc etc. Even the physical argument is a worry. For example, there
      is a support group for young women who were given nasty drugs because they were growing too tall. When we live in a society that will take those types of extremes to prevent a child from growing to their potential simply because it doesn’t fit our beliefs about norms I think we should use caution in any conclusions we come to about the norms, traits etc and difference between the sexes.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      10:01am | 22/12/11

      Don’t disappoint me Tory.
      5. The rest is just troll-like bullshit and I wish you’d just drag back into your cave with you. is not necessary. It demeans you to rely on the same vitriol that some of the commentators use.
      I’ve been married to the same woman for almost 45 years - we have had equal careers and consider each other as equals without being congruent. In fact we like and delight in the fact that we are not congruent.
      You don’t have to put people down like that it is self deprecatory. let the comment superate in its own secretions.

    • MarkS says:

      10:13am | 22/12/11

      Men on average more intelligent than women rubbish.
      Yes there are more male geniuses, but there are also more male idiots. The average is the same, the standard deviation is different. 

      School results are affected by teaching methods. Since the feminisation of our schools, boys are taught badly.

    • Gangsta Girl says:

      08:18am | 18/04/12

      Lol Richie, how typical.
      Strength no doubt it a biological thing that men are stronger -at average
      But intellectual?? Bull and shiz

      I’d take you on any day…

    • Just Wondering says:

      01:32pm | 21/12/11

      ” Lady Godiva – who…wrote naked through Coventry on market day”

      Does The Punch team use voice recognition software to compose their articles? 

      If so it needs a little fine tuning or more attention paid in the proof reading.

      Merry Christmas

    • Tory Shepherd

      Tory Shepherd says:

      02:20pm | 21/12/11



    • wearestardust says:

      02:56pm | 21/12/11

      “Merry Christmas” needs a full stop.  “Voice recognition”, “fine tuning” and “proof reading” really ought have hyphens.  “The Punch team” is singular so the sentence should end “ compose its articles”.  Either that, or if one wants to treat “the Punch Team” as a complex plural noun (I would accept that, but many do not) then the sentence ought start with “Do”, not “Does”.

      As a matter of preference I’d put a comma after “If so”.  Changing the the sentence to “... more attention paid to it in the proof reading ...” would make it less clumsy and able to be read more smoothly.

      May I mention Skitt’s Law?  Roughly, it says: any correction on the internet of the spelling or grammar of another will itself include an error of spelling and/or grammar.

    • Just Wondering says:

      03:44pm | 21/12/11


      “any correction on the internet of the spelling or grammar of another will itself include an error of spelling and/or grammar.”

      Thank you so much,* I am always keen to learn but if you read carefully I made no attempt at correction, My post was a simple enquiry followed by a suggestion.

      @ Tory - a typo? I thought typos were slips of the finger on the keyboard and the like i.e.  “mase” instead of “made”.

      If anything,* it is a malapropism.

      * wearestardust - I hope use of the commas meets your approval.

    • marley says:

      03:57pm | 21/12/11

      @wearstardust - as one pedant to another, I like that.  Skitt’s Law, hmmm.

    • Just Wondering says:

      06:17pm | 21/12/11


      Given you have corrected me I presume, in accordance with the law of Skitt, there must be an error of spelling or grammar therein.

      If not it is not a law but rather a guideline.

      Or should that be guide-line?

    • wearestardust says:

      06:32pm | 21/12/11

      @ Just wondering.  I’m not sure in what sense pointing out an error is not a correction. 

      It is still humorous that in your pointing out the (single) error you made several of your own.

      And not your use of commas does not satisfy me.  One of your commas should be a full stop.

    • wearestardust says:

      09:28pm | 21/12/11

      My preference is for “guideline”.

      There’s an error in my 7:32pm post.

    • cynic says:

      01:47pm | 21/12/11

      I think it’s fair to say a lot of men are sick to death of women that demand equality then when it hits the fan, revert to ‘but I’m a woman’ when they’re treated the same as men. That’s not equality, that’s wanting to have your cake and eat it too

      p.s. I don’t think men are more intelligent that women. we simply don’t take time out of our careers to have kids and have different mindsets and priorities. Oh, and there’s that little matter of when push comes to shove the majority of women still want the man to look after them financially. this was the over-riding result of a fairly recent study

    • I, Claudia says:

      05:44pm | 21/12/11

      You’re not cynical - you’re bitter. There’s a HUGE difference.

    • PsychoHyena says:

      06:08pm | 21/12/11

      @I, Claudia… I fail to see your logic. Does this mean the feminist movement was caused by bitter women rather than cynical women?

      Actually this research here shines a rather striking light upon the “women earn less argument”

    • Rick of the Dustbowl says:

      02:17pm | 21/12/11

      The drawing power of nipples? Tory it depends if they’re pointing up, out or down. Up is good, out is also good but down, please put your top back on.

    • wearestardust says:

      02:17pm | 21/12/11

      One of these pictures, at least, cannot be unseen.  Not all naked protestors are equal.  And I’m not sure anyone should be naked on a bicycle for their own physical safety or the mental safety of others.

      Which reminds me, for some reason, of one of Plato’s arguments for equality between the sexes (he was of coiurse not as keen as equality as somtimes thought, but that’s another story).  Anyway, among other things he argued, appropriating the voice of Socrates in the Republic, that women ought exercise with men in the gymnasia.  “Seems pretty suss to me”, said his interlocutor, Glaucon (paraphrasing a bit).  Plato pointed out that not all naked women, just like naked men, are distracting.  At least not in that way.

    • Dieter Moeckel says:

      10:07am | 22/12/11

      When nakedness draws attention to a cause then it’s legit to go naked.
      Take the Case of PETA - women in a cage are worth casual glance, naked women in a cage result in attention.
      Way to go - its about creating attention to a cause.

    • Ben H says:

      02:26pm | 21/12/11

      When the media and ‘entertainment’ industry constantly fuel society’s relatively newfound sex addiction, is it any wonder that nudity is known and used as a prime tool to draw attention to any given cause? Some of it is tasteful, but the bulk of it is a sad representation of a morally bankrupt way of life. Tits, arse and body could sell ice to an Eskimo who has been saturated in western ‘culture’. People who are decicated to a cause should try and use more honourable means of raising awareness. And I just can’t seem to get past the contradictory idea that feminists are somehow protesting against prostitution.

    • Markus says:

      03:22pm | 21/12/11

      Sex addiction is relatively newfound? Here I was thinking it was a biological imperative.

    • amy says:

      04:49pm | 21/12/11

      somone isnt getting any…..raspberry

    • Chris L says:

      04:53pm | 21/12/11

      Is there something inherently immoral about the human body?

    • Ben H says:

      05:30pm | 21/12/11

      Sex is as old as human beings. Sex addiction has been deliberately mainstreamed in recent decades. Now people need the ‘drug’ to validate themselves.

      I am getting it, but this has nothing to do with the point.

      There is nothing immoral about the body itself. Using it as a way to bypass the intelligence needed to raise issues and ideas in a genuine, thought provoking way is just a cop out.

    • Ben H says:

      08:58pm | 21/12/11

      I think technology and centralisation of media power and influence have made the last few decades the most sexualised in known history, and it is growing exponentially. That is not to say that elements of past cultures were not obsessed. I bet a few ‘raunchy’ rock carvings did not possess whole populations. Sex is great, but when it is worshipped, and on such a mass scale, there is an undeniable problem.

    • Pickles... The Drummer says:

      08:17am | 22/12/11

      My ancient history teacher was obsessed with ancient Egyptian penis sheaths…

    • Quailie says:

      02:28pm | 21/12/11

      Yeah, well I’m sick of everyone. Would that I was a sea slug, or a zebra or manta ray or something. Anything that wasn’t a freaking human. The truth of the matter is that both sexes are equally as stupid and useless as the other. Anyone who isn’t a strange, opposite-gender obsessed freak can see that.

    • Tony of Poorakistan says:

      04:08pm | 21/12/11

      Well, no - blokes are not as subject to hormonal influences; we function the same every day of the month.

    • Quailie says:

      05:50pm | 21/12/11

      How amazing. Wow. You may find this amazing- I also consistently act the same way throughout the month. What. A. Surprise. I’m not sure what kind of hormonal weirdos you’ve been hanging out with. Year 10s from the sound of it. Also your hormonal activity has little to do with how stupid and useless you are.

    • Lee says:

      07:49pm | 21/12/11

      Nothing wrong with being hormonal. It beats being dull, predictable and out of tune with nature’s cycles.

    • Ben H says:

      09:44pm | 21/12/11

      Being sick of everyone is a natural state which one naturally moves beyond with time.

    • Mitch says:

      02:36pm | 21/12/11

      I respect their right to protest, but not the guys, grannies and da fatties.

    • RICHARD D WILSON says:

      02:56pm | 21/12/11

      If people want respect and dignity and wish to be taken seriously then keep the clothes on and be modest about it.

    • FEDUP says:

      03:10pm | 21/12/11

      Have no issue with Naked protests - should be a law if you want to protest then you have to bear all.

    • mick says:

      03:22pm | 21/12/11

      Did you notice that most of the nudies were blonde Tory. 

      What a waste of time.  There must be some serious issues to deal with which actually affect the lives of people.  Bling, bling, bling.

      Merry Christmas.

    • amy says:

      04:47pm | 21/12/11

      the first picture?

      you do realise the article said they were wigs?

    • Sophie Rose says:

      03:42pm | 21/12/11

      “In Europe, a Ukrainian feminist movement protests against prostitution and for women’s rights by getting their tits out, donning long blonde wigs, putting flowers in their hair and getting in lots of trouble.”

      How exactly is getting partly naked in public supposed to protest AGAINST prostitution?

      As for the slutwalk debate, it began when a police officer was asked to address a group of college women about sexual assault.
      He made the comment that if women choose to dress provocativly then they should expect to be sexually assaulted - the attitude of blaming the victim that womens groups have been fighting against for years.
      I think the comment is also offensive to men as it’s saying that men are neanderthals who, when confronted with a woman dressed in a certain way are unable to control themselves.

    • Janus says:

      03:59pm | 21/12/11

      James1 is correct Tory, The FSB is Putin’s reborn KGB. Same cat, different colour, with a few twists thrown in. Topless protests? Well a protest is about garnering attention. They got my attention. Whatever it is they are against, me too, I’m against it. grin

    • Tim the Toolman says:

      05:46pm | 21/12/11

      So many words when I would have expected the reply to be thus:  Yes.

    • wearestardust says:

      06:36pm | 21/12/11

      at least there hasn’t been mention of climate change.

    • the_pseudonym says:

      07:22pm | 21/12/11

      There is now, thanks wearestardust (great nick by the way)

    • Kurisu Sonsaku says:

      07:02pm | 21/12/11

      I view naked protesting in the same way i view gay marriage.

      As long as the chicks are hot i don’t have a problem.

    • Mark says:

      09:25pm | 21/12/11

      I remeber the one about the protesting of the wearing of fur. The Number of Foxes increased in Australia dramtically and increased the risk to many of our endangererd species, was not really so smart in the end all heart but not proper mangement. I am not sure totally about prostitution in other countries, but I beleive that no one is forcing them to be prostitutes in Australia.Mark

    • wearestardust says:

      10:25pm | 21/12/11

      While I’m in the mood to rant, all the talk of “feminists this…” and “feminists that…”  is a bit nonsensical.  Feminism is not a single, monolithic idea that speaks with a single voice.  Indeed there are fundamentally opposing feminisms.  Liberal, eco, marxist, postmodern, radical, pro-sex and anti-porn feminisms all have quite different philosophical underpinnings and consequent conclusions.

      And in any case, these kinds of feminisms are increasingly located in academia.  Informal feminism in society seems to me substantially non-iedological (which, I have to say, I think is a Good Thing) and is as diverse as women.  Which statement itself is somewhat simplistic; plenty of men (such as myself) are quite persuaded by the idea that for pretty much most of human history women have got the rough end of the pineapple and that we have a long way to go before we have anything like effective equality.

      P.S. this has all got rather serious in response to what I gather what was intended as a bit of lighthearted fun.


      10:29pm | 21/12/11

      Hi Tory,

      I think whatever gets the attention of the media channels & general public, right?  After all it is for a good cause & the same old trick that SEX SELLS. You should see all the viewers who happen to be male staying glued to their television sets.  That is just priceless & so much fun.  I presume that watching same olds news on TV is a whole new experience all together.

      Also is it any different to sun tanning on Bondi Beach topless?  I consider the latest protests all around the world, a little bit colorful & lively to say the least. Some women in our world are just trying to make their voices heard in the best way they know how & it is actually making headlines!!  Mission accomplished.  Best regards to your editors.

    • archie m says:

      03:32am | 22/12/11

      Having spent some time in a former communist country, I can understand why the ‘police’ took to these persons. I think that those involved knew this would happen & that the ‘Aussie woman’ was caught out. If you protest in another country, get caught by ‘police’, then stiif bickies, you wanted to play the game, so wear it.

    • Ronaldo says:

      09:51am | 22/12/11

      Getting arrested for baring everything is lawful. If not for public nuisance, you’re affecting safety, i.e. imagine the damage a distracted motorist can do.

      Remove the images, PETA are terrorists.

      If they are so ethical, how come (successful) politicians don’t align themselves to the organisation?

      All this protests won’t amount to anything unless they roll into a revolution(a peaceful one, I hope).

      And please, don’t draw comparisons to the Arab nations. Circumstance are much, MUCH different, e.g. the London riots has nothing in common with that transpired in Tahrir Square or anywhere else of mass gatherings.

      If you really want change, voted effectively and put your money where your mouth is: buy local!

    • Rhys Needham says:

      06:30pm | 22/12/11

      The KGB are actually Belarusian intelligence, not Russian or Ukrainian (and, yes, I’ve seen the footage, it’s wonderful).

    • Mark says:

      01:46pm | 01/01/12

      Pity they would not protest for population control. Groups such as PETA who promote things such as turn over a new leaf go vegetarian, the amount of natural enviroment that has to destroyed to make a bowl of salad, this does not include dams and weirs which destroy wetlands, all these things create loss of habitat for our wildlife who than suffer and are put at risk of becoming extinct or have been made extinct. The list goes on for the resouces we have to tear up the enviroment for to get a bowl of salad= We have to tear up the enviroment to get the fuel for the trucks to cart the vegies, thats not before we tear up more enviroment to create the roads,, then there is the refigeration equipment, the coal to make the electricity or the materials to make the solar panels for the electricity, than there is the pallets we cut the trees down to make them, than there was the chainsaw to cut the trees down, then the trucks to cart the logs, than the tractors to plow the ground, etc etc etc etc, all this for a bowl of salad. If you want to save the world ladies get your boobs out for population control!


Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

The Punch is moving house

The Punch is moving house

Good morning Punchers. After four years of excellent fun and great conversation, this is the final post…

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

Will Pope Francis have the vision to tackle this?

I have had some close calls, one that involved what looked to me like an AK47 pointed my way, followed…

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

Advocating risk management is not “victim blaming”

In a world in which there are still people who subscribe to the vile notion that certain victims of sexual…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: Hasbro, go straight to gaol, do not pass go

Tim says:

They should update other things in the game too. Instead of a get out of jail free card, they should have a Dodgy Lawyer card that not only gets you out of jail straight away but also gives you a fat payout in compensation for daring to arrest you in the first place. Instead of getting a hotel when you… [read more]

From: A guide to summer festivals especially if you wouldn’t go

Kel says:

If you want a festival for older people or for families alike, get amongst the respectable punters at Bluesfest. A truly amazing festival experience to be had of ALL AGES. And all the young "festivalgoers" usually write themselves off on the first night, only to never hear from them again the rest of… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

Superman needs saving

Superman needs saving

Can somebody please save Superman? He seems to be going through a bit of a crisis. Eighteen months ago,… Read more



Read all about it

Sign up to the free newsletter