"Feminist Bitches" - Who Needs Them? - » The Australian Independent Media Network

165 comments

Login here Register here

bobraftoAugust 11, 2014 at 8:54 pm

In the Guardian this morning there was an article by Jane Caro ~ Pyne’s education policies hurt women – but the men in cabinet don’t seem to have noticed.

I commented something like this: “Get a grip ladies, it’s a man’s world” and attached this link https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10203296171817559&set=gm.726506314089331&type=1&theater,
thinking when they saw the pic, I wasn’t being sexist at all. A tongue in cheek teaser.

The pic is a Liberal ad dating back to 1953 to which I superimposed the Abbott’s head. The ad has the Heading ‘Show her it’s a man’s world with the Abbott on a bed laid back wearing a blue tie and the missus on her knees, anyway, I was deleted immediately.

That Ad shows the mindset of the Abbott towards women and that dates back to the last century.
Letitia McQuadeAugust 11, 2014 at 9:05 pm

I saw that Bob, thought it was great! Very funny!
darrel nayAugust 11, 2014 at 9:47 pm

Awesome post,

I guess those in power know that if women @/or children ever get truly equal representation the wars will end.

It is crazy that the government has anti-discrimination laws applied to the masses but parliament remains a boys club.

In the ‘memesters’ defense I would say that many young people haven’t experienced dictatorships so they often can’t read the signs of a growing authoritarian regime and they didn’t witness the industrial revolution so they are ambivalent when it comes to the unions. In a way it represents an ideal of feminism that labelling be minimised and I guess the youngsters are reflecting that.

We live in a time when anti-human values are at record levels and I, for one, appreciate the humanitarian principles of the feminist ‘movement’.

Eternal thanks to the suffragettes and the feminists (many of whom gave their lives) for pushing truths into common consciousness.

Cheers
John FraserAugust 11, 2014 at 9:54 pm

<

See if you can spot the problem :

http://images.theage.com.au/2013/09/19/4760531/ak-pricelead-620×349.jpg
John FraserAugust 11, 2014 at 10:13 pm

<

The Mark Dreyfus speech at the Sydney Free Speech Symposium is a good companion piece to read with this Article :

http://nofibs.com.au/2014/08/11/labors-mark-dreyfus-qc-takes-a-stand-on-freespeech-abbott-and-brandis-honour-voltaire-only-in-the-breach/#comment-21282
Anne ByamAugust 11, 2014 at 11:41 pm

Excellent article Letitia … and very thought provoking.

The concept of feminism first appeared in France and the Netherlands in 1872 ( according to my research ? ). In that day and age, I suspect it didn’t have much chance of being taken seriously. There was much mysogony abroad in those days. It was raised from time to time ( suffragettes late 1800’s early 1900’s ) and since.

Unfortunately, there have been some more recent ‘modern’ ( allegedly ) women ( and I use the term loosely for this reply ) … who I will not name, although most people could guess who they are — who have given feminism a very BAD reputation.

I AM NOT SAYING ANYTHING HERE THAT YOU DON’T ALREADY KNOW !

There is no doubt that our male dominated society ( and it is – despite what some may say to the contrary ) is not helping at all. However, there ARE some men, who are indeed MAN enough to stand up and be counted on behalf of women. ( I do NOT count our current Government in that assertion ). It is a long, slow and laborious project. To have women seen as EQUAL to their partners in respect of being individual human beings, worthy of what ALL human beings are worthy of — respect. ( that excludes brutal men AND women – I don’t think they deserve too many rights or respect ).

You have touched on the almost impossible ( as it stands today ) …. The sorority of women we feel for, who are subject to religion based persecution, suffering and unimaginable cruelty. Unfortunately, we – in Western, democratic countries – cannot change that, try as we might. It will take decades, even centuries, before these women in countries or religions ruled by despots, can turn their lives around and live … actually LIVE.

It is sad beyond belief.

Frankly, I blame the MSM for much of the anti-feminist propaganda. ” If it bleeds, it leads ” has been one of their catch cries for decades. So … if they can perpetuate articles of the demeaning of women – it catches on. If not, then it certainly de-sensitises. [ definition : make (someone) less likely to feel shock or distress at scenes of cruelty or suffering by overexposure to such images. ]

So we end up not caring much about women who are brutalised. It’s not that we don’t WANT to care — it’s a condition of the human mind, that ‘closes down’ as it were, to repeated episodes of violence against women, and other ghastly scenes that occur on an almost daily basis these days. We become ( God help us ) ‘used to it ‘.

I just wish there were some way to discard the use of the word ‘feminism’ and replace it with something else. Something new and meaningful … because it HAS lost it’s true meaning now.

What that new phrase could be I cannot say.
JeanetteAugust 11, 2014 at 11:42 pm

Great article, looking at the poor writing skills in the images I dare to say that they don’t appear to be well educated and certainly not well informed. USA? if that’s the case general populace pretty badly informed anyway maybe watch CNN ?? world news? Sadly if these women took a trip to any poor part of the city they live in they may find life very different for females living there.

As a footnote when I retired thd “man” who replaced me his salary was double to what I had been paid. He did half the work and lasted only 12 months the stress of working with staff got to him!

We need a revitalised women’s liberation movement, I was a marcher all those years ago in Melbourne. Nothing much has really changed here, the males of Australia probably need some French injection.
Maree ElizabethAugust 11, 2014 at 11:55 pm

I am not a feminist.. nope … never have been… being equal to men in all things isn’t feminism its a God given right. Great article from the fab team at AIMN as usual.
allisonAugust 12, 2014 at 3:17 am

When modern feminism ceased fighting for important things and became a 24/7 whinefest about “sexist language” and other inane trivialities, I rejected the label for myself. I support “Women Against Feminism” proudly.
Letitia McQuadeAugust 12, 2014 at 7:54 am

Allison, you have missed the point entirely. In rejecting the label you are rejecting the cause, and the plight of women all over the world who clearly NEED feminism. There will always be debate about how we bridge the obvious gaps, and clearly my piece is not “whinge fest” about sexist language… (although for the record sexist language is the thin end of very nasty repressive wedge, and should be called out loudly and often…. ), So as you clearly did not understand I will spell it out for you again….the label “feminism” has had it’s meaning hijacked, by people who clearly oppose women’s rights to be treated equally and fairly…. this hijacking has been so effective that feminism has come to be seen not as liberating and empowering, (for everyone), but as aggressive, petty, whiny and irrelevant…. Now if you ask yourself who does this rebranding serve, the answer is clearly NOT WOMEN!!!, It actually robs women/men of a voice with which to combat entrenched gender disparities…. lest they be seen as one of those ugly, hairy, feminist types…. if, as you say, modern feminism “has stopped fighting about the important things”, it is because the forces mobilised against us have bamboozled us into fearing our most powerful weapon…FEMINISM.. so how can we fight when we have been so effectively disarmed???? Fear of being seen as, or called a feminist, is nothing but a very effective means of getting women to shut up and except the status quo….. And you, with all due respect, have a). failed to identify the problem, and B). bought into the anti feminist rhetoric wholeheartedly…. clearly equality is not important to you… and that to me says you have a great life,…. congratulations! But “PROUD to support women against feminism”, what are you actually saying????? that you don’t believe women should have equal rights and opportunities, or you don’t want to be seen as bitter, aggressive, ugly, hairy spoilt sport?, …. because I suspect that it is the second one….. and if it is… well you have just proved my point, yet again….. and if, by chance it is the first one, and you don’t believe women should have equal rights and opportunities,,,, then all I can say is, REALLY???????
ChrisAugust 12, 2014 at 9:23 am

Letitia, I think you may be wasting you breath on the types like Allison. Her blinkered dogma is more the teaching of a cheap porn magazine . Unfortunately, women following her path are already the victims of the system outlined above by you. We can only set in place the support mechanisms for them when their world turns on them and hope that because of the influence of women like yourself, their daughters may grow up to a level of reason beyond the enforced ignorance of their mothers. Sad!
LottiAugust 12, 2014 at 9:54 am

I wonder if mentioning the (worthy) examples from overseas is an effective tactic. It seems like this sort of blatant stupidity (and lack of interest in factual evidence) comes with a cushy feeling of comfortable lives- the false nicety that bad stuff only happens elsewhere, like in ‘primitive’ countries.

The stats on rape and domestic violence in Aus AND the US are staggering. I encourage anyone who believes equality is achieved to volunteer at a women’s shelter, which are known that way for a reason.

And remember that gay teenagers of any gender committing suicide is another example of sexism (being gay is not manly etc).
RossleighbrisbameAugust 12, 2014 at 10:35 am

When a student in one of my Literature classes proudly declared that she wasn’t a feminist in any way, I calmly told her that her opinion of femininism wasn’t important because women never had anything worthwhile to say and I was addressing my question to the boys. At this point, she strangely began advancing some arguments that sounded suspiciously like feminism to me.
Ok, probably wrong of me, but sometimes agreeing with people is the best way to make them think about what they’re saying.
Catherine McQuadeAugust 12, 2014 at 11:02 am

Must admit feminism came later to me than some: mainly for the very reason that Letitia describes. Our mother was such a firm believer in women that it never occurred to me that there was something I couldn’t do. I was the beneficiary of her attitudes. Only later did I realise that although I knew I could do anything I turned my hand to, some doors seemed invisibly closed.

Years later, of course, I am proudly feminist, and I don’t think anyone would accuse me of lacking in femininity. Feminism and femininity are not mutually exclusive. And I find that the sexiest men are feminists too- they hold enough personal power not to need to sustain it by holding women down.
darrel nayAugust 12, 2014 at 11:40 am

Thanks Letitia McQuade,

re: .the label “feminism” has had it’s meaning hijacked, by people who clearly oppose women’s rights to be treated equally and fairly…. this hijacking has been so effective that feminism has come to be seen not as and liberating, empowering, (for everyone), but as aggressive, petty, whiny and irrelevant…. Now if you ask yourself who does this rebranding serve, the answer is clearly NOT WOMEN!!!

It has been well documented that certain powers that be don’t want empowering movements to succeed, rather they want us all to do as we’re told – ie. buy coca cola and macdonalds and consume mainstream media. These powers include the (on record) case of the CIA funding Gloria Steinam’s feminist magazine for shadowy purposes.

Freedom

ps. I gained a little more respect for rossleigh for his abovementioned anecdote – nice work
Kaye LeeAugust 12, 2014 at 12:04 pm

“In terms of feminism, I’ve never been someone who really associates with that movement. That movement was a set of ideologies from many, many decades ago now.” – Senator Michaelia Cash, Minister assisting the Prime Minister for Women, March 2014

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/makingaustralia/educationextras/episode-one/clip-four.htm
Letitia McQuadeAugust 12, 2014 at 12:35 pm

for a creepy second there Kay I thought you talking in your own voice… I missed the quotation marks!
and as for Ross Leigh… I Laughed!!!, my husband laughed.. (that is exactly what he would of done in the same circumstances 🙂
Kaye LeeAugust 12, 2014 at 1:23 pm

Letitia,

I still have a newspaper clipping from 1975 (International Women’s Year) that has a big picture of me in my school uniform under the headline “Schoolgirl pours scorn on sex bias”. They interviewed me after I gave a somewhat scathing speech in the Lion’s Club Youth of the Year quest. I cannot believe that, 40 years later, I am still fighting the same battles.

Visiting that page you mentioned is so terribly sad. The latest post shows an attractive young woman with a coy look, wearing a pot load of makeup, holding up a sign that says “Some of the kindest, gentlest people I have known have been men, and most of the judgmental and selfish people I have known have been feminists” with a cute little love heart drawn just so the men know she is a sweetie. She also says that feminists are tyrannical, oppressive fearmongers who give her a hard time for not pursuing a career outside the home.

For some reason, these dolly birds think that being a feminist means you hate men. They don’t seem to understand that men have also reaped rewards from the feminist movement. It gave our economy a huge and long-lasting boost as women entered the workforce. It has led to better relationships and more satisfying sex for all concerned. It heightened awareness of gender discrimination helping men who were also victims. Contraception gave men and women more sexual freedom and abortion also gave them an option other than an unsatisfying marriage. It caused the definition of rape to be changed to include men. It gave men more time off to be with their kids. It demanded that the media change its representation of men from the stereotypical macho muscle man and encouraged men to rethink outdated masculinity standards and gender roles. More men entered fields like nursing and teaching.

To paraphrase Life of Brian….I’m a feminist and my husband’s a feminist too.
donwrefordAugust 12, 2014 at 1:54 pm

Is the basis of marriage or living together just a economic opportunity?
Kaye LeeAugust 12, 2014 at 2:41 pm

Total sales in the beauty industry have reached approximately $426 billion a year.

The site where I accessed this information reassures us by saying “The great news about the beauty industry is that no matter what shape the economy is in, this industry will continue to pull in sizable profits. Consumers want to feel good about themselves and are always looking for ways to change or enhance their look.”

It’s about time we reassessed our priorities and started feeling good about helping people rather than wasting money painting our faces in some vain cry for approval.
Bob FansideAugust 12, 2014 at 4:11 pm

Though I’d ask a question of this crowd, as I believe the author really should have done, to establish whether or not they’re nuts. Got my answer, pretty much:

My question:

Do you accept feminism is still necessary on a global scale, even if it’s no longer relevant to you domestically?

One reply I got:

Do some research and you find that feminists have NEVER been good at helping the brown people, right back to the Suffragettes. They haven’t even widely admitted this but they think they can help women in India and Africa?

“the brown people”. Yeah, nutty Xian mid-west/southern loopheads.
darrel nayAugust 12, 2014 at 5:54 pm

Feminism is a subset of humanism. Given a choice to be humanist or anti-humanist, all but the sociopath will choose humanism. It is the nature of reality that the sociopath blames others for their own issues. This is why some of us get so riled when we hear the anti-humanists preach population control.

Thanks again for all the freedoms we enjoy because gutsy feminists stood up to be counted.
Dan DarkAugust 12, 2014 at 6:30 pm

A good article, I won’t comment only to post a copy of the email I sent Ms Broderick back on the 9th of March 🙂
I did leave out one paragraph as was tooo personal too leave in on a public forum.

Dear Ms Broderick
Your voice, does, has, and will have no impact
on what’s happening to women in Australia

As long as we have a Tony Abbott as the PM
Women are doomed,and we know it,and you know it

I watched you on The Drum the other night
sprouting statistics about how backwards women are going,
in all sorts of ways,domestic violence is at crisis stage,
Pedophiles are being treated to softly softly,
its acceptable still in this country that men sexually abuse girls and boys,

Jill Meagher was a victim of the appalling/legal system
that protects the predators more than the future victim
Another failure of a ‘man’ made system, male dominated

Maybe with all that supposed power you have
you need to put more energy into lobbying Phony Tony
and his henchmen for womens/girls rights

I am 51 years old and I have never come across
a more contaminating man, than Tony Abbott to women
I was astounded that he got up to talk his Bullshit
on Womens International day,and declared himself a feminist
I was embarrassed as a woman to have this vile man
representing women, it was wrong, everything about it.

You obviously make a lot of money
you have a certain amount of power
So I feel you really have no idea how real women live in this
real harsh world

I have no hope left that I will retire before I die
I will die at my work place,having 6 kids over the last 34 years
I have devoted my life to them, but I have sacrificed my security

Whilst my 2 ex husbands keep ripping the system off,
never paying the right maintenance
Able to tax dodge, bribe, buy,and whatever other means
they will use to screw the mother of their children over
It is a well known common practice of men in this country
Maybe things might change, but I doubt it.

Women have no future in this country,and we know it Ms Broderick
So please dont go on The Drum again, its depressing listening to
you and how we are going backwards and being suppressed as women
in this ” lucky country”

Its easy to talk the walk,but much harder to walk the talk
We need action,not platitudes of easy chat on The Drum

Regards
Dan
corvus boreusAugust 12, 2014 at 8:03 pm

darrel nay,
Do not assume that an inherently anti-human attitude is behind any ‘preaching'(or rational attitudes) regarding voluntary human population control. There is also the reality of an exponentially expanding species, with escalating greeds, pushing the finite limitations of a planetary system to it’s limits.
I do not merely preach on this, but practise, and I do not appreciate being labeled ‘anti-humanist’, or, by extension, a ‘sociopath’, because I hold concerns regarding the consequences of broad human behavioral patterns regarding reproduction and consumption.
It is also a non-sequiturial false dichotomy.
Letitia McQuadeAugust 12, 2014 at 8:49 pm

corvus boreus – you may be please to know that we already reached “peak child” and birth rates are falling across the globe… the average fertility rate in Bangladesh is now 2.3 children and dropping…. peak population is not far behind then we can expect a steady decline watch this happy little BBC documentary

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UbmG8gtBPM
corvus boreusAugust 12, 2014 at 9:42 pm

Letitia,
Thank you for the link.
It seems human populations are projected to stabilise at the modest figure of 11 billion by the end of the century.
I shall draw from that what scant comfort and pleasure I can.
Prof Rosling’s video also touched on the huge value of female education in reducing birth rates. Yet another reason (beyond the bleeding obvious underlying fairness) for a continuance of demand for global access to equality of rights and freedom from discrimination for the female of our species.
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 11:55 am

The article is deeply flawed and ironically endemic of the vast multitude of problems which feminism has which in terms of it’s ideological model, make it actually a barrier towards gender equality.

Firstly, the article talks about women in power whilst clearly being oblivious to what real power is in this world. Politicians aren’t powerful by any means- they’re nothing more than puppets. The real power in this world belongs to the Money Power – be it investment bankers, mining magnates or any member of the hegemonic class. This is the class of 0.1%ers who are rarely, if ever, visible and reduce our politicians to nothing more than puppets. Included in that class is the British monarch – who has actually been female for 132 of the past 232 years. The reality is with the exception of Gina Rinehart, such power is rarely, if ever seen – in the case of either hegemonic men or hegemonic women.

Two examples come to mind of this. The first is Melissa Babbage, who until the GFC worked as a majhor derivatives trader for Deutsche Bank and whose investment portfolio was so massive that it’s clear that it is she, rather than Joe Hockey, who is the breadwinner of that family. The second example which comes to mind is an old school friend’s stepmother who again, is a highly wealthy and influential member of the banking class who was even an advisor in the 2nd Bush administration – where the real power lies and this was one of the more powerful advisory positions.

Gina Rinehart has also made their position abundantly clear. Such individuals in the hegemonic class, male or female – care little for plight of the subordinate class and would have us all working for slave wages if they had their way. Any notion which women at the top are “part of the sisterhood” is pure, romanticised drivel. Furthermore, any notion that we are even aware of just what the exact gender breakdown, gendered wealth breakdown and opportunities are for men and women within the hegemonic class – especially when much of that class keep their power and themselves hidden, is misguided.

Secondly, it ignores power dynamics. The fact is that there are a wide raft of factors which determine power in this world of which determine just how powerful or powerless someone is. The fact is that a disabled man will always face greater discrimination in this world than an able-bodied woman, non-caucasian men are more likely to experience discrimination that white women ( especially Middle Eastern men I might add) – in addition to factors such as class, transgender and sexual orientation. Yet feminism discards this complex reality for the theory of “Patriarchy”, whereby all men are falsely elevated to some imagined bourgeois and all women are falsely relegated to some imagined proleteriat. Feminism will certainly claim to acknowledge this inequality, but the cold hard truth is that feminism views it through the lens of “women HAVE problems; men ARE problems”.

Feminists lament their perceived lack of access to the hegemonic class, whilst ignoring that with the way gender dynamics are actually structured in this world, it is men who fare worst in the world. Men make up 95% of workplace fatalities – all so they can be the “good providers [for “women and children”]” which society demands them to be, which in cases of large scale infrastructure involve examples such as the construction of the Panama Canal, where 28,000 men were killed in its construction. Likewise, men make up the primary victims of war, all so they can fulfill the social expectation of being “good protectors [of women and children]” – which results in incidents like the 1 million dead in the battle of the Somme being, all too common in war.

Yet according to the feminist theory of “patriarchy”, men relegated to subordinate masculinities such as this somehow magically oppress women – even hegemonic women like Gina Rinehart who would love nothing more than to use them as slave labour. Furthermore if hegemonic females are just as culpable of this as hegemonic males, then how can a male-power-focused model of patriarchy, even remotely be accurate?

Before I move onto third world issues, let’s take more of a look at first world issues. Feminism perpetuates the myth that when it comes to abuse, “men are [exclusively] perpetrators; women are [exclusively] victims[; anything to the contrary is to be dismissed as a statistical anomaly]”.

In terms of rape, this plays out in the form of the myth that non-consensual sex is only rape when the victim is forcibly penetrated – despite the fact that when studies like the 2010 NIPSVS in the US have kept track of men being forced to penetrate someone against their will, they have found that not only are half of all rape victims men, but that 40% of all rapes are committed by women. Yet this is barely recognised in a society where feminism perpetuates the flawed notion that rape culture is entirely perpetrated upon women by men.

In terms of domestic violence, despite studies having shown for over 4 decades that roughly half of all domestic violence is bi-directional, roughly a quarter is exclusively male-on-female abuse and roughly a quarter is exclusively female-on-male abuse. Yet the collective “[men’s] violence against women” mantra which society dogmatically chants on this issue, results in society treating battered men as urban-myths/perpetual-liars who “had it coming to them” and regards individual victims as effectively being cheap, filthy, worthless sluts”. So vile is this entrenched sexism, that in several states here, police have been trained to automatically view the male as the aggressor on domestic violence call-outs, resulting in many domestic violence victims being arrested, simply because they have a penis between their legs.

In terms of child sex trafficking, it is portrayed in the media as exclusively being men preying on girls. However the reality is, in the US for example, that half of all child sex trafficking victims are boys, 35% of all child sex traffickers are female and studies have found that 40% of boys and 13% of girls service female clients.

In terms of pedophilia in general, society views a boy being raped by an older woman as a “rite of passage” – so much so that laws in the US for example, mandate that a male child rape victim must pay child support to their rapist if a child results from the rape. Furthermore researchers in the UK have found that victims of female child predators, male or female, are far less likely to be believed than victims of male child sex predators when they disclose their abuse – even to police.

This is of course, just a handful of issues in the developed world of many. Then there are problems in the third world faced by men – such as the epidemic of war rape against men in the Congo, to which both women and men are active participants in.

People cite the brutality of women in Shari Law abiding Islamic countries, whilst completely ignoring the plight of homosexual men there being just as brutal.

Then you have India where female violence against men not only gets a free pass, but the victims are mocked if they are witnessed or dare to speak out.

Again, these are just a couple of examples of countless many.

The thing is, if feminism is so concerned with gender equality, then where is it’s genuine recognition of these issues in terms of men HAVING issues, as opposed to men BEING issues?

Where is feminism’s recognition of both subordinate masculinities and hegemonic femininities?

Where is feminism’s recognition of the existence of female privilege (which btw is a significant barrier in addressing female hypoagency) as well as male privilege and the effect that both forms of privilege have in maintaining traditional gender inequalities? For that matter where is feminism’s accurate understanding that “privilege” is nothing more than a conditionally granted set of permissions designed to glorify and maintain traditional gender norms that are revoked the instant an individual deviates too far from acceptable gender norms.

Ms McQuade laments the page she found, yet she is clearly blind to why egalitarian women would have serious concerns over feminism as a movement in an ideological sense or the fact that if feminism cleaned house (beginning with recognising the existence of female privilege and how it has poisoned feminism) it would ironically be well on the way to addressing female hypoagency and therefore achieving genuine gender equality as a foundational level of society – whilst gaining support from egalitarians, who have surpassed feminism’s flawed and superficial gender understandings.

Sadly, much like paleo-masculinists, PUAs and Beta Male Traditionalists are blind to how toxic and self-destructive male privilege is, so too are traditionalist females and feminists blind to how toxic and self-destructive female privilege is. Until such time as that changes, more and more people are going to discard feminism as a toxic and academically superficial gender model.
Bob FansideAugust 13, 2014 at 1:04 pm

bowspearer,

Can you point to a sub-continental cultural/gender equivalent to dowry deaths? i.e. to a deadly punitive practice that is gender based, effecting men exclusively?
Kaye LeeAugust 13, 2014 at 1:47 pm

bowspearer,

I completely disagree with your assertions. I also question your statistics as I could quote many sources that refute what you say.

“feminism perpetuates the flawed notion that rape culture is entirely perpetrated upon women by men”

This is completely untrue. The feminism movement was instrumental in recognising rape of males. The laws were specifically changed to include oral and anal penetration and to eliminate gender. It also broke down the ideas that men have to be the protectors and breadwinners or that women should be the ones doing the unpaid work at home.

This isn’t about power. It is about respect. It is about opportunity. It is about safety. It is about choice. You cannot seriously believe that, historically and around the world, women are open to a level playing field. It wasn’t that long ago that we were considered the possessions of our husbands.

I detest people who make this a divisive issue. What are you afraid of? This is not “them vs us”, this is about women trying to become part of “us”. Violence and discrimination against anyone should be condemned. Gender or sexuality, race or religion, all should be irrelevant.

Letitia is correct in saying the term feminism has been hijacked and made into some form dirty word. Saying men can be discriminated against too is ignoring what women have had to fight to achieve. We live in a country that did not let people vote based on their gender and their race. Aborigines were not even counted in the census until relatively recently.

Your statistics are dubious and you have ignored the point of this very good article.
Dan DarkAugust 13, 2014 at 2:06 pm

Kaye I think bowser is an Abbott troll, they fly in fly out and just spread shit around basically, I read it and went sheesh there is a clown in every circus and Bowser is it today 🙂
Matters NotAugust 13, 2014 at 2:38 pm

Bowser is dealing with the concept of ‘hegemony’ alluded to by Marx but really developed by Antonio Gramsci. Gramsci spent much of his ‘thinking’ life in prison where ne wrote more than 30 notebooks and 3000 pages of history. Published as “From the Prison Notebooks”, it’s had a great influence on Western Marxist thought.

Where I think Bowser errs is that he ignores the possibility of a ‘counter hegemony’. It seems to me that resolving the issues raised by ‘feminism’ is essential to that task.

And I think if he makes claims that are somewhat counter intuitive then he ought to reference same or at least provide a link.
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 3:04 pm

@Dan Dirk If I’m such an “Abbott Troll” as you put it, then why did I send him scurrying away with his tail between his legs back in the days of VSU when he showed up on my uni campus?
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 3:40 pm

@Kaye Lee Much of your response is flawed.

Firstly you fail to recognise the nature of the feminist movement at a practical level. The fact is that feminists fall into three categories, due to the current political landscape. The first category are the militants who are on record as viewing all men as predators, and support the genocide of 90% of men whilst retaining the rest for breeding stock. The second category are the political opportunists, who, whilst not actually supportive of their idea themselves, actively give them as much free reign as possible because of the political mileage they bring. The third category, are misguided egalitarians, who are genuinely interested in gender equality, but due to being unaware of the militancy at the point of the sword in terms of the movement and an inability to ostracise individuals in the first 2 categories, unwittingly wind up as ideological shields for the first 2 categories. You can call that hijacking by all means, but if you are going to do so, then you need to recognise that the movement has failed to address this hijacking for approximately 50 years.

Then there’s your fraudulent claims about rape:

“This is completely untrue. The feminism movement was instrumental in recognising rape of males. The laws were specifically changed to include oral and anal penetration and to eliminate gender.”

There you go, by your own admission, feminism frames rape entirely around the definition of a victim being sexually penetrated against their will rather than by a victim being forced to engage in sexual intercourse against their will.

Oh and if you want to see just how massive that elephant in the room can be, this article by Alison Tieman: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:lVuW-G7NyJoJ:www.genderratic.com/p/836/manufacturing-female-victimhood-and-marginalizing-vulnerable-men/+&cd=7&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=au&client=firefox

“It also broke down the ideas that men have to be the protectors and breadwinners or that women should be the ones doing the unpaid work at home.”

On the contrary, the ideas that men only have value in terms of their ability to provide, ability to protect and their sexual prowess still define the value of the Australian man to this day.

“You cannot seriously believe that, historically and around the world, women are open to a level playing field. It wasn’t that long ago that we were considered the possessions of our husbands.”

Exactly which magic world is it you live in where gender was the only grounds in which someone was dehumanised. It was less than a century ago that someone of non-caucasian ethnicity was dehumanised as savages under Social Dawrinism. Meanwhile Australians with disabilities such as myself are to this day regarded as “worthless eaters” in a society where disability discrimination outstrips all others in our society. Don’t even get me started on how feminism turns into “Nazism in lipstick” the moment aborting those of us who are disabled is concerned.

Yet under Patriarchal theory I, as a disabled Australian, magically oppress able-bodied women because I have a penis between my legs? In exactly which fantasy world does this take place in?

Furthermore I’m not afraid of anything here- I simply see what feminism does to compound the suffering, marginalisation and victimisation of male victims of male abusers, how feminist rhetoric marginalises any of us who happen to be a member of a persecuted minority under the dogma of “women have problems; men ARE problems” and recognise all too clearly the fact that much of feminism’s ideological foundations are far too superficially based and lacking in the deeper and nuanced understandings of gender required to both grasp the full nature of male and female gender issues and how both perpetuate and feed upon one another.

Furthermore there is nothing whatsoever dubious about my statistics. In terms of domestic violence, here is an in depth annotated bibliography on domestic violence globally: http://csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

I would point out too that on reporting figures alone, the 2010 NSW Auditor General’s report found that 34% of victims of all reported DV cases were male, whilst 30% of abusers were found to be female.

The epidemic of male rape in the Congo: http://www.theguardian.com/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men

The realities of child sex trafficking: http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/10-surprising-and-counterintuitive-facts-about-child-sex-trafficking

The legal reality for child rape victims of female rapists in the USA: http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberthirtysix.htm

But of course how dare any uppity penis on legs in a minority dare challenge any movement which has been guilty of contributing to the dehumanisation and marginalisation we face on a daily basis.
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 3:42 pm

@Bob Fanside you mean like “Primary Aggressor” arrest procedures in cases of domestic violence, which are such blatant state-perpetuated abuse towards male victims of domestic violence, that a study on male victims of domestic violence by Edith Cowan University in 2010 found that battered men in WA were 3 times more likely to be arrested than believed in the case of a police domestic disturbance callout?
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 3:46 pm

@Matters Not Actually what I’m referring to is the work of Dudink, Tosh and Hagemann in their exploration of hegemonic and subordinate masculinities and expanding upon their work. One of the more insightful observations they make is that the biggest barrier faced by women to gender equality, is a lack of agency, or hypoagency. Incidentally, their work, which one of my history lecturers put me onto, can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Masculinities-Politics-War-Gendering-History/dp/0719065216
Dan DarkAugust 13, 2014 at 4:21 pm

How many men die in this country at the hands of women in domestic violence, go get your stats for that, over 70 women a year a murdered at hands of men, that’s not counting women like Jill Meahger who was raped and murdered by a “stranger”, and was that a multiple answer question, cos if it was there wouldn’t be enough boxes to describe Phony Tony, he is indescribable and a total loser basically 😉
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 4:34 pm

@Dan Dark, your response reeks of domestic violence apologetics and chauvinism. For starters, your entire response openly implies that anyone living under domestic violence who isn’t murdered is having a wonderful time instead of living every minute in fear of how their partners will “punish them”. Your response not only cheapens and mocks the horrors which those of us who are battered men have endured, or have had to endure, but also the horrors of battered women. Furthermore, chauvinistic beta male responses like yours are the reason why the Kristy Ann Abrahams of this world get a free pass and why the Keisha Wiepperts of this world are abused and butchered whilst the system turns a blind eye to “harmless” female abusers.

However since you want to look at stats, here’s an interesting one – according to the NSW Police a couple of months back on prime time tv, 73% of all domestic homicide victims are women, which by inference means that 27% of all domestic homicide victims are male, or more than one in 4 – which is in line with the figures coming out of the UK. However, even if men made up 5% of domestic homicide victims, that would still be 5% of domestic homicide victims which the approach you advocate gives a free pass to.

How ironic you are so quick to vilify Tony Abbott for sexism (and personally I can’t stand the man) when your own sexism only differs with Tony’s in the gender which you vilely target with your brand of inexcusible and chauvinistic bigotry.
Dan DarkAugust 13, 2014 at 4:59 pm

Bowser la la la la you know nothing about me, you are a wowser and if you are going to post comments
three fecking pages long to prove a point it doesn’t work,
word words words people want short and sweet, facts not some long ramble about nothing
Wowser facts that aren’t pulled out of your arse mate
Have a great evening, because I don’t argue with idiots so will be my last comment to you 🙂
Kaye LeeAugust 13, 2014 at 5:12 pm

bowspearer,

Are you still trying to make this a men vs women thing? You really don’t understand do you.

“But of course how dare any uppity penis on legs in a minority dare challenge any movement which has been guilty of contributing to the dehumanisation and marginalisation we face on a daily basis.”

I think you have issues that go way beyond feminism. Trying to stereotype us and calling us “Nazis in lipstick” destroys any credibility you may have had and I do not think my husband and son, who are both feminists, would appreciate your labels any more than I do.

“Exactly which magic world is it you live in where gender was the only grounds in which someone was dehumanised.”

Could you point out where I said anything remotely like that? What a totally bizarre thing to say. Following your logic I cannot discuss the dehumanisation of asylum seekers because of discrimination against the disabled. I will say again…it is about respect, opportunity, choice and safety for ALL people.

Stop telling me what I think because you have it so totally wrong it is offensive. I have worked for years with young men and women who have been the victims of violence and abuse. I do not differentiate on the basis of the gender of the victim as you would have me do. It isn’t a competition.

“the ideas that men only have value in terms of their ability to provide, ability to protect and their sexual prowess still define the value of the Australian man to this day.”

Maybe in your household….certainly not amongst my family and friends. We view families as partnerships and roles change depending on circumstance.

“I, as a disabled Australian, magically oppress able-bodied women because I have a penis between my legs”

What paranoic rot. I do not agree with fanaticism or extremism. Your didactic dismissal of my point of view is oppressive and offensive. Your arrogance in classifying me is presumptuous. Your penis is irrelevant.
Anne ByamAugust 13, 2014 at 5:15 pm

@ bowspearer – Well – that sure is fascinating. I also would like to see some ‘links’ to reference some of your assertions.

And I agree with Matters Not … the principles of hegemony – ( be it political, cultural or domestic ) was developed first by Antonio Gramsci, a Communist intellectual – and later furthered by Marx. It means ( in today’s dictionaries ) ” leadership or dominance ” and many other synonyms which could start a whole new ball game on the subject. ( Yes I’ve been Googling too ).

Am suggesting here the WORD ‘feminism’ is the culprit – to bring about such furious debate about what it is, and what it is not. The word has had a very chequered history. Its opposite is masculinism. We rarely hear that word uttered ?? Why is that ?

Traditionally, going back to I have no idea when ( neanderthal ? times ), had men as the hunters and gatherers. Women were the birth givers and nurturers. This basically ( if you think about it ) still applies today. A man cannot give birth, he has not the working parts to do so, and a woman does not have the physical strength of the male. There are a few exceptions to the rule of strength in women e.g. I’d like to see my male family members, try and take on a world class female boxer, wrestler or body builder. Those women have entered the sanctuary of the male. Not sure whether to say good on ’em or not !! The jury is still out.

I do agree in one instance with bowspearers dissertation. That many women are not ‘innocents’ when it comes to cruelty, imperial dominance in a family, the using of innocent children for profit ( sexually ) … and many other nasties that women can impart. Not the least of which is emotional manipulation and mental cruelty. That’s not confined to women of course, men do all that too.

Men however, are more inclined to use their fists than women, with strength greater than a womans’. On a % basis, I would like to find statistics on that alone. Men CAN ( but don’t necessarily do so ) resort to a primitive mode ( as do women also at times ) of inflicting pain and dominance over whatever they see is getting in their way of some objective. This can be brought about by many many pre-determined factors, but not only that.

Alcohol releases aggressions ( men and women ), pre-conditioning – as a child raised in a violent family. [ I don’t need stats. on that – I have seen it first hand for myself ]. Personality types predispose to cruelty – or not ( men and women ). Religion ( non-specific here ) has produced some ghastly creatures ( men and women ) and stresses of various kinds ( perceived or real ).

Men and women are psychologically different. That’s a given. ” Vive la difference ” literally means – translated “long live the difference “.

Accepting that men and women are different – those differences should be respected and perhaps understood a little more ( IF that’s possible ) ?

While feminism has been a ‘movement’ dating back to before Suffragette days, and it has changed over time, it is a choice to be made by women. It has little or nothing to do with the meaning of the word “femininity”. Masculinism is presumably also a choice ?? But we cannot know that for sure because men don’t talk about it or acknowledge it – except to claim their masculinity or maleness in a variety of ways.

Seems to me the whole lot should be re-thought, and at present – both men and women are capable and culpable in the more brutal of pursuits. I am not here to argue percentages.

Some may think I am fence-sitting. Well maybe I am. But anything to reduce violence, human against human no matter their gender, and to promote better understanding, can only be something to aspire to. A good re-think needed, methinks.

Just a thought !!!!
Anne ByamAugust 13, 2014 at 5:37 pm

@ bowspearer …. YOU HAVE JUST VERY BADLY BLOTTED YOUR COPY BOOK. I have NEVER read such nonsense as is shown in your first paragraph, in your longest recent comment – you know the one I mean !!.

Militants ……. >>> who want to preserve breeding stock ? Too much TV watching methinks. Amazons ? Well if I met one, I think I’d give it the good old college try to maybe rearrange her face somewhat. ( an aggressive statement ? – YEP ).

Political opportunists ………>>> looking for political mileage ? Not all women ( OR men ) are opportunists however, I must say that most people who aspire to a political career – BECOME opportunists. Aside from that, why shouldn’t a woman ( any person ) if it’s what they want gain what they can in their career. It’s called ‘climbing the ladder of success’ … and is NOT confined to women in politics. AND it often takes a lot of bloody hard work … by both genders …… Geez !!

Misguided egalitarians, who ……………………….>>> unwittingly wind up as ideological shields for the first 2 categories. ? Are you SERIOUS ? What a load of codswallop.

Two words for you “bows” ….. MYSOGINIST EXTRAORDINAIRE.
Kaye LeeAugust 13, 2014 at 5:39 pm

For those who think there is no place for a feminist movement, watch this and tell me how we eradicate this behaviour from our society.
Letitia McQuadeAugust 13, 2014 at 6:06 pm

Well it appears there is mad rush for the victim suit, (and it’s bastard suits all round for the losers 🙂
So bowspearer, without wishing to engage in a protracted exchange, to my mind nothing you have said refutes my stated position, that feminism has done some good work, and that it has been demonized as a means of shutting it down…. I do not lay blame for said demonizing at the feet of either gender, both men and women are hard at it…as my reference to the “women against feminism” page attests.

Arguments about who is more discriminated against (in the endless battle for the victim suit) are are not productive… all discrimination should be addressed, and to say one shouldn’t discuss or shed light on discrimination against women, because disabled people, or men are also discriminated against is an unquestionably fatuous argument.

Also, just for the record, you can not legitimately fit all “feminists” into one of your three neat pigeon holes, it just doesn’t work that way. Feminists are people, men and women who want equality… that’s it, they come in all shapes, sizes, colours and genders. And I do not believe there is any value to be had in ascribing feminism a position or meaning any more or less than the dictionary definition provided… anything outside of that is simply a product of personal projection and selective interpretation.

On a personal note I find it deeply sad for you that you find your life to be so afflicted by discrimination on the basis of your disability, (that said most of us are discriminated against on some basis or another… black, white, male, female, rich, poor, tall, short, fat, thin, disability, citizenship blah blah). Further, I am also sorry that the discrimination you feel you suffer seems to have made it difficult for you to have compassion for others, who are discriminated against for different reasons. (in this case women/feminists).

Just to be clear I am well aware of discrimination against men, (particularly in matters of family law) and have recently written an in depth screen play on that very subject… but that is a different topic, and clearly not the topic of this article.
I also live with a blind and semi deaf relative so I know how distressing disability can be… but once again this a different topic…, and one I am happy to write about on another occasion.
We humans are all in this together, and we need to support each other in accessing a fair go. We need to not be tearing each other down because we feel we have had a raw deal….
On life’s journey, at some point, we all get a raw deal in some way or another, it’s part of being human.
For me, I find my humanity works best, and I am happiest when I try to understand and empathize with how it is for others’ and have compassion for their suffering. Sometimes I succeed, other times I fail… but it always better for me when I am able to empathize… I sincerely hope you to can find a way to feel less aggrieved and more supported by the people in your life… good luck on your journey…
and so you are forewarned, and do not take it personally I want you to know I will not be posting on this thread again, so there will be no further response for me.. cheers and thank you for your spirited engagement
Bob FansideAugust 13, 2014 at 8:10 pm

bowspearer,

Your reply wasn’t relevant or responsive to my question. Care to try again?
Anne ByamAugust 13, 2014 at 8:12 pm

Letitia … your response is compassionate, well written and inspiring. Good onya.
Anne ByamAugust 13, 2014 at 8:17 pm

Kaye Lee …. I had seen that video clip somewhere else, but did not pursue it at the time.

Now I have.

And what is shown on that clip is outrageous, utterly disgusting, …. I cannot find words enough to describe the revulsion I feel, that anyone could so attack another person, in such a way. I knew it had happened – from time to time ( watching Parliament Question Time ) but did not realise the extent of it, or the vileness of it. Women chimed in as well, which is absolutely shameful.

Thanks ( I think ) for posting it. AB.
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 8:47 pm

@Anne Byam Your position was initially highly intelligent and insightful, however it quickly deteriorated into a case in point.

However since you seem oblivious to the nature of feminism, and @Lelita, I’ll address your response here too, I’ll get to exactly what I’m referring to.

The militant extremist category of feminists is far from fantasy and is in fact not only reality, but these are individuals whom for years served as sources used in Women’s Studies courses at a tertiary level.

Firstly, Mary Daly who famously wrote that: “If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males.”

Then there’s this cracker from Andrea Dworkin: “I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig.”

Of course then there’s the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto by Valerie Solanas – claimed to be a work of satire when Solanas herself is infamous for shooting Andy Warhol. I’m curious as to whether that gun violence is then regarded as comedy or “performance art”.

Of course these individuals brought with them Patriarchal theory which by its very nature attempts to shoehorn every single power differential into a purely gender based imbalance.

Here’s a classic example of where that has led to in terms of issues of male victimisation – particularly when it involves female abuses of power: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qodygTkTUYM

Which leads me to the second category of feminists, who have never agreed with this radical violent and genocidal response towards men but are all too supportive of Patriarchal theory, which when taken to its conclusions would have people believe that Gina Rinehart is oppressed by the homeless – so they give the radicals a free pass rather than condemning them – benefiting from a mix of the pushing of boundaries by the militants and men being programmed to provide for and protect women, especially when a woman is perceived as a victim. The very fact that we have the Duluth model defining most domestic violence when we have experts like Erin Pizzey pointing out how baseless and flawed it is, is evidence of this.

Then you have the third category of feminists who simply want women to be treated fairly and were it just them on their own, it would be admirable. However it isn’t. What you have is the misguided egalitarians (misguided because in many cases, they’re unaware of what the militant fringe driving the movement actually believes in and stands for) who the first two categories are able to hide behind and use as an ideological shield – which has been the state of play for the past 40-50 years.

Granted, not all feminists believe in the same thing. However collectively, what you ultimately have is a movement where those attitudes are given a free pass. As such, if the movement condones hate-mongering, then it is, at least to some extent, a hate movement. Does it have to stay that way, absolutely not. However the only way that will change is when the mainstream egalitarian group of feminists recognise that “not all feminists are like that” simply doesn’t cut it in addressing the issue and that what is needed is for the extremists and opportunists to be told in no uncertain terms that they do not speak for the movement as a whole – publicly shaming and ostracising them.

Of course saying this in no, way, shape or form discounts that issues affecting women, which are specific to women, shouldn’t be treated seriously; it simply takes issue with an ideological framework, which for the past 50 years, has been flawed, sexist and superficial in its understandings.

Yet in practice it is so much easier to engage in gender objectification based shaming by cheapening the term “misogynist” than it does to actually address the khaki coloured elephant in the room.
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 9:11 pm

@Kaye Lee “Are you still trying to make this a men vs women thing? You really don’t understand do you.”

The person who doesn’t get it is you- conventional feminist ideological approaches by their nature have made it a men vs women thing rather than a “let’s leave no stone unturned and deal with all gender based inequality” thing. Until feminism recognises the existence of female privilege in addition to male privilege and recognises that victimhood and perpetratorhood knows no boundaries in terms of gender, that wont change.

“But of course how dare any uppity penis on legs in a minority dare challenge any movement which has been guilty of contributing to the dehumanisation and marginalisation we face on a daily basis.”

“I think you have issues that go way beyond feminism. Trying to stereotype us and calling us “Nazis in lipstick” destroys any credibility you may have had and I do not think my husband and son, who are both feminists, would appreciate your labels any more than I do.”

Actually what I specifically said was “Don’t even get me started on how feminism turns into “Nazism in lipstick” the moment aborting those of us who are disabled is concerned.”

The notion of specifically targeting and aborting someone who is disabled on the grounds of disability is grounded on the premises of dehumanising the victim as “a burden/parasite” and then glorifying the barbarism as “a kindness”. That is quite literally the ideological position of a Nazi. Considering that feminist support of this barbarism is typically masked behind “a woman’s right to choose”, how is that description anything other than accurate – despite how uncomfortable it might be for you to hear.

“Could you point out where I said anything remotely like that? What a totally bizarre thing to say. Following your logic I cannot discuss the dehumanisation of asylum seekers because of discrimination against the disabled. I will say again…it is about respect, opportunity, choice and safety for ALL people.”

Do you mean besides the fact that your response to criticism of feminism in terms of it’s flawed adoption of patriarchal theory, was to defend it by arguing about how I must have been claiming that women have never faced gender inequality? You may well be about equality, but you are defending a movement that has through flawed dogma, equated all men to the top 1% of all society and all women to the bottom 99% of all society.

“Stop telling me what I think because you have it so totally wrong it is offensive. I have worked for years with young men and women who have been the victims of violence and abuse. I do not differentiate on the basis of the gender of the victim as you would have me do. It isn’t a competition.”

And yet here you are vehemently defending a gender movement instrumental in thew widespread adoption of the sexist Duluth Model which does differentiate on the grounds of gender. If your position is so at odds with that, then why come into bat for it.

“Maybe in your household….certainly not amongst my family and friends. We view families as partnerships and roles change depending on circumstance.

Are you denying that society is only interested in dealing with “violence against women”, views male victims of violence at the hands of men as “men doing it to each other”, views female-on-male violence as either being harmless of an act of self-defence, or that attitudes towards female-on-male sex crimes in society, including female-on-male sex crimes, are so twisted that if they were applied systemically to women in the same way there’d be rioting on the streets?
As it was written almost 30 years ago and still applies today:

“The single biggest barrier to getting men to look within is that what any other group would call powerlessness, men have been taught to call power. We don’t call “male-killing” sexism; we call it “glory.” We don’t call the one million men who were killed or maimed in one battle in World War I (the Battle of the Somme) a holocaust, we call it “serving the country.” We don’t call those who selected only men to die “murderers.” We call them “voters.” Our slogan for women is “A Woman’s Body, A Woman’s Choice”; our slogan for men is “A Man’s Gotta Do What a Man’s Gotta Do.”
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 9:16 pm

@Bob Fanside A couple of examples come to mind – I was simply dealing with a situation that involves state sponsored, gender targeted violence which men are victimised by.

Traditionally, the draft has been one such policy – remembering that conscription in most countries has traditionally at least, only ever applied to men. Then you have the death penalty for homosexuality under Sharia Law. The big problem when it comes to malegender issues, as Tosh writes, is that where female gender issues tend to be explicitly acknowledged and addressed, male gender issues tend to be quietly excused and ignored.
Kaye LeeAugust 13, 2014 at 9:17 pm

I have been a feminist for 50 years. How can you presume to tell me who I am and what it means?

I do not agree with those people nor condone their point of view. Am I to judge all men by what some men say or do? Am I to judge all disabled people, or Muslims, or Aboriginals by what some of them say or do? It is YOU who does not understand what feminism is. You quote a few extreme views that very few people would agree with and use it to belittle a movement that has achieved a great deal and still has a long way to go.

Feminism is a way of life for me but it isn’t the totality of my life or my overriding passion. I have written articles here and letters to several MPs and to the HRC about the sacking of Graeme Ennis who has worked so hard for so many years fighting for the rights of the disabled. I have also spoken out about the defunding of advocacy groups and NFPs. I have similarly written about asylum seekers. I rang Joe Hockey’s office about the attack on the poor, suggesting alternate revenue sources.

I want to do what I can to make all people’s lives better and to fight injustice wherever it may be.

I think you have perhaps read too many scholarly articles about radical feminists. You are totally ignoring and twisting everything that is put to you because you have this unrealistic definition in your mind. You seem to equate feminism and misandry – they are very different things.

You want to be the biggest victim. All yours. Wallow away. I also will no longer bother responding.
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 9:30 pm

@Kaye Lee What you’re failing to grasp is that feminism is a collective movement and so it is defined by both the actions of those radicals and the inaction of those who give them a free pass. Regardless of what you personally believe in, you are identifying with a movement where such views are permitted. Even now you refuse to take off the rose coloured glasses and recognise that it is the agenda which those militants have set which has created an awful lot of collateral damage, to the point where the hypocrisy of it no doubt has Mary Wollstonecroft rolling in her grave.

You claim those are a few extreme examples, but those are the types of views which drive several areas of government, including creating an approach to domestic violence which treats battered men as scum who “had it coming to them”. Furthermore these are the very types of individuals whose beliefs are used as reference material in Women’s Studies degrees- how can you imply that something is marginalised when it has in fact, been institutionalised. As Mary Wollstoncroft stated at the very start of the feminist movement – rights should never be obtained in a manner which equally inflicts injustice on others. Yet that is exactly the trap feminism has fallen into ever since the 2nd Wave.

At some point you and other feminists need to wake up to the fact that this is no longer a hijacking, as it has moved from invasion to occupation a long time ago. You say you hate those attitudes and they they do not speak for you, yet why condone them getting a free pass within a movement you choose to identify with?
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 9:39 pm

@Kaye Lee One other thing, you claim that misandry and feminism are separate, but when feminism promotes the Duluth Model and when feminism’s default position is that any male victimisation by women must be seen as part of “The Patriarchy” (ie he’s REALLY the perpetrator and she’s REALLY the victim) or that any male isse is trivial because of “the Patriarchy”, then how is that not a case of feminism, as of Second Wave feminism, directly promoting a social culture of misandry?
John FraserAugust 13, 2014 at 9:40 pm

<

@bowspearer

Nice to see such a giant of intellect here.

Are you related to George by any chance ?

No need to respond …. because frankly my dear I don't give a rats if you have had your "feminist" anti vaccination shots or not.
corvus boreusAugust 13, 2014 at 9:52 pm

That I may never be held accountable for the most extreme or offensive viewpoints of any individual expressing a shared belief, may I clarify that I ascribe to no belief or ideology that anyone else adheres to.
I shall now hence-forthwith group all the rest of you into mandatory triages of convenient categories of my own creation.
Anne ByamAugust 13, 2014 at 9:58 pm

OK … I’ll bite. But it’s the LAST bite ‘Bows’. My ‘initial’ response that you refer to, was my attempt at getting genders to see one another differently, more exactly, more sympathetically – and it contained references to both genders – pretty much equally.

That was MY point.

Then came your response to my post and Letitia’s post – your reply was an abomination. As a person ( whether I am male or female ) I had the RIGHT to bloody-well respond to that insulting, ill-defined and biased diatribe – being your third long post
(you know the one I mean ).

You have chosen examples of the most bombastic and extreme examples of feminism in your most recent reply. I don’t think that quite cuts it – do you ? Really ? There are extremists in almost every belief or following – and you KNOW that. So please – don’t throw THAT around.

e,g, the SCUM organisation – or whatever the hell that is … is a scurge – a rotten twist to everything that is feminine, masculine, femininistic or masculinistic. I would be utterly ashamed to put my name to anything like that, and I think I speak for many here. Yet you bring that up … I rather think as a provoking mechanism. Perhaps after all, you are an agent provacateur. ??

You have gone waaaay over the odds – and have repeated your 3 ‘categories’ of feminists’ – as though that might vindicate your theories, ideas and position. It doesn’t … it couldn’t …. because you seem to have conveniently forgotten that we are in fact ALL individuals.

How DARE you try to lump people into categories, as suits your needs – to imply, to write, to impose or to simply insult. ??

Your last sentence was priceless. Cheapening the word “mysoginist” ???? It couldn’t be ‘cheaper’ in its meaning, if it tried. Any more than “misandrist” would be. Look it up if you don’t understand that words’ meaning.

This, ‘bows’ is my last post to you …… go for it ….. write or reply all you like. And if your writing is cathartic for you in some way, then that’s a very good thing. …… This has been a debate … and in that spirit, I genuinely, wish you well.
Dan DarkAugust 13, 2014 at 10:01 pm

Corvus
Can I please be in the centatoid category, or what ever the name is in little bug world 🙂
corvus boreusAugust 13, 2014 at 10:09 pm

Sorry DanDark, the new, improved and simplified categories are; 1)dangerous, 2)edible and 3)irrelevant.
Dan DarkAugust 13, 2014 at 10:17 pm

Corvus Oh goodie I love multiple choice answers, um okay I will pick number 3
Cos the other 2 I am not, so it must be three, have you written a Theseus on this new and improved model
I would like to see your references, scientific studies etc lol
Facts Corvus lol or bowser will be back with some for us 🙂
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 10:18 pm

@Anne Bylam The irony of your post is that it contradicts itself. You are absolutely right that we need a more nuanced view of gender which recognises how gender is a zero sum game where for most people involved their are no winners. However what you are in denial of is that feminism, since at least the 2nd wave, has been poisoned by a gendered dogma which has not merely infested academia, but social policy. Under this dogma, it was not simply enough to advance the plight of women, but the plight of men, no matter how genuine, has had to be diminished. Also it’s not the SCUM “organisation” but the SCUM manifesto and for many years it was required reading in many women’s studies courses.

Furthermore you missed the point, ironically in light of the article itself. Is it abhorrent that that is the nature of the modern feminist movement? Absolutely. However the fact is that you have a militant group and an opportunistic group of feminists who both use each other to serve their own ends, and then you have a third moderate mainstream of egalitarians who bought into the “travel brochure” version of feminism (eg “feminism is about addressing inequalities faced by women so it must be about equality”) and are knowingly used as an ideological shield by the militants and political opportunists. The irony of your response is that you’re angry at someone pointing out the state of play, rather than the state of play itself.

Furthermore if, like Kaye Lee, you are so appalled at that state of play, then why isn’t your anger directed there?

The cold hard truth is that feminism will stop being a hate movement when the moderate mainstream stop allowing the radical fringes to make it into one. Or is it simply far easier to fall back on female privilege and claim victim status than agency in its entirety here.
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 10:19 pm

@Dan Dark I thought you were ‘done’ here after responding with “tl;dnr”, to being called out having engaged in blatant domestic violence apologetics.
corvus boreusAugust 13, 2014 at 10:21 pm

DanDark,
Did you know that 68.43% of all internet statistics are pulled from the poster’s rectum.
I forget where I sourced that one from.
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 10:22 pm

@John Fraser Don’t sweat it. As I once herd it put over a decade ago- after due consideration, I printed out your comment, read it in the smallest room in my house, and then put it behind me.
Dan DarkAugust 13, 2014 at 10:22 pm

Yep I wish him well to, the next wishing well he passes throw 20 cents in it and all will be well 🙂
Dan DarkAugust 13, 2014 at 10:23 pm

Lol that would be MSN they print shit Corvus
Dan DarkAugust 13, 2014 at 10:25 pm

I am chatting to others about bug facts, it’s a free world isn’t it still Corvus? Or a free AIMN I should say
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 10:26 pm

@Corvus boreus Are you denying that movements are collectively responsible for either expelling/ostracising militant members or that in failing to do so, that movements are complicit in the perpetuation of such views? To be clear, in no way am I claiming that this is simply limited to feminism.
corvus boreusAugust 13, 2014 at 10:27 pm

Not so, DD, I don’t gobble MSN.
Actually, I think it was one of my own brain farts that I swallowed and regurgitated.
Wouldn’t I make a grouse PM?
Bob FansideAugust 13, 2014 at 10:30 pm

bowspearer,

Are you the same fellow that has in various modes argued that abortion of the “disabled” amounts to Nazi eugenics? I’m detecting a familiar leitmotif …
corvus boreusAugust 13, 2014 at 10:32 pm

Bowspringer,
No, and as a part-time, non-commital feminist, I disavow Ms Blibbity Hatemale, or even Germaine Greer at her bitter worst, when they lay collective blame for individual misdeeds, and prejudicially discriminate against men, particularly with militant hate.
Now can I please still be a feminist without you needing me to hate my own sex?
Dan DarkAugust 13, 2014 at 10:35 pm

About 6 months ago the neighbour across the road had beaten his partner, when I got home from work, he was head butting and thumping the front door to get in to beat her in front of his 2 little kids again, I yelled out hey mate what are you doing he turned and looked at me, and started pounding the lead light door again, I walked closer and said hey mate what are you doing, with that he flew across the road at me abusing me because I wouldn’t let him beat her up, I stood my ground, I thought he was going to hit me for a minute, he swore at me threatened me, eventually I pretended to be on his side he calmed down, I said get in your gov car and move it the cops will be here soon someone will ring them, the cops called me brave, when making statement, I said he was going to kill her what did you want me too do stand back and watch, he was charged, every time I walk past him now I remind him of what he is a wife beater, a coward, a weasel, so don’t tell me Bowser about domestic violence, that night on girls face book , she commented, thank god for my neighbour, I thank god I was home to help her and the little traumatised kiddies…
Dan DarkAugust 13, 2014 at 10:36 pm

Corvus for PM 🙂
John FraserAugust 13, 2014 at 10:39 pm

<

"No need to respond"

But the troll couldn't help itself.

"I pity the man who wants a coat so cheap that the man or woman who produces the cloth will starve in the process"
23 President of the U.S.
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 10:53 pm

@Bob Fanside, are you engaging in Holocaust Denial by claiming that the Nazi Euthanasia Program and the ideological rationalisation behind it never existed?
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 10:57 pm

@Corvus Boreus and when the movement collectively and publicly sends that message to the militants and opportunists, then it will no longer be culpable in giving the militants free reign.
Anne ByamAugust 13, 2014 at 10:57 pm

Corvus … you are priceless. And yes, you for PM any day !!! Are you writing a book on birds or on bugs at this time ? I’ll buy either or both.

Please be careful of the brain farts. 😀 They can be somewhat icky – but always funny ?

I do so enjoy your ‘levelling’ tactics. !! 😉
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 11:09 pm

@Dan Dark, your position is utterly sexist and hypocritical. Is what happened to your neighbour and her children abhorrent and does her partner deserve to have the book thrown at him? absolutely. Does that justify you behaving like a chauvinistic pig whose response to every male survivor of domestic violence, including myself, is to treat us like urban myths and perpetual liars who “had it coming to us”? The hell it does.

You have already made it abundantly clear from your arguments that as far as you are concerned, if we happen to be a victim of Domestic violence who has a penis between our legs and our abuser has a vagina between their legs, then we’re either urban myths, what we have endured is “harmless” or if it’s not, then it must have been “self-defence”. Never mind the fact that when we are trapped, our abusers cause us to live in fear every single day of not only how they might brutalise us and what new ways they might find to violate us when they feel the need to “punish us” – but also in fear of being told, by chauvinistic pigs like you, to “man up” laughed at, told we must have done something to deserve it, or threatened that if we ever defend ourselves that you’ll come after us. I should know – I was subjected to that hell for 18 months before by some miraculous means I was able to break free of her control.

You think you know what domestic violence is like, while you play the beta male hero and engage in gendered domestic violence apologetics? You actually think you’re a part of the solution? You’re nothing but a gendered domestic violence apologist and chauvinist that is too blinded by their white armour to see how grotesquely sexist their position on this issue truly is. Shame on you.

At this point, I’m done. I’d rather spend my time and energy conversing with individuals who are genuinely interested in social justice and equality, rather than dogma and political expediency/ideology.
John FraserAugust 13, 2014 at 11:13 pm

<

5 years of Mr No and this troll thinks he can carry on where Mr No left off.

Watching Mr No's gang falling on their face with increasing regularity, day after day, is like watching a meth addict heading toward their ultimate end.

Had a bit of a look around for the boweddickspearer and what a proper wanker he is, I now have to wonder if he is getting ready to throw another woman out of a 14th floor apartment.
bowspearerAugust 13, 2014 at 11:16 pm

@John Fraser Next time you want to rage over someone blaming women for being raped for “dressing like a slut”, just know that the only difference between you and the person you’re raging against is the gender of the victim you like to shame and blame.

Feminists like you and paleo-masculinists are a match made in heaven.
DanDarkAugust 13, 2014 at 11:25 pm

“It was a pity none of the other close male neighbors that WERE home didn’t come out to help our young neighbor and her kids”
was another thing I said to cops, if I had waited for a man, I would still be waiting geeez if you do you are damned if you don’t you will be damned, give a woman a break BOWSER WOWSER
Bowser is a troll, he has only focused on this thread cant multitask and comment on other threads 🙂
John FraserAugust 13, 2014 at 11:46 pm

<

Ha ha ha.

Turns out the bowdick is a pseudo intellectual.

ha ha ha
jimhazAugust 13, 2014 at 11:49 pm

One can draw a lot of parallels between the decline of feminism and the decline of union membership.

When they no longer seem to be needed they are abandoned and become dirty words. Both are destroying themselves from within.

For myself though, who does regard too many vocal feminists as being just simply self absorbed and over controlling and blind to reality, I feel no sense of loss whatsoever in the so called decline in active feminism here, whereas I do for unions.

Like one of the kids said, I prefer the differences between men and women. For me much of the pay and political power differences are about the differences in natural male assertiveness and natural female submissiveness. Some however is traditional and I was pleased to see Gillard attempt to lift the too low salaries of the child care sector.

Any complaining about top end jobs via Board quota’s and the like annoys me, as I view the opportunities as being there, just not the same number of actively engaged candidates. And as for the right to baby feed anywhere lot – just shut up, we all know just a power game you are playing. No you cannot have your cake and eat it too.

I’d appreciate feminists more if there was a higher concentration of effort in addressing the quite severe issues for women that exist in so many developing and muslim countries. I personally view any western women who joins the muslim religion, and speaks for it, as a traitor to other women. I even see any Christian women who calls for religious tolerance in relation to the muslim religion as this would thus also decrease intolerance of their own religion, as a bigot.
John FraserAugust 14, 2014 at 12:12 am

<

Looks like the pest insecticide isn't working tonight and another creepy crawly is here.

Easy to spot the parallels here.

Its like a toxic Tea Party convention.

Poor little "boweddick" is now joined by poor little "jimmyhaz" who is suffering such an Oedipus complex his brain is going syphilitic

ha ha ha

Just love it when this lot arrive..
Dan DarkAugust 14, 2014 at 12:38 am

Lol you can almost predict them, when one of the coal ition have had a bad day Smokin joe has had another shocker, petrol taxes coming out of hats now, but only the rich drive cars, so it won’t hurt you poor people who walk everywhere already, the trolls come out and spread more goodwill lol
Anne ByamAugust 14, 2014 at 1:54 am

@ jimhaz.

So a breast feeding mother can’t have her cake and eat it too huh ? And you tell all breast feeding mothers to shut the f*ck up ?

What a delightful, ” manly ” ( NOT ) creature you are.

To even DARE to bring that into your comments – inane as they were in the first place. ——- You’d deny a tiny dependent baby it’s right to be nourished, nursed and cared for properly.

Of course you bloody would.

Mind you, if you managed to avert your eyes, you wouldn’t be so offended – would you. Mothers now have the niftiest of ways of delivering their milk to their babies without anybody even knowing it’s happening.

Except perhaps for the likes of the leering few who stare in the hopes of seeing a nipple ?

I think you’ve given yourself right away there, mate. Go away, and be ” annoyed ” somewhere else.
corvus boreusAugust 14, 2014 at 6:50 am

So jimhaz,
to summarize, as a man you don’t mourn the decline/demise of feminism, women get less power and money because they are inferior/servile, and babies on boobies are abominable to your gaze.
Thank you for clarifying your viewpoint.
I do agree in that any human female following a paternal-monotheist creed is shooting herself in the foot, but there does seem to be a socially dominant paradigm of imperative and pressure to follow a deity with a dick.
Kaye LeeAugust 14, 2014 at 7:41 am

“For me much of the pay and political power differences are about the differences in natural male assertiveness and natural female submissiveness.”

Thank you for so vividly pointing out what women are up against in our patriarchal society. The days of submission are gone sunshine. Take your assertiveness and shove it because this feminist will NEVER submit!

And as for having to decry every whacko nut job out there to justify being a feminist, am I to despise every man because of the words or actions of those ignorant few who see women as “naturally submissive”?
bowspearerAugust 14, 2014 at 9:47 am

http://time.com/3028827/women-against-feminism-gets-it-right/
John FraserAugust 14, 2014 at 10:24 am

<

Not going there !

It looks like the syphilitic "boweddick" has returned.
Bob FansideAugust 14, 2014 at 11:10 am

Radical misandrists within the modern feminist movement are a very real problem for men and women alike. But this whole “Women Against Feminism” movement is one massive strawman. It’s like saying a few idiot men make all men dodgy.
jimhazAugust 14, 2014 at 12:30 pm

[Thank you for so vividly pointing out what women are up against in our patriarchal society. The days of submission are gone sunshine. Take your assertiveness and shove it because this feminist will NEVER submit!]

One only has to observe females at work in large offices to see this.

and what was the whole Fifty Shades of Grey business all about, just why did it catch on?

Yes women are becoming more assertive and men more feminine – the bell curve is shifting – but that does not overcome ALL the affects of hormonal differences. Most of the women here would be on the right side of the bell curve, and assertive, hence the mindless scorn from the likes of the Johness.

I wasn’t asking for anyone to “submit”, just stating what I personally prefer – feminine women. If they are intelligent or skilled enough enough to be assertive in a rational way, but still remain “sweet” then all the better (ie Gillard, not Bishop). This viewpoint is not something that I feel there is any form of wrongness, absolutely no guilt whatsoever.
John FraserAugust 14, 2014 at 12:43 pm

<

This "jimhaz" is likely to "prefer" to throw any woman stupid enough to get near him … out of a 14th storey window.

A good kick in the nuts would most likely result in a plea for a followup kick in the nuts.

Was probably trying to read "Fifty shades" with the tears in his eyes.

ha ha ha

Still …. its arseholes like "jimhaz" who takes ones mind of klutzy Brandis or the Hockey complete stuff up …. for about a third of a nano second.
jimhazAugust 14, 2014 at 1:41 pm

[to summarize, as a man you don’t mourn the decline/demise of feminism, women get less power and money because they are inferior/servile, and babies on boobies are abominable to your gaze.]

Umm, typical – taking the more extreme reading between the lines.

[as a man you don’t mourn the decline/demise of feminism]

Yes, that is partly true. In most western countries the ball has rolled far enough that women will continue to gain money and power without there being any need for a feminist movement. I’d be quite surprised if within 30 years women on salaries have not overtaken men. In developing countries feminism needs to grow stronger.

Non-salaried men such as entrepeneurs will still earn higher incomes, as so far they have been more inventive. I think they are more single minded and driven.

[women get less power and money because they are inferior/servile]

Yes, that also is true on one measurement anyway – competitive workplaces. Not that I’d use either word as they are too extreme. I do find though that more women are prepared to follow directions at work without complaint, even where those directions are inane – they are more obedient.

What feminists, it seems purposefully, fail to accept is context. I, we all make, all sorts of generalisations, but feminists always take this as meaning a negative statement was meant to apply to all females. Dohh! Of course it doesn’t – sexuality is of the nature of a spectrum, we each have degrees of male/female in us. This spectrum though has the nature of a bell curve – just as there are more hetero people than others, there are more assertive males than assertive females. And of course there is – what do people think testosterone induces (other than testes) – what it has evolved to produce – increased libido, strength and higher energy levels – which then results in action and assertiveness!

[and babies on boobies are abominable to your gaze]

Well, yes, in restaurants and in parliament for instance. Mind you, it isn’t the breast feeding that bothers me (I have 6 younger siblings), but how some women, like Kirsty Marshall, use it to make a pointless point. It’s the self righteous feminism involved, the show-making not the actual feeding, that I dislike. Lately we are seeing more cases of women being kicked out of restaurants as they think it reasonable to change a baby’s nappy at a table.
jimhazAugust 14, 2014 at 1:46 pm

@ John Fraser

What are you attracted to, then?
John FraserAugust 14, 2014 at 1:58 pm

<

I'm attracted to neanderthals like you.

The arseholes like you who find something disgusting in nature.

And believe me when I say I have kicked more arseholes like you around the block then you have children.

My wife thinks I should take it easy, but I see the rise of arsholes like you as a danger and respond accordingly.

Now why don't you go back to the arsehole you came from.
Anne ByamAugust 14, 2014 at 2:00 pm

Interesting jimhaz. You should have phrased your thoughts this way in the first place ! e.g. your main source of irritation at breast feeding was one Kirsty Marshall, but you made it plural to include all women.

As for ‘seeing more cases ….. >>> changing nappies at a table’. I think you have made that a plural when evidence of it happening ( by way of media ) was ONCE. However, I would object too ( quietly I might add ), particularly if the nappy was a smelly one ! …. I would guess that perhaps it HAS happened more than once, but the way you described it, in the plural is not proven.

Maybe restaurants should provide in their usually ample rest rooms, a small table with a box of changeable diaper table mats … and a bin to discard said mat into, so women can in fact enjoy a meal at a restaurant with their baby – AND have somewhere private to change a nappy. It wouldn’t take much for restaurants to provide this service AND it would bring in more customers. I would like just a 20c coin for every time I have heard a mother reply to a restaurant invitation, ” Can’t do that with a baby and all – later maybe, she he/she is older “. I’d have a nice little nest egg by now.

It’s the ongoing care of the child that worries them. Babies don’t have inbuilt timers !!! They are 24/7.
John FraserAugust 14, 2014 at 2:39 pm

<

I apologise to Readers of The AIMN.

I've just had a gutful of the crap that's going on in Australia and the world.

Here in Australia I want a Double Dissolution as soon as possible.

But the gutless bully Abbott will never do it.
Dan DarkAugust 14, 2014 at 2:56 pm

You don’t have to apologise to me John
I was thinking you left knuckle dragging out before “Neanderthal”
Jimminy cricket has gone off to eat grass now I think, or whatever crickets eat lol
Corvus might be able to tell us the answer to that when he comes on 🙂
jimhazAugust 14, 2014 at 5:22 pm

[Interesting jimhaz. You should have phrased your thoughts this way in the first place ]

I’m a moody bloke, and fairly arrogant. Was a bit out of sorts last night and it was late – Robin Williams suicide made me reflect of way back when I was suicidal (in the 90’s for a period) and their were a few sentences in the article that annoyed me. I just cannot help but think they want it all – most women in Western countries already have better lives than men, even without the wealth equality and even though many do more total work. To me this is readily proven by the differences in suicide rates and less directly/reliably by substance abuse (which may often be selfishness, not depression).
Kaye LeeAugust 14, 2014 at 5:45 pm

sweet?????? seriously???? I don’t want money and power – I want respect!
Bob FansideAugust 14, 2014 at 7:33 pm

Respect for what? People respect different things. Can we demand they respect what we want them to respect? What does “respect” mean in this context?
corvus boreusAugust 14, 2014 at 8:20 pm

Jimhaz,
Umm, typical what?
So, to summarise, yes, but, yes, but, and yes, but.
If you don’t want misinterpretation, try quantifying your absolute, generalising statements.
You should probably also avoid likening breast milk to baby faeces in a food service/hygeine context.
P.s, Ave atque vale Robin Williams. A man who often helped keep me sane by inducing me to laugh my arse off.
John FraserAugust 14, 2014 at 8:27 pm

<

@corvus boreus

ROFLMAO
Kaye LeeAugust 14, 2014 at 8:31 pm

We should begin from a position of respect towards each other – contempt is earned.

To say you prefer women who are “sweet” and “obedient”, to entirely dismiss what the feminist movement has achieved and what it continues to strive for, to change the meaning of the word feminism because you have been offended by some extremists who any sane person would find offensive, to categorize feminists, to dismiss others’ point of view and experience, to tell others what they actually think as opposed to what they say they think……all of these things are disrespectful in this context (meaning our first world discussion here at the AIMN).

I want respect for the woman who took on the job of being Prime Minister of our country…not because she is a woman, but because she did a damn fine job. She was criticised for her clothes, her lifestyle choices, her accent….she was treated abominably.

And I want the liberation of the many women around the world who live under oppression, denying them the right to education and self-determination.

I am in no way implying that women are the only people who can be oppressed or abused. That is a spurious deflection. We ALL need to respect each other and help each other. Women don’t want to take over the world – we just want to be able to use our skills to help.
Anne ByamAugust 14, 2014 at 8:35 pm

Well said Kaye … well said.
John FraserAugust 14, 2014 at 10:37 pm

<

Australia's version of the Taliban right here with little "jimmyhaz" and his "spear" carrying mate.

They don't have the insight to know it and have to be rudely pulled up … on a regular basis…. before they get the message.
John FraserAugust 15, 2014 at 5:16 pm

<

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judit_Polg%C3%A1r

Ya just gotta laugh at this :

"I do find though that more women are prepared to follow directions at work without complaint, even where those directions are inane – they are more obedient" …. from little "jimmyhaz"
John FraserAugust 15, 2014 at 5:18 pm

<

And then we have our own inimitable Kaye Lee who preserves with trying to teach imbeciles what should have been taught to them when they were children.
Anne ByamAugust 15, 2014 at 8:55 pm

Well now John Fraser … your gender is not determined !! You have an image of Julia Gillard ( I think ?? ) as a form of ‘avatar’ and your name is masculine. So – Ms / Mr. person … I am addressing a couple of slight misnomers you have published.

First, while I have agreed to disagree with both jimmyhaz and bowspearer ( in no uncertain terms at times ) … I still believe they have the right to freedom of speech – no matter what back lashes they promote or encounter.

To describe them as Australia’s version of the TALIBAN is going JUST TOO FAR – in my opinion.

Having experienced back-lashes myself on other forums, I know the feeling – but if we put fingers to keyboard and post, we must expect the bad, the good, the bad, the good etc…. goes without saying. That includes you ……….. and me.

I am woman !! ( hear me roar ) – couldn’t resist that one !! 🙂 …. Why do you think women are ‘prepared to follow directions at work without complaint, even when those directions are inane – they are more obedient ” ( you – quoting jimmyhaz ). Jimmyhaz actually hit the nail ALMOST on the head … but not quite. I don’t find that at all something to laugh at. Why do you ?

Women, with a superior sense of what should and should not be said or done at any given time, do indeed, often follow instructions – while at the same time following their own instincts, and “ways” of being ‘obedient’. Been there, done that. They don’t 95% ++ of the time, react with their fists or some aggressive form of response, even if privately – they might like to. Mostly, mouths are shut, and then a woman will go about doing what she thinks is best for the company / organisation / neighbourhood / family, while incorporating ‘the instructions’ – usually given by a male counterpart or elevated superior ( male or female ) in the situation. And more likely than not, they ultimately receive praise for their initiatives. That’s been my experience … not just for myself, but for the women I have worked for and with.

That does not denote by any means, that it is all plain sailing. It is not. One can come across some very tough chicks in any kind of business, and woe betide those who oppose – but that might be another matter altogether for another time – ( or not ?? ).

I found your comments about Kaye Lee, patronising. While I don’t always agree completely with Kaye, I respect her efforts, her writing and her endeavours – very much. Kaye “preserves” ( i.e. maintains ) … ‘trying to teach imbeciles what should have been taught to them as children” … so you said. Aside from that comment being somewhat condescending, it is also interesting. Because in the previous post you made you showed a link … to the Wikipedia contribution about one Judit Polgar …. a truly gifted young woman with a mind like a steel trap. She is a world champion at chess, having taken on the best at a very young age. Readers can look up the link for themselves.

In precis … her father Lazslo Polgar taught ( as an experiment ?) his children from a very early age, in very specific subjects … in order for them to arrive at exceptional achievements. He was alleged to have said “Geniuses are made, not born”. Your posted link, and your ensuing comments, don’t quite gell. It is my guess that Judit Polgar was VERY OBEDIENT to her father. [ I reserve the right to contemplate that, privately. ] And yet, she is among the world’s best at what she does. Was her father’s obvious domination over her practice, her studies, her life – wrong —– or was it right. ? Should she have been taught as a child – to achieve exceptionally high standards ? Or should she have remained at least ‘normal’ … or worse, an imbecile ? ( I seriously doubt the latter ).

Would be interested to know your thoughts …………
John FraserAugust 15, 2014 at 10:07 pm

<

Dear Anne Byam

Perhaps you should read my posts instead of the Trolls posts :

"My wife thinks I should take it easy, but I see the rise of arsholes like you as a danger and respond accordingly" …. look above.

As I have explained here at The AIMN I use former Prime Minister Julia Gillard's favourite photo for a number of reasons, not the least being that it annoys the crap out of the types you are responding to.

What a crying shame you did not bother to research more of Judit Paget and the latest Article written by Oliver Moody in The Times.

Instead of being so bloody pretentious.

The day Kaye Lee discovers me being "patronising" to her will probably be the same day hell freezes over.

Once again …. stop being so bloody pretentious.

Want to find out more of what I think ?

johnx74
John FraserAugust 15, 2014 at 10:46 pm

<

I wonder what a persons gender has to do with their thoughts on feminism.

Or even what photo they use as an avatar.

Discover me using a photo and suddenly comes up with a question.

Do you think "Florence nee Fedup" is a flower ?

Perhaps "brickbob" really is an Australian flag.
Kaye LeeAugust 15, 2014 at 11:04 pm

And I’m a beach (so to speak) 🙂
John FraserAugust 15, 2014 at 11:20 pm

<

A hard working "beach" with left and right sliders.

Surfed Ti Tree with only 3 friends, surfed Outside Impossible with 5 friends, surfed Margaret River with 3 friends, surfed Old Woman Island with 1 friend,surfed Winki Pop with 3 friends …. they were unforgettable days when we were the only ones in the water.

Probably just gave out a little too much information.
Anne ByamAugust 15, 2014 at 11:47 pm

John … you sure did let me know your thoughts !!!

I DO read your posts – that’s what resulted in my comments, which in turn, has brought about a tirade of abuse from you.

…. “My wife thinks I should take it easy, but I see the rise of arsholes like you as a danger and respond accordingly.” … “look above”.

Yes – I saw that too ( I looked above ) …. and I think your wife is very wise. You SHOULD take it easy. !!

By the way … that is Judit Polgar … NOT Judit Paget. ( there IS a Judith Paget – she is all over Facebook and Linked-In !! – probably many with the same name – but there’s only one Judit Polgar !! )

Get the name right before referring anyone to anything else about this extraordinary chess playing lady. She however is not the name of the game here, even though she has denounced entirely in retirement, the male chauvinistic world and the ” rampant sexism of the chess world” ( quoted from the Times – UK ). Quite a few news sites have quoted her as saying all that. And that is rather relevant to the article subject.

I gather you think I am a Liberal follower ? Oh how BLOODY WRONG YOU ARE. Now that IS a joke. You obviously did not read my comment through at all … just went with the knee jerk reaction. hmmm. And you certainly did NOT come across my replies to jimhaz and bowspearer throughout this thread. If you had, you wouldn’t be so bloody abusive toward me, that’s for sure.

You call me pretentious ? I actually think that describes you admirably. Using a photo of Julia Gillard “to annoy the crap out of the types you (I ) respond to” ????? That’s pretentious.

And yes ( it might surprise you ) … I WOULD be interested in more of what you think.

If you DO reply, just remember I am not in any way, in the Libs corner. They are a pack of **** ing numb-skulls … and much worse.
I could use words here to describe what I TRULY think of them, but won’t …… at the moment !!! :p

Meantime, take it easy …………… !
John FraserAugust 15, 2014 at 11:59 pm

<

@Anna Byem

Have I shouted at you ?

Why are you shouting at me ?

Yeah "pretentious" was probably the wrong description of you.

End of conversation now.
Anne ByamAugust 16, 2014 at 12:22 am

Agreed John …… end of …..
Kaye LeeAugust 16, 2014 at 9:21 am

This feminist beach spent many a day searching up and down the coast for a working left-hander having a goofy footer for a husband. Walking down the track to Angourie and dutifully manning the beach for the rest of the day, going to watch surfing movies at the Hoey Moey at Coffs- yes they were wonderful days.
corvus boreusAugust 16, 2014 at 10:11 am

The Hoey Moey!
Park Beach represent!
Mi-sex at the Hoey was the first live gig I went to (I was pre-teen).
It still retains it’s reputation for good live music in a thoroughly seedy atmosphere.
Kaye LeeAugust 16, 2014 at 10:25 am

compu pu pu pu pu pu pu pu pu pu pu pu pu computer games

I think I was at that gig!
jimhazAugust 16, 2014 at 3:34 pm

I suppose I’m sort of a troll, an accidental troll. I’m not a troll in the sense that what I post is only to stir, it’s honest opinion. Its just that I prefer to comment and have no desire to get into to and fro’s. Arguments, even to defend my views, where too much emotion is involved, are not worth my time. It would take too much time to explain myself, and in any case this is not the right sort of forum for that sort of discussion.

I’ll just say, you Kaye do have my respect, your articles and most, or nearly all, of your comments are always of good to high quality with well researched content and sufficient open-mindedness. You have a mind of quality. I’m just not interested in the idea that women generally deserve some form of auto-respect solely because they are female.
Kaye LeeAugust 16, 2014 at 4:37 pm

jimhaz,

For what it’s worth, I do not consider you a troll. And I do not wish to attack anyone though I admit I become strident on certain issues, feminism being one of them.

Thank you for your comments regarding my contributions. As for respect, as I have said many times, I don’t believe respect should be earned as much as lost – and it has nothing to do with what bits you possess or the degrees on the wall or the colour of your skin or how you spend your weekends. Everyone should be given auto-respect because everyone has something to offer. Whether they remain worthy of that respect depends on whether they fulfil their part of the social contract though I concede we may have different views about what that entails.
jimhazAugust 16, 2014 at 6:51 pm

[Everyone should be given auto-respect]

Perhaps I could take that approach if more people were more rational than at present. I don’t deny it is a virtuous viewpoint, but sadly I simply don’t like a sufficient percentage of people enough, for me to wish to apply it. Only like people in small does. I’ve learnt to be a harsh judge of egos. My degree of auto-respect will be basic politeness, though for certain types, often forced. I’m not a pig though, offering a train seat to a pregnant or frail person, or helping with a pram up stairs, simple stuff, is genuine.

I’m visiting a left site like this because I’d like to see humanity improve, which it will not do under leaders like Abbott.

Now I can back off, there is something I’d support feminists or any woman’s group in, and that is in relation to the access of porn by teenagers. There was a doco on it last night – Porn on the Brian. As porn is generally highly misogynist and is now quite extreme, it is showing signs of affecting sexual dynamics badly already in some, and will everyone in some way as time goes on. This is mere speculation, but the Gold Coast balcony death, has a possibility of being caused by the affect of internet porn on a young egotistical brain.

“http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOMtXa3vScY” Needs login.
corvus boreusAugust 16, 2014 at 8:42 pm

Jimhaz,
Respect that.
‘I do not open a door for you because you are female and I am sexist. I do it because you are a fellow human being and I am training myself not to be an arsehole.’
Anne ByamAugust 16, 2014 at 9:02 pm

@ jimhaz ……. I watched the link – for 12 minutes and that was enough. The comments on this 3.300 + million ‘hits’ You-tube were revealing, and were about 50/50 as to pros and cons of porn – depending on the commenters opinions and indeed, intelligence ???

On the right hand side of the screen however, were many more “You-Tubes” ( if anyone wanted to follow them ?? ) to anything and everything to do with pornographic material. And I have no doubt there’d have been further links, if I had availed myself of those initial offers ?? That’s the way it damn-well works.

While I don’t often agree with your political opinions … and get somewhat bent out of shape about the feminism subject !! …. I do agree with you about this.

Porn ………. messing with kids brains – ( and older adults – sadly, disgustingly ). On-line dating is ultra-dangerous, in my opinion. And ( even tho it’s yet to be proved ultimately ) … that, most likely was, the cause of that poor girl’s death on the Gold Coast. She trusted ( ? ) and possibly suffered the ultimate price for that trust.

I haven’t a clue what anyone, anywhere, can do about it.

It’s out there – enabled by big wig sites. Controlled by profit making companies – ( but not confined to them – anybody can set up a porn or dating website ).. That’s a big part of the problem, but nothing much is being done to address this, anywhere. Facebook occasionally removes repulsive comment and content, but they are not consistent at all. [ I sometimes wonder if it depends on who is on a specific ‘shift’ on FB control & response at any given time ! ]

Pornography is indeed, highly misogynistic. Wouldn’t do me much good to have stats. on that though … would most likely, only raise my blood pressure. 🙁

As for auto-respect … I believe it should be given ……….. until it is proven unequivocally, that it should NOT be given, anymore. Could cite many instances, even in my own family …… but will decline at this point.
Marilyn CarterAugust 18, 2014 at 11:14 am

Wow! excellent reading.

Thank you to all participants and your very interesting subjects!

Referring to the initial subject on ‘feminism’;

Is it possible for ‘all of us to be respected for the different qualities we have to offer’!

If that could be the basis of ‘all decision making and law making’, wouldn’t it be much closer to some sort of ‘fairness’ and ‘equal understanding’!

Why can’t it be policy that all decision making groups be made up of 50-50 men and women from all backgrounds and expertise? Isn’t that a simple solution?

A more ‘holistic’ approach could be, NO – would be, the answer.

Can somebody with the right power and influence please explain that to Tony Abbott and others of a bias nature?

This approach is needed in the name of ‘HUMANITY’
Anne ByamAugust 18, 2014 at 2:07 pm

@ marilyn …… a thoughtful and well written comment. I agree in part, especially your final word “Humanity” ,…. that is the ideal, but whether it will ever happen is another matter altogether. Not being pessimistic …. just realistic. For the moment it is the way it is – and it will take many decades plus plus for more enlightenment. I kind of hope there is re-incarnation. I think I would like to come back and see whether the human species has advanced or regressed over time.
jimhazAugust 18, 2014 at 8:31 pm

Hi Anne,
I didn’t actually look at the Youtube clip – just googled for it just in case anyone wished to view it.

[Porn ………. messing with kids brains – ( and older adults – sadly, disgustingly) ]

It was the science included in the doco that was of most interest. It works the same as an illicit drug.

[I haven’t a clue what anyone, anywhere, can do about it]

For me a responsible government would provide a service. I seemed to be one of the few people (in percentage terms) who thought the internet filter the ALP wanted was worth the risk. I have never actually believed the IT experts on this issue – filtering slowdowns are overstated and a majority of kids wont find easy workarounds. As Google even 10 years ago had a fast search system, surely a filtering system is possible now without unacceptable slow speeds.

After seeing the likes of the Nazi style Abbott gov, and reading bits and pieces about US citizen spying, I’ve realised it was not worth the risk. Some other alternative is needed.

I came up with the government creating a Family ISP and Retail Mobile service with porn filters. Commercial ISP’s wont do this due to the profits they generate from porn traffic. For me though with increasing levels of films downloads now such an ISP could easily still be profitable. You could even offer half price for the unemployed.

I accept some porn filtering will be difficult, but solvable. It is really the dedicated sites you’d be filtering. For instance, filters on common use words such as sex or vagina etc could have a “doubtful” setting and display only text, not images or movies. You could have Wiki like groups, review and permanently “allow” or deny web pages containing filtered words.

Kids will still see porn, it will be shared, but the main thing is to remove the vast bulk of porn sites, easily done in my view, so that it is harder for kids to find porn in the first place or to do so frequently.

Things like Facebook and Youtube and dating sites are just part of the modern world, but kids watching hardcore porn X number of hours a day doesn’t have to be.

Politically it is difficult to sell – but only in terms of convincing the next ALP that it is worth the media attack that would ensue.
Anne ByamAugust 18, 2014 at 10:47 pm

@ jimhaz …. well constructed views. I do agree with you on many points. Especially the way porn can work like an illicit drug i.e. addiction to surfing for explicit material. Gets to many apparently – young and older.

However, there are many many filters out there, that parents can activate to STOP the inquisitive young from exploring. Just Google ” parent filter on” … that’s all I had to do to bring up a whole scad of stuff about protection for prying young eyes.

The little beggars will search all they can – because they are of that ” I must know ” mindset and are at the sexually inquisitive age. It is really up to parents to take an active role in this – although heaven knows, the kids know more than their parents when it comes to ‘fixing’ something on the Internet. But – there ARE many many filters.

When I said I didn’t have a clue what to do about it … I was damned tired and didn’t even THINK about the parental stops that can be put on Internet usage – and on TV ( from all accounts ). Also, although I am not certain about this, you can ( perhaps for a price ) ask your ISP to stop access. Then there’s a log-in protocol on a PC, which can be overseen by a parent. Of course there are devices other than PC’s these days, and that’s perhaps where one ( a parent ) could run into trouble.

The oldies have to keep up with the youngies, technologically – to protect them …. ? Yes ?
Marilyn CarterAugust 19, 2014 at 11:46 am

Thanks Anne….. I am a realist also.

Luckily for me I eventually found a man who is sharing the responsibilities of parenthood.

Otherwise, I was prepared to sacrifice the ultimate thing that has ever happened to me – motherhood! I now live in constant appreciation of having this opportunity of unconditional Love in my life! (I’m sure others find it in other ways)

My husband and I both have permanent jobs and are bringing up our 2 young children together in our 40’s, after our own life learnings. That, in itself is too tiring to recommend to anyone.

My husband does the morning with the kids and luckily for myself, I get the afternoons. We actually have about an hour of ‘interrupted’ time to communicate with each other on most week nights (can’t wait for this to pass), and we keep Sunday’s sacred for our families interests. It is hard, but manageable and possibly much easier than plenty of other working parents situations.

However, I feel that we are fantastic role models for our children whereby they see Mum and Dad putting in equal efforts towards paid work and unpaid housework.

We constantly change ‘who is wearing the pants’ with our household plans and decision making, and we can have a good laugh about it.

I just hope that our children can carry on this tradition, each finding appropriate partners to share life demands with.

Realistically, I also fear the worst.

It feels great to get the time to pass this revelation on to someone who obviously understands!

Thank you Feminists for giving me this chance through your own battles!

It does infuriate me that too much pressure is put on Mums to choose between motherhood and a career, when Fathers automatically get both.

University debts never get paid for!

Parents seriously need more flexibility and understanding in the workforce, allowing Mum or Dad to care for very young kids. They should not be so readily replaced and provisions should be made to allow parents to keep there position previous to parenthood eg part-time permanent work until there youngest is at school (provided that you don’t have 8 children!!!)

Tony Abbott has just condemned this with his new daycare legislation which will make it too expensive for parents to use!

It will be the parents, the community, our society who will suffer.

Not just the Mums!

Who can pass this on to him?
Kaye LeeAugust 19, 2014 at 12:07 pm

jimhaz,

I understand and share your concern about porn but sometimes prohibition adds to the problem. It only takes one kid to work out a way around it and then it goes viral. It is like drugs in that we have failed to eradicate them from our society so must use education as our best tool.

And these challenges change with time. Stranger danger is a whole new ball game with the internet both for kids and adults.

We need to educate them about the possible harmful factors of the things they will come across in society like drugs, porn, grooming, abuse, even advertising. Open communication is preferable to hiding things in my opinion. The best protection our kids can have is for them to make the right choices.
abbienoiraudeAugust 19, 2014 at 12:33 pm

A most wonderful piece by Letitia and a very involved and intense read in the comments. I have been through anger, excitement, laughter and tears with it all over the past hour or so.
Wanted to write about being a ‘feminist’ and being a stay at home full time mum raising three kids (1970-80) whilst feminist husband worked two jobs to support us, turning out three feminists ( one male two female) with the result of educated, well rounded 30 somethings of which only one has made us grandparents. It is the eldest daughter who accuses me of being a ‘pathetic feminist’ ( “What example did YOU set being at home raising us full time instead of pursuing you own career with your own income!!)…which used to smart, but now I claim the abuse proudly as proof of one who raised such a feisty independent successful woman. Didn’t do too badly after all, ay sweetie pie, provoking and providing such diatribes from a feminist daughter to her most adoring mother!

I was one of those disgusting women a couple of commentators hate. I am an ugly big fat female feminist who fought to have the father of my children present at the birth AND went against the grain in Joh’s Queensland by breast feeding in public. Ooooo…big scary homemaker mother, me, with strong arms, a stronger back and thick thighs that can help lift wardrobes and fridges. ( Not ‘feminine’ at all, but a real pioneering woman. As my man says; Wouldn’t it be awful to have a useless partner as the mother of your children?)

(And then find corvus boreus AND Kaye Lee mentioning my own stomping ground….”Hoey Moey.” Another connection with two of my favourite writers on AIMN.
I am now going to declare my admiration for Anne Byam and her replies to the foolish foppish fake philosophers who dare cross words with such a writer!)

(My avatar is my pup. You can call me dog or ‘beach’ any time)
Kaye LeeAugust 19, 2014 at 12:48 pm

abbie,

Our generation of women (and some of our predecessors) fought for CHOICE. That is what it is all about. Every household is different in their circumstances and need and should be able to choose what suits best without judgement from others. I am sure your daughter would understand that.

My son and his g/f went on a road trip a few years ago and they too found themselves at the Hoey Moey (unprompted by me)…the one time they splurged for accommodation rather than sleeping in the back of the station wagon 🙂

We lived in a very small country town when I was born and mum went to Sydney on her own to have me (difficult birth) while dad worked two jobs and grandparents looked after older brother. We all cope as best we can.
jimhazAugust 19, 2014 at 1:20 pm

[Foolish foppish fake philosophers who dare cross words with such a writer!]

You know your own world. I know mine. It is really easy for me to see that you have not been to the sort of mental places that I’ve been via philosophy.

That what I said has been taken quite out of context, is a sign of just how philosophically shallow they are.

And foppish, well maybe I word things a bit that way, but technically I doubt you’ll call a bloke who buys all his clothes at Lowes, a dandy.

As for Bowspearer, I would think he is entitled to his viewpoint. As he says “Meanwhile Australians with disabilities such as myself are to this day regarded as “worthless eaters” in a society where disability discrimination outstrips all others in our society”
Kaye LeeAugust 19, 2014 at 1:29 pm

We most definitely need advocacy and support for our disabled to pursue their goals which is why I have written often about my horror at Brandis sacking Graeme Ennis to give Tim Wilson a job.
Anne ByamAugust 19, 2014 at 1:39 pm

Thank you abbienoiraude – – for your kind comments. Much appreciated. It sure has been an interesting debate !!
abbienoiraudeAugust 19, 2014 at 4:19 pm

Oh Kaye…did I give the impression I did not fight and march ( illegally in Qld at the time) for women’s rights and their right to ‘choose’? IF so I apologise most abjectly. I was part of the 1975 crew who wanted all women to choose and be supported. By 1977 I was being damned for staying poor and raising our own children..which confused the hell out of me. I will always and forever fight for the right to choose by all people. Without choice we are prisoners of our own lives. We had no support, no help, no nothing….just love and belief in each other..corny as that sounds.
Still now here we are all these years later dealing with disability and the vagaries of changing Governments and the way they treat those on DSP and we their carers. I have to agree with MR Bowspearer here because we too feel the slings and arrows of being considered leaners and ‘worthless eaters’. It does bring days of great despair and depression but we try to muddle on through. It is hard not to be terrified for our future, however.

I have enjoyed your additional pieces ‘jimhaz’ despite my uneducated attempt at ‘cute’ alliteration to take the heat out of the discussion. I have found philosophy a fascinating subject since my awakening from the constraints of religion ( at 42 years of age).
Mea Culpa.

You are more than welcome Anne. Looking forward to more!!
corvus boreusAugust 19, 2014 at 5:01 pm

Jimhaz,
It is easy for all of us, who really only partially know our own worlds, and have to artificially create, through studied empathy combined with disciplined imagination, the worlds of others, to misinterpret the message and intent of others when they try to communicate their thoughts, particularly when there is no body language or vocal inflection(the curse of the cyber-ether).
I know little of the minds(and souls?) of other human beings, particularly those with chromosomal differentiation or disparate backgrounds.
I perceive my own depths, but can only observe the surface of others.
Misunderstanding is often a combination of flaws in both expression and perception, and differences in details can mask shared core values.
I apologise to you for any anger or hurt I may have caused you by my remarks during the course of this discussion. I too have inclinations towards arrogance and moodiness.
May our observations on our journeys, and what we learn from them, improve us all as human beings and earthly inhabitants.
My personal philosophy(flexible and non constraining) tends towards the epicurian.
jimhazAugust 19, 2014 at 9:23 pm

Cb,

[I apologise to you for any anger or hurt I may have caused you by my remarks during the course of this discussion]

There was no anger, just a frustration upturn (and far lesser than today’s peak at work).

I try to reserve anger for avoidable stupidity and vested interest propaganda (gosh, I must be angry a lot).

I don’t mind if no-one ever apologises to me on a forum (other than for acts of vengeance) – It’s an ego thing – I like to pretend I’m mature :). Our thoughts and emotions are whatever they are at the time.

[My personal philosophy(flexible and non constraining) tends towards the epicurean]

There is a lot in it that just seems to be the default position I have, as well. The way I actually live could be loosely based on the same, though in a rather unsophisticated and limited way.

Epicurus: “When we say…that pleasure is the end and aim, we do not mean the pleasures of the prodigal or the pleasures of sensuality, as we are understood to do by some through ignorance, prejudice or wilful misrepresentation. By pleasure we mean the absence of pain in the body and of trouble in the soul. It is not by an unbroken succession of drinking bouts and of revelry, not by sexual lust, nor the enjoyment of fish and other delicacies of a luxurious table, which produce a pleasant life; it is sober reasoning, searching out the grounds of every choice and avoidance, and banishing those beliefs through which the greatest tumults take possession of the soul”.

Hard to argue with. The modern pollie could do well to heed that. The budget was a demonstration that unsound reasoning, and the great tumult of greed, has taken possession of their souls.
Anne ByamAugust 19, 2014 at 10:11 pm

Corvus and jimhaz. Fascinating – from both of you. How I wish I could debate so much that is in both posts – with both of you ( I love debating – most likely obvious ) …. but that would be an impossibility. Would be interesting …….. and possibly like a 6 month long chess game. It would however, be fascinating and most enlightening. Epicurianism …. so very much to that philosophy. Wow.

Agree with jimhaz’s last two sentences. While I hope you are wrong jimhaz … I ( sadly ) think you are correct. The great tumult of greed … can overtake anyone, including our alleged leaders … and be released with no bounds.
Crusty TheprawnSeptember 5, 2014 at 11:50 pm

Bowspearer, if you ever happen to check back in, I thought your points were eloquent and well-reasoned and in stark contrast to the childish and superficial response of others posting in this thread. Perhaps if more feminists took the trouble to actually research what feminism is and does (not just the dictionary definition) and/or about what men’s rights advocates actually stood for, then we might have seen a more interesting and productive exchange take place here … instead of the usual posturing, name-calling and attempts at shaming.
Kath MalcomSeptember 5, 2014 at 11:55 pm

Hey crusty the clown, go crawl back in your cave 🙂
Crusty TheprawnOctober 24, 2014 at 1:10 pm

Ladies first, Kath 🙂
bowspearerOctober 31, 2014 at 8:35 pm

Congratulations to certain self-professed “feminists” in this thread (the worst offender being John Fraser) who have done nothing but demonstrate the very reason why feminism faces the backlash that it does- that it’s own “perpetual victim” narrative is every bit as much to blame for the resistance it faces as the traditional, entrenched, female paternalism in society.

It’s highly telling that apparently it’s ok to view the plight of the disabled and other marginalised and persecuted groups as serious, but only if you refuse to recognise that hegemonic female power is every bit as much to blame for for the marginalisation of groups like the disabled as hegemonic male power is. Or are people honestly going to pretend that the likes of Gina Rinehart aren’t as bad as the likes of Rupert Murdoch- or that the likes of Condoliza Rice aren’t as much a part of warmongering, genocidal military industrial complex class as the likes of Dick Cheyney?

Yet that is exactly what the model of patriarchy does – blames all injustice entirely and exclusively on male power – even when female power is either partly or exclusively to blame.

When Sheik Hilali compared women to uncovered meat, Australia was rightly up in arms, yet multiple self-professed staunch feminists have proven they are no better. The worst offender of course has been John Fraser. According to him. I’m supposedly a perpetual spousal abuser who is going to kill my wife because I’m a male domestic violence, child abuse and rape survivor (all at the hands of women) who committed the “crime” of identifying as an MRA because the entire feminist model promotes a status quo where:

– those of us who are male survivors of domestic violence are treated like urban myths and perpetual liars who “had it coming to us” and are treated like “cheap, filthy, worthless, sluts” under the feminist mantra of “men are [exclusively]perpetrators, women are [exclusively] victims[; any instances to the contrary are to be dismissed as freak occurrences, pathological lies and/or harmless – even when we’re ambushed with blunt objects, set alight in our sleep, threatened with knives or repeatedly stabbed]”;

– a woman forcing a man into vaginal intercourse against his will isn’t “real rape” and if it does happen, then he “must be the rapist” because of “the patriarchy” (despite studies such as the 2010 NIPSVS finding that it accounts for half of all rape and that 40% of all rape is perpetrated by women when it is taken into account);

– female-perpetuated child abuse, particularly female child sexual abuse is a taboo, where feminists (and I have witnessed this personally) treat male victims like rapists and female rapists like the victims and where due to feminist lobbying for the custody of the mother to be viewed as “in the best interests of the child” situations have arisen where a female child rapist has raped a boy as young as 12, gotten pregnant from it, given birth, successfully gained custody of the child resulting from the rape birth and then successfully sued the child victim for child support – all because under “patriarchal theory” the woman is ALWAYS the victim- regardless of her position in the power dynamics of any situation.

My question to every feminist reading this is, if female abuse victims faced the same level of barriers and gender-based stigma as male victims do (if you think they do, then you seriously need a reality check) and any group, despite their intentions were, responsible for contributing to it, should that in any way, shape or form, be given a free pass – especially when the automatic response was to deny responsibility by falling back on a blanket victim narrative?

So why should feminism entrenching that very chauvinistic status quo be even remotely acceptable?

Furthermore, why should it be even remotely a surprise that a male survivor of domestic violence, child abuse and rape at the hands of women, identify with a movement which does address that injustice when the feminist movement has done nothing but compound it?

For anyone wanting to deny that is the case, John Fraser’s comments here are a textbook example of it. John Fraser’s actions here, to draw an analogy, went further than Sheik Hilali’s comparison between female rape victims and “uncovered meat” based on how they dressed; it was the equivalent of him making a blanket accusation that all female rape victims were liars and rapists themselves because they have a clitoris between their legs. The analogy would never and should never fly, so why should the equally vile and sickening gender reversal of that very same vile and inexcusable level of blatant victim blaming used as a shaming tactic.

John, you claim you’re angry over Abbott and that was what caused you to snap, yet one of your targets here was me- an Australian with a disability? Tell me, when you get upset about the state of play with asylum seekers, do you go around racially vilifying people of Middle Eastern ethnicity? When Indigenous people in this country fact injustice that riles you up, do you take it out on indigenous people by going around and calling them a “pack of bungs/gorillas” too? Or is it “different” when it comes to the disabled in this country – who also happen to face discrimination at a level which eclipses that of any other form of discrimination in this country? If you are so concerned about “privilege” as your comments imply, then how about starting with your own able-bodied privilege.

Furthermore let’s stop pretending it was just John who was culpable here, are virtually everyone in this thread gave that disgusting behaviour a free pass when they would have been viscerally enraged, had a female rape, domestic violence and child abuse victim been subjected to the exact same victim-demonising based shaming and silencing tactics.

Now I realise that men like me, men who are amongst the most marginalised and vulnerable of men in society (be they abused men and boys, homeless men and boys, homosexual/transgender men and boys, male minorities, etc) are a painfully inconvenient truth for the feminist movement and the patriarchal narrative. We are glaring examples of the harm that feminism is just as culpable in the perpetuation of as paleo-masculinists, traditionalists and chauvinists.

Certainly feminists can claim that they have never actively participated in the perpetuation of such blanket gender narratives, however while the default response of feminism to militant feminists is “not all feminists are like that” whilst doing nothing to ensure that feminists who are “like that” continue to both have a place in the movement and be able to speak for all feminists in general, then every feminist will be complicit in the agenda of the radical end of the feminist movement.

If feminism is supposed to be about equality, then it is supposed to be about accountability and responsibility, just as much as it is about rights.

Certainly feminism can respond as it always has, by using the uterus as an ideological shield (ie cries of “misogyny”) or by engaging in a victim narrative as an act of deflection. However all that will result in is producing further evidence for those groups such as Women Against Feminism to cite to make their case.

I was done with this thread a long time ago out of disgust with the hypocritical sexism at play by some posters and given a free pass by others- I only came back due to someone tracking me down on social media and raising the thread with me. No doubt I’ll face more of the “uncovered meat” based victim – demonising by the likes of individuals such as John Fraser and other hypocrtitical gender ideologues – but they’ll simply be proving the point of groups such as “Women Against Feminism”.
Kaye LeeOctober 31, 2014 at 10:45 pm

Violence against anyone is unacceptable. Vilification whether due to race, religion, gender, or disability is unacceptable. Must we really play the game of I’m more aggrieved than you?

Bowspearer, I hear in your posts hurt and anger and suffering and I am sorry for what you may have experienced. Having said that, you show little empathy for others who have suffered abuse. You seem particularly bitter. I have found in life that it is important to stand up for what you believe and to support those who may not have the strength to endure the slings and arrows that life dishes out.

To label women as having a “victim mentality” seems odd to me when all of your posts are about identifying male “victims”. Could I say that while I accept that people can be abused for different reasons, the statistics show that women are overwhelmingly more often the victims of domestic violence. Must your support for men who have suffered be at the expense of recognising the suffering of others?

The whole mentality must change. It is NOT ok to persecute ANYONE. We all have to learn to help each other and your vilification of feminists I find very discriminatory, ego-centric, and ill-informed.

I have been very lucky in my life with the family and friends with whom I have been blessed. Your comments are divisive and perpetuate hate and anger and for that reason, you are part of the problem rather than the solution.

I proudly identify as a feminist which in no way stops me from fighting for the rights of all people. I happen to believe in the intrinsic value of every individual and I deplore the selfishness of those who cannot consider anyone but themselves.
bowspearerOctober 31, 2014 at 11:54 pm

@kaye Lee You’re either willfully ignoring the elephant in the room or you’re simply incapable of seeing it. The fact is that power dynamics are incredibly nuanced and greatly depend on a number of factors, such as age, race, disability, creed and class amongst other factors.

Yet rather than recognising that, feminism at the level of its core ideology is hamstrung by “patriarchal theory” which pretends that all power dynamics are purely attributable to gender and which, as Erin Pizzey calls it, reduces all men to some zeitgeist based bourgeois and all women to some zeitgeist based proleteriat. Such a paradigm, at best, tolerates male victim hood and utterly rejects any notion of female oppressive power and abuse – no matter how white or hegemonic it might be. Under the patriarchal paradigm, all women are perpetually oppressed by all men- regardless of age, creed, race, class, disability, sexual orientation, etc. Even kyriarchal theory (which has superceded patriarchal theory), which distinguishes between subordinate and hegemonic masculinities, fails to distinguish between subordinate and hegemonic femininities.

Yet even your response is dogmatically gendered and ironically completely lacking in empathy. Rather than recognising the elephant in the room, you resort to gender based shaming tactics. Maybe you’re blinded to that, but your words make that pretty clear. There is a clear implication there that I’m somehow bitter towards all women- because I insist on responding to a unisex movement which claims to speak for all women, no differently than I would any other movement which was guilty of, to put it mildly, gross collateral damage and McCarthysm. According to your posts, I am directing my comments at women rather than feminism and I’m “bitter [towards women]”. Whether or not your realise it, such a response is a culturally programmed response to shame men into being the “good man” (ie the provider and protector for women).

Nowhere in my last comment were my remarks framed towards women, but feminists. The fact is that as inconvenient as it is for you, not all women are feminists and not all feminists are women. In fact, my most recent comment was most scathing towards a male feminist. Ergo, how can I be accusing women of anything when my comments were directed at feminism and its dogmatic adherence to a gender paradigm, which even modern academia has recognised as flawed, superficial and obsolete?

As for domestic violence, let’s talk about the studies out there. Which studies are you referring to – the ones which only ask men about their experiences of being abusers and women about their experiences of being victims, or studies like the 2010 NIPSVS which engaged in academic fraud by defining the vast majority of rape against men as “other sexual assault” to present a fraudulent summary that virtually all rape victims are female and virtually all rapists are male.

Furthermore let’s look at studies into domestic violence which look at the whole problem. A recent study by Anglicare WA found that depending on the type of abuse suffered, male domestic violence victims account for between 18.2% and over 50% of victims and that the perpetrator is female in between 14.% and 35% of all cases [ http://www.oneinthree.com.au/news/2014/10/28/new-anglicare-wa-report-finds-over-half-of-dv-victims-are-ma.html ].

The summary for an annotated bibliography for domestic violence from California State University reads as follows: http://csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm

A recently published article into IPV by Jennifer Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Candice Selwyn, Martin L Rohling, found that not only did bi-directional abuse account for roughly half of all bidirectional abuse, but that in roughly 70% of all cases of unidirectional violence, the perpetrator was female [ http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/springer/pa/2012/00000003/00000002/art00004 ] as summarized by this infographic: http://www.saveservices.org/wp-content/uploads/IPV-Truthwgray.png

The truth is that domestic violence has never been a gender issue but has always been a human issue, yet you insist on spouting the feminist lie that female abusers and male victims are in the extreme minority if not virtually non-existent. Of course this has all been traditionally justified by a feminist driven shelter movement which has been known to refer to battered men as “competition” and justify such appalling sexism by outlandish claims that supporting battered men would see battered women turfed out of shelters en masse and that it would open the floodgates for male batteres to make fraudulent claims – ignoring the fact that the system allows female batterers that very opportunity with the current sexist approach to domestic violence.

Yet you accuse me of having no empathy towards other victims? What irony. The fact is that domestic violence is just one area where feminism has been guilty of perpetrating the very sort of sexism that it rightly despises women being subjected to.

What’s even more ironic is your response that according to you, because my comments are divisive, then I must be the problem (ironic in a publication which claims to value independent critical thought over collective group-think). Never mind how truthful they might be. Never mind how grounded in egalitarianism them might be. Never mind the inconvenient truths they might force you and other feminists to have to acknowledge about the movement you identify with – and heaven forbid, actually take steps to address within the movement; instead, I’m simply subjected to passive-aggressive shaming tactics because I have the audacity to refuse to be “the good man” and commit the heresy of viewing feminism with the same critical eye I would view any movement with that was guilty of perpetuating stereotypical tropes and discrimination.

You accuse me of being ill-informed about feminism, but the fact is that despite the “campaign poster” version of feminism which you appear to argue is its entirety, feminism has been filled with militants who have even subjected women to violence and terrorism when it suited their end – militants to whom the standard feminist response is “not all feminists are like that” whilst doing absolutely nothing to ensure that such militants have neither a voice nor a prominent or credible presence within the feminist movement. I see the issue with feminism all too clearly – if you weren’t so blinded by dogma, you might start to recognise it to – ironically maybe even going on to take steps to make the very arguments against feminism which concern you, moot.
Kaye LeeNovember 1, 2014 at 12:36 am

What a load of crap. Don’t ever talk to me about a victim mentality because you are a prime example of it. Don’t presume to tell me what I think because quite frankly you have no idea. You would like to dismiss me as blinded by dogma because you are so entrenched in your own woe is me hole that you cannot see your own discrimination.

Feminism advocates equal rights for women. I can only assume that your irrational fear of it means you perpetuate the idea that women are not deserving of equal rights.

“feminism at the level of its core ideology is hamstrung by “patriarchal theory” which pretends that all power dynamics are purely attributable to gender”.

Perhaps you can explain to me why women can’t be priests. Perhaps you can explain to me why women do not receive equal pay. Perhaps you can explain to me why my mother had to quit work because she got married. Perhaps you can explain to me why a bank manager refused to consider my wage in our loan application because I was “married and of child-bearing age”. Perhaps you can explain to me why I was not allowed to go into a public bar or a snooker room when I was young. Perhaps you can explain to me why Princess Anne isn’t next in line for the throne. Perhaps you can explain to me why Jewish males in their morning prayer say
“Blessed are you, Lord our God, Ruler of the Universe, who has not made me a woman” while Jewish women are supposed to say “Blessed are you, Lord our God, Ruler of the Universe, who has made me according to Your will.”

To deny “patriarchal theory” is to deny facts. Thankfully, strong women have fought hard against this discrimination and people like you who don’t believe it exists. Look at how our first female PM was treated and get back to me.

The FACT that women have been discriminated against for millennia does not mean others in our society have not suffered similar problems. African slave trade, the Holocaust, child sex trade in Asia, Apartheid, Indigenous Australians…I could go on and on. How about you start working towards helping humanity instead of being so intimidated by women finally getting a voice.
Kaye LeeNovember 1, 2014 at 12:49 am

The thing that REALLY made me laugh about your self-indulgent comments was when you accused me of “perpetuating stereotypical tropes” whilst you explained to me the “stereotypical feminist” because after all…we all have tits so we must be the same. My reaction to that is the same as when Tony Abbott said he “gets women” like we are some homogeneous group. Oh wise one…tell me about myself.
Annie ByamNovember 1, 2014 at 1:59 am

To both of you ……..

Could we please – just for a moment, put aside the word ‘feminism’. It has become a label over the years and I suspect doesn’t mean today, what it meant 20 or 30 years ago, and way way before then as well. The word has changed in meaning over the years ….

Many labels are placed on people today – some kindly, some not, by others. … Many people place labels on themselves to define their ideologies …. e.g. one person might say “I am Christian ” … and the person next to them goes on to define themselves with ” Oh … I am Presbyterian” which puts a definitive label on that person, and can ( perhaps ) open a whole different dialogue. ( The religion example was all I could think of at this time in the morning ).

______

I hear Kaye saying she stands up for women AND men, who have been or are subject to violence / rape and other forms of cruel domination. Kaye has stated that she is feminist, yet I am not. I have never considered myself that way – but we are both WOMEN. And both Kaye and myself would stand up against violence / rape / vilification of PEOPLE …. i.e. men and women, children, teens, and babes of either gender. You have more or less said something similar your self as in :

………… ” The truth is that domestic violence has never been a gender issue but has always been a human issue ” ……..

and you then regress to an accusation of ‘spouting’ the feminist lie that female abusers and male victims are in the extreme minority if not virtually non-existent. ” ….. why would you do that ??

I have not re-read absolutely every post here, so some may have said that, but it is not true. There are many male victims – and perhaps more than we know, as males would be less inclined to report rape, by either man or woman.

There are, simply put – VICTIMS of violence, rape, stalking, bullying, mental and emotional cruelty … and many more ‘perversions’ of the human spirit.

All these victims are of BOTH genders – and include lesbians and gay men, children et al.

Your comment :
……….. ” or studies like the 2010 NIPSVS which engaged in academic fraud by defining the vast majority of rape against men as “other sexual assault” to present a fraudulent summary that virtually all rape victims are female and virtually all rapists are male.”

I have NO idea which 2010 NIPSVS report you read, but I just read ( in the link below ) the statistics as presented and in fact the entire 4 pages of the report … and nowhere could I find any reference whatsoever to any statement that ‘defined the vast majority of rape against men as “other sexual assault” ….. in fact I thought the report was very correct in the language it used, for the reason of NOT denegrating either gender at any time. …… So I would suggest you go back and read it again, and get a very clear picture in your mind as to the facts as presented by this Survey.

http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/pdf/nisvs_executive_summary-a.pdf

I do take you up on a statement you made in your final paragraph, that being :

………. ” feminism has been filled with militants who have even subjected women to violence and terrorism when it suited their end – militants to whom the standard feminist response is “not all feminists are like that” ……. ”

I doubt very much that feminism …… or any ‘ism’ for that matter, is filled with militants. But, in absolutely EVERY walk of life, we will find the militant personality. Which means ” aggressive, violent, belligerent, bellicose, assertive, pushy, forceful — and many more definitions. They happen absolutely EVERYWHERE mate. Everywhere. …… and they come in all shapes, sizes, age and gender.

The alleged ‘standard’ feminist response being ( according to your statement ) ” not all feminists are like that ” … That statement can apply to anybody, in any situation, in any way of life …. so fill in the gap here with whatever you like bowspearer – – – – ” not all ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, are like that “.

A good example is commenters on forums. Some are extremely belligerent, become quite nasty at times and one in particular I copped today on YouTube who was a troll in every sense of the word, was utterly vile – filthy in fact ……. but ” not all commenters are like that “.

Trust you see what I have been aiming at here. I think it’s called perhaps ‘peace’ ?
Annie ByamNovember 1, 2014 at 2:19 am

bowspearer …….

p.s. I should have edited my comment more carefully. Third paragraph …..

” i.e. men and women, children, teens, and babes of either gender. You have more or less said something similar your self as in : etc.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, should have been ” i.e. men and women, children, teens, and babes of either gender. …..

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Bowspearer – you have more or less said something similar your self as in :

etc….

And for the remainder of my post, I am mostly addressing you …. should have made that clearer.
bowspearerNovember 1, 2014 at 5:03 pm

@Annie Byam You like Kaye Lee are blind to the elephant in the room. The problem is that it is completely contradictory to on one hand claim to be concerned with the plight of victimised men and women whilst at the same time adhering to a gender paradigm which at its very foundations, operates from the premise that all injustice in the world can solely be blamed on male power.

As uncomfortable as it is, the truth is that that paradigm has minimal tolerance for male victims (and only when the abuser is male) and absolutely no room whatsoever for the acknowledgement of female perpetrators.

More to the point, such a paradigm simply reinforces, rather than breaks free of the traditional gender paradigm. As I have heard it being said, patriarchal theory and traditionalism are both merely flip sides of the exact same gender paradigm.

Furthermore as to my claims about feminism’s militant stance on domestic violence, they are far from mere blind assertions. They are based on the eyewitness accounts of pioneers in the domestic violence industry like Erin Pizzey, who gives her own account of her involvement with the feminist movement and the militant violent past it is tarred with: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAgYsvykEb8 (she omitted that amongst the harassment was also the murder of her dog and that after that “last straw, she was forced to flee the country with her family) . Yet the feminist movement en masse has done nothing to cut said element from itself like the cancer it is.

As for the 2010 NIPSVS, the devil is in the detail – detail which comes from the full report [ http://www.cdc.gov/ViolencePrevention/pdf/NISVS_Report2010-a.pdf ], rather than the executive summary which was fraudulent in its findings. As noted here [ http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2011/12/15/one-of-these-things-is-not-like-the-other/ ] the CDC defined rape as:

” -Among women, rape includes vaginal, oral, or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also includes vaginal or anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.

-Among men, rape includes oral or anal penetration by a male using his penis. It also
includes anal penetration by a male or female using their fingers or an object.”

However what was excluded from that definition of rape, was any instance of rape where a male victim was was “[non-consensually] made to penetrate”. As quoted here [ http://toysoldier.wordpress.com/2013/04/08/cdc-being-made-to-penetrate-isnt-rape/ ], the researchers justified this by claiming:

“Being made to penetrate is a form of sexual victimization distinct from rape that is particularly unique to males and, to our knowledge, has not been explicitly measured in previous national studies. It is possible that rape questions in prior studies captured the experience of being made to penetrate someone else, resulting in higher prevalence estimates for male rape in those studies.”

The researchers instead classified this as “other sexual violence” (ie “not ‘real’ rape”). In other words, according to the researchers, if a man is forced to have vaginal intercourse with a woman against his consent, then it isn’t “real rape”.

Furthermore the prevalence of both is clearly shown on pages 18 and 19 of the report. On page 18 (table 2.1), the NIPSVS found that in the previous 12 months, 1.1% of women or an estimated 1,270,000 women had been raped. On page 19 (table 2.2), the NIPSVS found that in the previous 12 months, 1.1% of men had been “made to penetrate” (ie raped) or an estimated 1,2670,000 men had been raped. Furthermore the data revealed that 79.2% of perpetrators for the above male rape, were female (page 24). I put it to you that at best, you’ve been sent on a fool’s errand.

Furthermore when confronted by this, as revealed in the above blog posts, the CDC even responded with:

“The FBI definition of rape does not apply here – made to penetrate as we have defined it is distinct from rape and should not be included in a definition of rape.”

In other words, in the US, just as here, the entire definition of rape is framed around whether the victim is penetrated and as such, the system is at best, ill-equipped to deal with the vast majority of male rape victims – to the point of being potentially unable to legally recognise it. Certainly chauvinism and traditionalism have more than their fair share of blood on their hands in this regard, however feminism, with its insistence on frame rape as exclusively being a product of male power, is just as guilty of that paradigm being systemically perpetuated and maintained.

As for my last statement, perhaps that was a bit generalised and a more accurate response would be to say that the vast majority of the movement is comprised by either individuals of a radical persuasion or individuals who have continuously given such militant behaviours a free pass. The response of “not all feminists are like that” as opposed to “no way in hell am I letting you speak for me or the movement”, in light of evidence, such as what Erin Pizzey was subjected to, along with countless others whose work feminism regards as vile heresy – is a testimony to that.

You claim you want peace, but a peace which is devoid of egalitarianism or justice, is no true peace at all.

Honestly, at this point, I’m done here. Those who comprehend reality will do so, and those like Kaye Lee, who are blinded by dogma, will continue to lie to themselves; facing the cold hard truth of where feminism has gone wrong and what is needed to get the movement back on track, is simply too far outside of their comfort zones and is thus therefore a bridge too far for them to cross. Meanwhile feminism will continue to become increasingly marginalised and viewed as irrelevant, sexist and hatemongers, whilst they scratch their heads and lament where it all went wrong. Ironically they would see that the answers to those lamentations are right in front of them – along with ways to deal with those issues – if they weren’t so blinded by dogma.
ACNovember 1, 2014 at 8:05 pm

Women are not politically underrepresented in any western democracy. If anything, men are far less represented than women. Not to mention the pay-gap which is falsely attributed to discrimination.
Annie ByamNovember 1, 2014 at 9:49 pm

Bowspearer. ….

Your latest post is interesting …… and I mean that. This is a subject that actually has no answer …. male rape > male penetration > male satisfaction. …… Because that is the line it goes along. …. I am not going to say ‘sorry that you guys have been given a penis which engorges with blood at the very thought, or stimulus … of penetration”. Men are men, women are women – and thus it will remain so. But there is more to this than meets the eye, if you care to continue to read.

There is actually no paradigm – a word you frequently use – that defines any part of this subject. A paradigm is a set of linguistic terms that form patterns, or – if you like – exclusive choices. I do think that anyone who tackles the problem of VIOLENCE in ANY form, is doing so in the interests of humanity and the betterment of it. Not because of a definitive set of choices or a ‘paradigm’ ……..

So here I go on a vaguely personal note.

It may sound wishy-washy to you, but it was confided to me …. quite some years back, when a friend of mine was dissatsified with her sex life – with her husband. She was upset, worried and afraid. …

In her words ( from memory ) …. ” I have tried to persuade him to make love, but nothing happens …. he turns his back. ” She went on to describe the lengths she went to ‘persuade’ her husband to respond – – – nothing worked. In other words – his private parts did not rise to the occasion. No matter what she did. And she did plenty ( from what she confided ).

There are many possible answers to this conundrum. a) he was in fact, 100% gay …. b) he knew that he was being cajoled or even forced – and could actually control himself completely … c) her insistence ‘turned him off’ …. and thus no satisfaction for either partner occurred. ……… Yet – at times ( she replied to my questions of her ) … he was more than willing and able to perform the ‘act’ when he was ready, able and willing.

What does that say ? Many might think he was performing a type of ‘punishment’ to her by with-holding sex ( for some reason – – and that DOES happen ), others might think ” he has a physical problem ” …. yet others might opine that the husband viewed the sex act as his prerogative to instigate, therefore could not respond physically to his wife’s very obvious advances . ,,,,,,,,, It could be all, some or none of these reasons. ….. I had, but with-held my own opinions.

This presents the difficulty of any survey or conference on the subject. Can a woman be raped – YES. Can a man be raped – YES.
Equally. However, there is less incidence and percentage of males being raped / forced – possibly because ( per my previous comments ) – it is NOT reported as often by men. ……… I do NOT include rape inside prisons in this equation.

More than enough on that part of the subject.

==========

I have watched, read, listened to – all of your links in your previous post. … Sympathised very much with Erin Pizzey on what she suffered at the EXTREMIST faction of feminism. That was a diabolical situation for any human being.

Extremist factions !! They abound EVERYWHERE, in Christianity, in Islam, in various countries with different idiologies to those in the West, …. in the West itself … in Feminism, in Politics ( whatever ideological side is being promoted ) …and let’s face it, in humanity itself.

Then there is “psychological aggression’ as addressed in ‘Violence Prevention – NISVS” …. ( your link ). …. ( I admit I could not get through that entire article, even though I speed read !!! The entire 117 pages was a bit much.)

Psychological aggression, can sometimes be worse than physical aggression – as it is a constant and ongoing form of domination and fear instilled, by one over another – be that male over female, female over male, mother over child, father over child ……. or sibling over sibling. There are many sides to that story.

========

Your “Toy Soldier ” link verified ( in one statement ) what I have thought myself —- that men do not report rape to anywhere near the degree that women do.

…….. ” Too few men reported rape victimization in adulthood to examine rape victimization as a minor and subsequent rape victimization in adulthood. ” … quoted.

I frankly thought “Toy Soldier” blog to be a little biased. But it did try to show both sides on occasion. One of the commenters summed it up perfectly, and without naming the commenter it was this :

…………… ” I wish people would get away from “gender specific” violence; period! — How many are or aren’t violated means nothing to the one who is violated. I have met many male, female, transgender, lesbian, bisexual survivors of child sexual abuse as well as adult abuse and in my experience the end result is pretty similar. We are all trying to heal and it is very painful! Sometimes, we get support and sometimes, we don’t. Some of us go to court; some don’t. Some of us endure major relationship issues, some of us don’t. We are “all of us” when it comes to this horrendous betrayal of trust, period! ” ….

I personally thought that to be an excellent summary of the case.

Because, the case has become – in so many ways —– MEN vs. WOMEN …….. and that simply should not be.

==========

On a personal note ….. I DID claim ‘peace’ ……. between you and Kaye, specifically. …. I make no apology for that. It was a simple attempt to bring some semblance of possible agreement, or even a kindly agreement to disagree.

Your comment about egalitarianism was somewhat unnecessary, as while we have diverse ideologies, diverse ways of living, diverse ways of being, diverse acceptance of differing attitutudes / ways of life / political mores / religions / and upbringings ……. there can never truly be ‘peace’.

And I do not think I have been ‘sent on a fool’s errand’. That was not a necessary comment on your part.

========

I intend at some time in the near future, to reprint this on my own blog – however, all references to names and links shall be with-held.
It will be edited heavily before being published.

I have spent way too much time writing this, not to use it ultimately – in some form or other.
ACNovember 1, 2014 at 11:57 pm

Of course. We totally don’t want this to be a man vs woman thing. And we’re against using gendered terms like “firemen”. But we’re fine calling the force for good that strives to rectify all gender issues “feminism” and the force for evil that causes all these gender issues “patriarchy”.
And that is very much mainstream feminism.
bowspearerNovember 2, 2014 at 12:24 am

@Annie Byam this is my final post on this thread – merely came back after deciding to save my last couple of posts to you for posterity in case they happened to disappear for some reason.

Firstly, it’s important to address the myths concerning the male erection. Erections are far more involuntary than voluntary. Friction from boxer shorts in jeans can cause them (ie unwanted physical stimuli). Feeling groggy can cause them. We get them in our sleep and wake up with them. If only we got them when we wanted them, then life would be so much simpler, but it isn’t. As such, it’s possible for us to wake up to being raped, such as in the case of James Landrith: http://goodmenproject.com/featured-content/ive-got-the-t-shirt-and-the-trauma-response-to-go-with-it/

Again though, the notion of a woman either taking advantage or, or forcing an erection goes against ideological framework of patriarchal theory. Instead we have the trope perpetrated than all penetration of a woman is the embodiment of male oppression over women.

That leads me to the second point. When I aid you’d been sent on a fool’s errand, I meant it in a very specific context – namely that you have been fooled and manipulated by researchers in a position of authority who have used that authority to engage in academic fraud in a highly convincing manner. As such I’d put it to you that it is a necessary remark to make in that context because it highlights just how insidious and perverse the ideological fraud is. By a mere act of semantics and unethical use of, for want of a better term, taxonomy, the researchers for that study were able to reduce the percentage of female perpetuated rape down from 40% to around 2% and the frequency of men being raped down from one in 2, to one in 72. Those summaries then go on to inform how law enforcement, advocacy groups and the courts see rape and sexual violence.

Thirdly, and to subsequently deal with your claims about an ideological paradigm being non-existent, a textbook example of this can be seen from this paragraph as referenced here [ http://www.yarrowplace.sa.gov.au/booklet_law.html ]:

“The nature of legal institutions
Men hold most of the important positions in legal institutions. Feminist analysis asserts that the law is a patriarchal institution that upholds laws, processes and procedures that support and maintain the power of men. This means that men, who are largely the perpetrators of rape and sexual assault, are frequently not accountable for their violence against women, children and other men. ”

You claim that no gender paradigm (or ideological framework) exists with how the system and society views violence and particularly sexual violence, but the above is textbook evidence of the very feminist culpability in the barriers which men face at a state government level. One one hand there’s a presumption that if he doesn’t want sex, then he must be gay or there’s something wrong with him – that is entirely on chauvinists, paleo-masculinists and traditionalists. Conversely though, there is equally the notion there that if a rape did occur that he must be the rapist – that is entirely on feminist theory as evidenced by the above quote.

Thirdly, you’re certainly correct when you say that it was extremists that Pizzey was describing, yet it is the extremists who have proven to be very much in the driver’s seat of the feminist movement at a political level. It is the extremists in the drivers seat which has resulted in feminism perpetuating the notion of “rape culture” being entirely an issue of male power (ie “all men are rapists”). It is the extremists in the driver’s seat of feminism which have driven things such as “primary aggressor” laws/arrest procedures at a judicial level. It is the extremists in the driver’s seat which has driven the exclusive focus of domestic violence being on “[male] violence against women”. You rightly say it should be about victims and perpetrators, yet these are just a handful of examples of where feminism has made abuse entirely about gender – entirely because the extremists have been allowed to be at the wheel with impunity.

If it were any other movement where the extremists were in the driver’s seat at a political level, society would never give it a free pass to the same extent. Yet for so long that is exactly what society has done with feminism- even Erin Pizzey commented on that in the video if you recall. A significant reason is that society programs men and boys from an early age (right from their first fairy tales about white knights and princesses in a tower I might add) to view women as being in perpetual need of being provided for and protected- to respond to a woman’s cries of any perceived threat by immediately coming to her defence and smiting said threat- genuine or otherwise. That is what we are told it means to be a “good man”. When feminists pat themselves on the back about giving men more choices, what they fail to grasp is that any choices men have been given as the result of feminism are purely an accidental bi-product of women being given choices and have arisen solely as a function of giving women choices they demanded; men are still ultimately “human doings” in our society rather than “human beings”- because it benefits both male power and female power. Of course what compounds this problem is a combination of the radically driven feminist notion that all male issues are essentially “champagne issues” and the flawed and fraudulent notion that anyone who takes issue with feminism, must want to paternalise and sexually subjugate women.

To draw an analogy, if you were riding in a car with a full blown psycho who was driving dangerously, that you had allowed to sit in the driver’s seat and take control of the wheel, how long would it take before you tried to wrestle control of the wheel from them for the sake of your own safety? Yet analogously speaking and in terms of “the point of the sword”, feminism has allowed said full blown psychos to remain at the wheel, whilst the moderates continue to sit back in the passenger seats whilst doing nothing to take back control of the wheel, and then wonder why other motorists view the whole car as a menace on the roads. The only way that will begin to change is if the passengers take control of the wheel and boot them out of the car, rather than effectively saying “I’m not the one driving” as if that makes it all ok.

Therein lies what feminism has to address, yet when confronted with this, the typical feminist approach is to respond adversarially , as if such comments must automatically be coming from a paleo-masculinist. Until that changes and until the feminist movement faces up to that cold hard truth, it will continue to find itself increasingly marginalised by society.

On that note, I will deal with Kaye Lee’s militant diatribe.

I would have ignored it, but that would imply that I in some way acknowledged her militantly zealous argument as rational or credible. I categorically reject her conclusions for what they are- a blatant prima facie – causing her to portray herself as incapable of reason, or looking beyond her own female privilege(yes, gasp, shock horror, female privilege is just as real as male privilege). Were she capable of doing so, she would actually recognise that whilst women have certainly been paternalised on the grounds of being carriers of a uterus, men have equally been subjugated as disposable protectors and providers for said uteruses.

If I were to engage in the exact same hypocritical and sexist arguments as her, I could cite the fact that men were the primary victims of war whilst women were sitting safely in their houses to minimise sexism and paternalism against women. I could cite the fact that it was men who are the vast bulk of workplace casualty, accounting for the vast majority of workplace fatalities so that women are spared the danger, again, to minimise sexism and paternalism towards women. I could likewise raise the issue of the boys crisis in education. I could point out that conscription here has only ever targeted men. I could point out that men live shorter lives than women and generally have much lower health outcomes than women – to just cite a few examples. I could also point out that Dr Warren Farrell has thoroughly debunked the wage gap myth by accounting for 25 different factors of employment, such as employment fields, work hours per week, travel time, etc. However doing so would lose sight of the bigger picture – that the current gender framework of society is a zero sum game with neither male nor female winners; where men and women are subjugated by their gender roles; a model with both traditionalism/chauvinism and feminism have done nothing but entrench in a fundamental manner.

Case in point, to defend the conclusions drawn by Patriarchal Theory (as opposed to its initial observations, which is a significant part of why your responses to me are so incredibly ironic) is to defend a position where all male victims of female abusers are regarded as urban myths and perpetual liars who “had it coming to them” and who are regarded as nothing more than cheap, filthy worthless sluts. That is a statement of fact, no matter how much certain individuals might like to hide behind the uterus as an ideological shield to pretend otherwise or outlandishly claim that such criticisms equate to some deep seeded desire to relegate all women back to the kitchen and the bedroom.

Also let’s lay to rest the myth that strong, successful women intimidate me. My mother was (and may still be) the youngest Deputy Principal ever appointed in the state where I grew up and on multiple occassions I have encountered parents who held her in very high regard – a fact I am very proud of her for. My wife is a highly talented and successful software engineer and the primary breadwinner of our family, whom I feel blessed to be sharing the rest of my wife with. In short, i am very proud of an comfortable with the strong women in my life and strong women in general.

However, what I do take issue with (and the correct term is “outraged and disgusted by” as opposed to “intimidated by”) are, speaking in general terms, militant gender ideologues whose concern for sexism and all victims of violence and abuse, typically extends only so far as their own gendered narrative and whose stance treats victims of abuse who are inconvenient to that narrative as collateral damage- by way of gendered domestic violence apologetics, rape apologetics and child abuse apologetics. What I also take issue with is the way that such responses are typically coupled with fraudulent and baseless claims (either overt or implied) of “misogyny” gender-objectification based shaming techniques, whilst using their own uterus, or someone Else’s, as an ideological shield. Such individuals are no better than the likes of Sheik Hilali- as much as such claims would no doubt cause said militants to suffer a ruptured aneurism at such a thought- even moreso at the thought of said strong close women in my life sharing my egalitarian views on gender.

And on that note, I’m done here, at peace with the fact that certain individuals here will see, and others will be unable to.
DanDarkNovember 2, 2014 at 12:57 am

Thank goodness for that, shut the door on your way out Bowser 🙂
Annie ByamNovember 2, 2014 at 5:29 am

bowspearer …….

I agree we should end this ‘debate’ as it has been going in circles somewhat and getting no-where – largely. Quite possibly because the ENTIRE subject range – including feminism, militantism, patriarchy, violence towards anyone by anyone else, child molestation – ( by both genders ) mental illness, …. et al …. does not really HAVE any answers. It is about humanity and its infinite variety.

It is possible that I am older than you …. and I must say, that having been married for most of my adult life – I am very well aware of the male condition of arousal, and the many many situations ( more than you have listed in fact ) that can cause the involuntary response ( referring to your 2nd paragraph ) that results in arousal.

I did think that was a somewhat unnecessary lot of ‘ information ‘ …. for and to, a mature woman.

And so we shelve this entire subject ……….. it’s been – – ‘interesting’ …!!!

=========

DanDark –

______________ I AM QUIETLY CLOSING THE DOOR ON MY WAY OUT – ,,,,, LOL 😉 ________________
SapphireGNovember 13, 2014 at 3:06 pm

I hate to break it to you, but physiologically men and women are different…
We think differently for starters… Nothing wrong with this, as differences can be a good thing.
Our physical capabilities are different as well… Again, nothing wrong with this either, as men are better equipped to do heavy labour.

Yet it is in respecting each other that we can trade the best of what each gender has to offer.
The gender struggle argument does not to stop, including those false accusations towards men, just because it is ‘easy’.
There are so many serious issues out there that as human beings we could ALL ban together for and feminism is not one of them, especially when you have war, famine and disease.

Truth is feminism has spiralled out of control, leaving many women that I know as feminists, as being resentful and hateful towards men and if I do not hate men too, then I am out of the club. Ridiculous, but this is what I have encountered, so if there are women out there objecting to feminism on a similar basis, then how can anyone be surprised, when it does not show any sort of respect, decency, equality or collaboration. It is an argument that is going nowhere and men are getting tired of it too.
Kaye LeeNovember 13, 2014 at 4:57 pm

SapphireG,

men and women are different…We think differently for starters

Well I also hate to break it to you…I would suggest that you and I think very differently regardless of our gender. Your assumption that feminism implies a hatred of men is ill-informed and naïve.

I assume you live in Australia and are not a victim of the domestic violence which is a blight on our supposedly civilised society – this might explain why you think feminism is outdated…you are already reaping its rewards. Apparently you have no concern for the billions of women who are not.
Erotic MoustacheNovember 13, 2014 at 6:07 pm

It’s dangerous to offer generalisations about feminism, especially in the modern era where it’s increasingly difficult to say what feminism is. Contemporary feminism is essentially every individual woman calling her personal life philosophy, “feminism”. The term has been rendered all but meaningless because of this. It’s a tragedy, really, because the self-absorbed and egocentric excesses of that have undermined the whole thing. That may not be such a big issue for women in the first world, but it’s a terrible dynamic for every woman in the developing and/or Islamic world. They still need traditional, baseline feminism desperately.

By all means let’s acknowledge and critique the threads within modern “western” feminism that have become forms of philosophic idiocy and misandry, but in doing so let’s not lose track of the fundamental legitimacy and cultural importance of the essentials of feminist ideology. Millions of women around the globe are still in dire need of those essentials being recognised and socially and politically instituted.

I agree totally with some of the criticisms of modern feminism, but we have a bit of a baby/bathwater thing happening and the simple fact is millions of women can’t afford for the “debate” – such that it is – to be hijacked by a lack of proper perspective.
bobraftoNovember 13, 2014 at 6:42 pm

I buy this from Tania
http://www.mamamia.com.au/social/tanya-plibersek-feminist/
bowspearerFebruary 16, 2020 at 10:28 pm

This might be necromancing, but given the recent developments with the Disability Royal Commision and the ableist responses I received in this thread are textbook evidence of how feminism and Intersectionalism “help” people with a disability who have been abused, in the same way that the KKK “helps” people of colour, I decided to speak truth to power here one more time. I have done this for the sake of anyone coming across this article and its vile, ableist comments, from this point onwards. People ablesplaining their ableism or uppity re**rding people with a disability – as I experienced at the hands of multiple people, is unacceptable and inexcusable. It is especially so in the current climate of the Disability Royal Commission Climate. TheAIMN, if you do not publish this comment, then you are simply further proving my point. Furthermore, no amount of trying to hide behind “lies, damned lies and statistics”, will change the fact that my following comment is fair, reasonable and accurate.

I seem to recall Kaye Lee saying somewhere that feminism needed to take care that it did not ignore the plight of people with a disability. Yet when I spoke as someone who is a disabled survivor of abuse, and noted how in no uncertain terms, that feminism, due to core aspects of its ideology, actively harms people with a disability, I was uppity re**rded, by numerous people here who repeatedly ablesplained their ableism. Kaye Lee was one of them, as was No Matter, Dan Dark, Kath Malcom, Bob Fanside and corvus boreus and Anne Byam to a lesser extent. Even the author, Letitia McQuade, couldn’t help herself.

The fact is that feminism and Patriarchal Dominance Models are intertwined; they have been since the 1970s.

The fact is that Patriarchal Dominance Models dogmatically regard all abuse as exclusively being “a manifestation of the oppression of women and the product of male power”, where “women are only victims and only males are perpetrators”.

As a segue to female-on-male abuse against the disabled, it is a fact that where female-on-male abuse in general is concerned, the limits of this model mean that it is only capable of responding to female-on-male abuse by blaming the victim and accusing the victim of “oppressing their abusers into abusing them”. This can reasonably be considered the sole position of female child abusers, female paedophiles, female rapists, female DV abusers, their enablers and their apologists. Any studies carried out within the limits of this framework, are going to be ideologically predisposed to producing results which reinforce this view.

It gets worse when you talk about female-on-male abuse against people with a disability, as we have no real power or agency, and the notion of us oppressing anyone is laughable. Yet the limits of this model mean that it is only capable of responding to female-on-male abuse against the disabled by blaming the victim and arguing that the victim’s mere existence oppressed their abusers into abusing them”. This treats those of us who are disabled male victims of female-perpetrated abuse like useless eaters in all but name, and it is literally the position of a Nazi.

We’ve learned since the Royal Commission into the abuse, exploitation and neglect that those of us with a disability are orders of magnitude more likely to experience sexual and domestic violence than those without a disability. We’ve learned that one of us with a disability in this country, will face an act of violence or abuse every 10 minutes in this country. One person with a disability facing violence and abuse is one too many! This applies even more-so to victim-blaming disabled victims of violence and abuse in the worst way possible.

Yet look at how feminism’s default approach to abuse, treats those of us who are disabled, abused and male, when our abusers are female. The only way feminism is ideologically capable of responding to us, after having Patriarchal Dominance Models at its core for close to half a century now, is to victim blame us and to treat us like “useless eaters” in all but name.

A few years back, there was that ghastly story of a female principal in Canberra, locking a 10 year old boy on the Spectrum, in a cage. I’m honestly not sure what’s more shocking – the fact that it happened, or the fact that those of us with a disability weren’t surprised it could have happened to begin with. Yet the only way that feminism is capable of responding to ghastly incidents such as this, is by blaming that poor little boy, and claiming that “his mere existence oppressed his abusers into abusing him”.

As someone on the Spectrum, from the ages of 6-29, female relatives took it upon themselves to “discipline the disability out of” me. That included one time where I dislocated my foot and was told to sit there and shut up while it wasn’t treated. My female teachers were so abusive that a member of staff disclosed to my mother after I left that they were my “worst bullies”. When I was a teenager I was indecently assaulted multiple times and then threatened with rape; my female year coordinator hauled me into her office in response and terrorised me into silence while comparing me to “women who cry rape” [sic]. In my 20s, I was the victim of egregious partner violence, which regularly included sexual-coercion based partner rape, which one child sexual abuse survivor I disclosed it to, described as “worse than rape” [sic]. Yet the only way that feminism is capable of responding to decades of abuse I endured, is by blaming that me, and claiming that “his mere existence oppressed his abusers into abusing him” to try and justify it.

This is equally true in practice; every example below is simply me encountering a system which is applying Patriarchal Dominance Model based approaches to abuse in an authentic manner.

In the case of the domestic violence, I was bounced around, dismissed or offered perpetrator treatment programs. And yes, I did try “doing something about it”, only to be stonewalled at every turn.

In the case of the sexual partner violence which had been described by others as “worse than rape” [sic], the organisation I reached out to for sexual trauma counselling, cherry-picked my disclosure and then tried to manipulate me into attending a sex offender program!

Read that last one again!

When a few years back, my wonderful wife was terrified I’d try to kill myself, I reluctantly relented to her pleading and called up an abuse support line. Despite me clearly stating I was a victim of abuse and there were concerns I’d self-harm, the moment I mentioned the words “domestic violence”, I was immediately screened to see if I was a danger to others, and then fobbed off when I wasn’t.

After all, what’s one less “uppity re**rd of a patriarchal s***lord, who needs to check their privilege and stop pretending they know what REAL oppression is”, right?

And don’t tell me that isn’t how it is; I’ve experienced exactly that far too often!

I’ve experienced it when I’ve tried calmly and civilly discussing the matter with political candidates, only to have well off women in high paying jobs, howl me down repeatedly with “YOU’RE A WHITE GUY!”

I’ve experienced it on Social media where I’ve been told: “Disabled white men still benefit from whiteness and misogyny in ways disabled WOC [women of colour] don’t.” [SIC] This equates to an assertion of “disabled white males cannot be oppressed, because disabled white males are more privileged than women of colour” [SIC].

I’ve even experienced it in disability advocacy groups where I’ve been told “I know you probably feel angry as a person with a disability, but if you are white, male_you will NEVER be as far behind as a female.” [SIC]

All of these Intersectional responses amount to a response of “STFU you uppity re**rd of a patriarchal s***lord, check your privilege and stop pretending you know what REAL oppression is”.

How exactly does being white and male help a child with a disability, being locked in a cage by a grown woman, with a duty of care to them? I’ll wait.

The cold hard truth is that this ableism is part of the true face of ableism; it has been for close to half a century, while feminism has happily profited monetarily and politically from it, while openly treating disabled survivors of abuse like myself, who you clearly regard as “uppity re**rds” and “useless eaters” as nothing more than collateral damage. Apparently feminism and Intersectionality, never got the memo from Nuremberg, that “never again” means never again- full stop! It has had roughly 50 years to course correct and has militantly refused to, so stop pretending that it has any excuse here.

I am a disabled survivor of abuse, I have experienced feminism’s and intersectionality’s response to myself and other disabled male survivors of abuse, I condemn it for its blatant and shameless ableism. I find its “help” for people with a disability to be utterly wanting to the point of actively perpetrating harm. Academically speaking, I grade it all Fs and I expel from from the University for failure to maintain academic progress.

Helping women, in no way shape or form, excuses feminism from actively treating disabled male victims of abuse like “useless eaters”.

Helping women, in no way shape or form, excuses feminism from actively being part of the reason that disabled little boys are locked in cages by women in a position of power.

Helping women, in no way shape or form, excuses feminism from actively being part of the reason that people with a disability are orders of magnitude more likely to be victims of sexual and partner violence, than those without a disability.

Helping women, in no way shape or form, excuses feminism from actively being part of the reason that someone with a disability experiences an act of violence or abuse every 10 minutes in this country.

Helping women, in no way shape or form, excuses feminism from actively being a part of the reason that the current Royal Commission is both long overdue and sorely needed.

Until this festering ableist cancer, along with the festering cancer of intersectionality, is cut from feminism’s ideological core, then people with a disability, will need feminist, as much as people of colour need the KKK. If feminists don’t like that cold hard truth, then the simple answer is that they need to engage in some serious and fundamental course correction.

Furthermore, the notion that to oppose this ableism is to hate women, is to argue that such ableism is an inherent trait of women; that is actual misogyny.

On that note, I’ll address one last thing.

It is worth deconstructing the misogynist shaming tactic, as it is the rhetoric of homophobes, ableists, chauvinists and abuser excusers. “Misogynist”, “incel” etc, are gendered shaming tactics which are tantamount to slut shaming a woman. All play on how men and women are traditionally conditioned by society to both value themselves and construct their identities. In the case of the male version, they play on men’s ability to provide for and protect “women and children” and their sexual prowess. When combined with “he doesn’t like girls” being a euphemism for homosexual, the whole thing – at best – amounts to a slur of “sexless, effeminate, women hating homosexual loser”. Note the homophobia, actual misogyny, misandry and chauvinism, even at its most benign.

It gets worse. When the target is a survivor of female-perpetrated abuse, it reinforces through it’s effeminacy allegations, the chauvinistic trope of “real men are never victims – especially of women”. Through its “woman-hater” allegations, it reinforces the feminist notion that male victims of female-perpetrated abuse “oppress their abusers into abusing them”. As such, and as it effectively blames abused males for being abused for “failing to man-up” and “oppressing their abusers into abusing them”, when used against a male abuse survivor, said shaming tactic is the act of, at best, an abuse apologist – if not an enabler or even an abuser themselves.

It gets even worse when the abuse survivor happens to have a disability. Those of us with a disability have no real agency or power. Ergo the only way “they oppressed their abusers into abusing them” can maintain internal consistency, is by arguing that “their mere existence oppressed their abusers into abusing them”. This effectively regards the target of said slur as a “useless eater” and it is literally the rhetoric of a Nazi.

So the next time someone feels the urge to baselessly engage in such a slur, I’d strongly suggest that they ask themselves just how badly they’re determined, to build a home and a mausoleum, on the wrong side of history.
Letitia McQuadeFebruary 17, 2020 at 8:59 am

Speaking personally, I am sorry you have suffered abuse, and I am sorry you feel so much bitterness and pain as a result. That said, I am not sure it is helpful to view “feminism” as anything more than the notion that gender based structural inequities ought to be addressed. Viewing feminism as a concrete block of ideology that is inherently hostile, and seeking the disempowerment of other groups is neither true or helpful.
The notion that gender inequities should be dismantled can in no way be conflated with support for the abuse of vulnerable groups and individuals.
The reality is PEOPLE of all types fall short of optimum behaviour quite often. People abuse each other all time. I am not saying that this is acceptable, or that we should not strive to address it. And I am sure there would be millions of women, children and men of all races familiar with your tales of victim blaming, dismissing claims of abuse, and failure to find support or protection.
Speaking up for one group does not equate with supporting the abuse of another. I have been a full time carer for my blind crippled mother for the last 6 years, and one thing I do know is that caring for disabled people is hard, and I know from personal experience that living and dealing with people of the spectrum is very difficult for neurotypicals. While I in no way condone carer abuse, when people (both male and female) have to deal with incredibly challenging caring responsibilities that they do not have the personal emotional resources to deal with they often lash out. This is not meant to excuse, but hopefully to explain why sometimes seemingly normal caring people, men and woman, do things that on the face of it are utterly appalling.
We all need help and support to be our best selves, and we all need to work hard to temper our afflictive emotions… All of us, even those of us that have suffered extensive abuse can be less than perfect in our responses. I am fairly certain, given the tome of your reply that you are not always a beacon of Christ like virtue, and that you at times have behaved in a less than perfect fashion.
This is not to excuse what others may have done to you, I say this to illustrate how none of us are purely victims. We all do things that require the forgiveness of others.
Personally I have found a great deal of peace and progress in forgiving those that have abused me, (and I have suffered significant abuse in my life.) It is my hope that you can move on from rallying against ideologies of equality such as feminism.
No one who has abused you has done so because they are feminists, they have done so because they, as individuals, where tainted by afflictive drives and emotions that they could not contain. I am sure every one of your abusers (who is not a psychopath, and is not engaged in self justification), feels remorse.
Please do what every you can to protect yourself going forward. Try hard not to become bitter. And stay mindful of the fact that none of live up to our ideals, but that is not a reason to abandon those ideals and stop trying to be better.
In closing I will say again, I am sorry your path through this life has been so difficult and painful. As a surviver of significant abuse, I can assure you there is peace and wisdom to be found in the aftermath of abuse, and I wish you the personal fortitude to find that wisdom and peace within yourself. Good luck, and travel safely. I will not be entering into a back and forth dialogue. So any further response from me shall not be forthcoming. Cheers.
bowspearerFebruary 17, 2020 at 3:28 pm

Letitia, I’m sorry that you lack both the moral courage and intellectual honesty to reject the evil you have dogmatically chosen to be a party to for many years now. It is a statement of fact that among the things which feminism is, is a political movement, as evidenced by the existence of the feminist movement and the feminists such as yourself, who are a part of that movement. Political movements make choices and they are responsible for the effects of those choices – both good and evil. The members of that movement are faced with two choices when the movement partakes in evil: either stand against that evil or be a party to it. You and others in this thread are guilty of shamelessly choosing the later.

The fact is that since the 1970s, the feminist movement has dogmatically embraced Patriarchal Dominance Models as its sole lens to view abuse through. Since the 1980s, it has embraced intersectionality as its sole lens by which to view culture through. It has done this to such an extent, that both of these things have now become so institutionalised within the movement, that they now reside within the heart of the ideological core of feminism itself, and have done so for decades.

You have been confronted with the realities that Patriarchal Dominance Models harm people with a disability (arguably the most vulnerable minority in the country bar none) who have been abused in the most abhorrent of ways.

You have been confronted with the fact that said harm, takes the form of responding to disabled victims and survivors of domestic violence, by offering us “help” in the form of perpetrator programs. Victim-blaming much.

You have been confronted with the fact that said harm, takes the form of responding to disabled victims and survivors of rape, by offering us “help” in the form of sex-offender programs. Slut-shaming and victim-blaming much.

You have been confronted with the cold hard truth that they view disabled victims of child abuse, paedophilia, rape and domestic violence as “useless eaters”. When a country took this view of the disabled in the 1930s and ran with it – need I remind you that what followed, directly led to the mass-murder of 5.8 million Jews.

You have been confronted with the truth that intersectionality, with its dogmatic “cishet white males can never be oppressed” mantra, hides behind gender, race and sex, while wilfully and actively persecuting, mocking and engaging in violence towards, people with a disability, who dare to speak out against ableism.

Given that these sorts of attitudes were so universally condemned by the world – to the point of the solemn vow of “never again” and the fact that Nazi has become the ultimate insult, how else should any decent and empathetic human being, who genuinely believes in equality, respond to such a state of affairs, other than with complete hostility?

You claim “Viewing feminism as a concrete block of ideology that is inherently hostile, and seeking the disempowerment of other groups is neither true or helpful.” Yet if this was even remotely true or anything other than a deflection tactic, then the countless feminists which are allegedly implicated by this comment, to exist and do not agree with the arbitrary dogma of Patriarchal Domiance Models and Intersectionality, would have risen up and ejected both from feminism’s ideological core. Instead the silence has been deafening for decades. On this issue, at best, the overwhelming majority of feminists have either staunchly supported them, or stayed silent and did nothing to oppose those who did.

Also given that you’ve agreed that disempowering other groups is a bad thing, why is feminism combating gender inequality in manner which actively perpetuates ableism?

“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is for good [people] to do nothing”. – Edmund Burke

You claim “The notion that gender inequities should be dismantled can in no way be conflated with support for the abuse of vulnerable groups and individuals.” However this is a lie. One of the core means by which feminism has pushed for gender inequalities to be dismantled has been Patriarchal Dominance Models, which can and all too commonly do, support, enable and actively partake in (through systemic re-vicimisation and persecution), the abuse of people with a disability.

“The ends never justify the means” – Anonymous

The feminist movement as a whole has either supported this injustice, or blindly and quietly gone along with those who do, making them a party to it. All are culpable and all have a responsibility to rectify this egregious injustice. If feminism operates from a paradigm, which it does, where it feels that helping abused women requires treating disabled victims and survivors of abuse like “useless eaters”, then it needs a better paradigm. If the intellectual leaders of feminism, operate from a dogmatic belief, which they do, that this paradigm is the only option, then it needs better intellectual leaders.

Feminism claims to be all about gender equality, yet why is it that that belief in gender equality vanishes, when it comes to “pesky” things like equality of accountability.

After all, your response, while disingenuously feigning compassion, was to dismiss me as “bitter” – in other words “an angry man”, “a misogynist” by any other name.

How can you claim to feel for my abuse with any shred of authenticity and then immediately shame me as a “sexless, effeminate, woman hating homosexual loser”, while blaming me for being abused both for “failing to be a real man” and essentially arguing that “his mere existence oppressed his abusers into abusing him”. After all, when you respond to me with shaming tactics like “bitter”, “angry man”, “misogynist” and “incel”, that’s what they amount to.

You claim to wish that I find wisdom and peace. The irony is that I have found wisdom, you just hate that it exposes the evil which underlies the moral superiority complex of yourself and your fellow ideologues. As for peace, much like Black Americans during the Civil Rights Movement era, as an Australian with a disability in this time of the Royal Commission, I will feel peace when ableism like this is an horrific anachronism. Understand that when that day comes, the side which you and your fellow ideologues will have chosen will have led you to the wrong side of history. These two comments I have left, along with so many others I have made over the years, have been for the sake of posterity, for that day and every day following it.
RossleighFebruary 17, 2020 at 5:19 pm

Wow, bowspearer, you’ve managed even more banal generalities and misinformation than a Scott Morrison speech. Without offering one shred of evidence or even acknowledging that the term is not easily defined and means different things to different people, you’ve managed to assert various ideas about “feminism” and compared it to Nazism… Mathias Cormann will be most unimpressed.
Socrates.February 17, 2020 at 5:53 pm

Phwhhwoaahh!

I remember this sort of on line conversation elsewhere back in the two thousands and learned to avoid them like the plague, too much skin lost learning the lesson.

On the whole, I’ll add my sympathies are more with feminists and the disabled, but for now, no more.
bowspearerFebruary 17, 2020 at 8:11 pm

Rossleigh, all you have succeeded in is providing a textbook example of how the bigotry looks when it is blinded by a moral superiority complex. It’s especially telling that you try and other me as “far right”, in an attempt to deflect from and defend the fact that your position is one which supports demonising myself and every other disabled male survivor of female-perpetrated abuse as a “useless eater” in all but name. The lack of self-awareness here on your part would be astounding – that is, if the lack of moral courage and intellectual honesty you are displaying weren’t so blatantly obvious.

It’s also incredibly telling that part of your actions in part, at best, inferred that a disabled survivor of child abuse, an institutionalised child sexual abuse coverup, rape and domestic violence, was lying about their disclosure.

So much for “believe the victim”.

Oh and by the way, thankyou for providing textbook evidence of why victims of sexual abuse in the Catholic Church took decades to come forward, why abuse against people with a disability like myself are so widespread and why the current Royal Commission into the Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of people with a disability, is so direly needed and long overdue.

You say I have provided misinformation and generalisations, but this is an utter strawman.

It is fact that Patriarchal Dominance Models are an arbitrary, Patriarchal Theory-based framework through which abuse is examined.

It is a fact that this translates to viewing all abuse as a manifestation of Patriarchal Dominance.

It is a fact that this reasonably translates to viewing abuse as “a manifestation of the oppression of women and the product of patriarchal power”.

It is a fact that “partriarchal” is a gendered term, which pertains exclusively to males, whose counterpart is “matriarchal”. Ergo it is a fact that Patriarchal Dominance Models reasonably translate to viewing abuse as “a manifestation of the oppression of women and the product of male power”. It is equally a fact that under such a model, “women can only be victims and only males can be perpetrators”, which equates to “women are only victims and only males are perpetrators”.

It is a fact that in cases of female-on-male abuse, the only party capable of experiencing “the oppression of women” or matching the description of “women are only victims”, is the abuser. Likewise, it is a fact that the only party capable of possessing “male power” or matching the description of “only males are petpetrators” is the victim. Ergo it is a fact that in cases of female-on-male abuse, Patriarchal Dominance Models inherently blame the victim and accuse the victim of “oppressing their abusers into abusing them”.

It is a fact that the only parties who benefit from such a stance are abusers, their enablers and their apologists. Ergo it is a fact that where female-on-male abuse is concerned, Patriarchal Dominance Models are the sole ideological domain of female batterers, female rapists, female child abusers, female paedophiles, their enablers and their apologists.

It is a fact that those of us with a disability have no real agency or power. Ergo it is a fact that in cases of female-on-male abuse against those of us with a disability, the only way an argument that the victim “oppressed their abusers into abusing them” can maintain internal consistency is by arguing that “the victim’s mere existence oppressed their abusers into abusing them”. It is a fact that justifying the abuse of people with a disability by claiming that their existence warranted it, is tantamount to regarding disabled survivors of abuse as “useless eaters”

By the way, silencing a disabled survivor of abuse while othering them, to defend the ideological practice of victim blaming them and branding them a “useless eater” in all but name, is literally the act of both abuse apologetics and pathological hatred towards people with a disability. So thankyou for further proving my point with your shaming tactics.

As for intersectionality, it is a fact that the interesctional matrix regards being white, male, cisghendered and heteorsexual to be infinitely privileged in society. It is also a fact and by simply adding and subtracting privilege points in a mathematical manner – be it conscious or unconscioous – that having a disability isn’t considered by intersectionality, to subtract enough privilege points, to negate “cishet white male privilege. This is despite how grave the state of ableism is in this country. Ergo it is a fact that the experiences I disclosed are simply Intersectionality playing out in a truly honest manner and without the mask.

Now If what I’ve said is so baseless, prove that my deconstruction of Patriarchal Dominance Models isn’t logically sound. Prove that what has happened to me never happened. Prove that what happened to me isn’t a textbook outcome of Patriarchal Dominance Models being arbitrarily institutionalised by the system and therefore a firghtening example of how disabled survivors of abuse can be treated. Prove that the intersectional notion of “cishet white males can never be oppressed”, doesn’t lead to people with a disability like myself facing violence, mockery and persecution, when we publicly address ableism, because we also happen to be cishet, white and male.

Oh and by the way, no- my deconstruction and the lived experiences of disabled male survivors of abuse proving it to be so, being devastating to your ideology and painting you and your ideologues in the worst possible light and in a manner which exposes the hypocrisy of your advocacy and moral superiority complex, doesn’t count. Reason and truth don’t care about how heretical, ideologies and ideologues find them to be.

What I find especially telling here is if feminism is all about “equality” as so many people here claim, then the revelation that for 50 years, it has adopted an approach to combating gender equality, which has actively persecuted and revictimised people with a disability – arguably the most vulnerable of minorities in this country bar none, should be something which feminists should be deeply concerned with and wish to engage in a rather urgent case of course correction with. Surely if this were about genuine equality, there would be a desire to redress these glaring issues with Patriarchal Dominance Model based approaches to abuse and

Yet the fact that even with the Royal Commission into the Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation going on as we speak, the fact that so many feminists here have maligned me, mocked me, tried to shame and silence me, ablesplained their ableism to me constantly, and all but openly called me an “uppity re**rd”, clearly proves that to be a myth.

Clearly the definition of equality here is “equality only when it’s convenient and if vulnerable minorities wind up being collateral damage in the process, then they’re simply collateral damage in the service of the greater good”.