# Feminism



## Julia (21 November 2014)

Could members say what they understand by the term 'feminism'?

The meaning seems very different from that which characterised the movement back with Germaine Greer, Betty Friedan etc.

Julie Bishop recently said that she 'didn't find the term particularly useful' or words to that effect.

My own observations seem to include an increasing incidence of women I'd maybe describe as 'feminazis' becoming more strident, easily offended, seeing harassment when it's not intended etc.

As this is a male dominated community, I'd be really appreciative if some of you blokes could say what you think feminism is all about, whether there's any need for such a movement these days, whether there ever was, and any other comment that comes to mind.

With thanks.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Could members say what they understand by the term 'feminism'?
> 
> The meaning seems very different from that which characterised the movement back with Germaine Greer, Betty Friedan etc.
> 
> ...





I think feminism SHOULD be about women speaking their minds and expressing their points of view, not stridently but on an equal footing to men.

Unfortunately, the extreme version seems to involve a hatred or distrust/dislike of men, misandry being the official description. I think this attitude is less prevalent now as women are making up for an initial disadvantage and working on a more equal footing to men, although there is more work that could be done (the current Cabinet for example).

I don't think any fair minded man would begrudge women having an equal say in the affairs of the nation. Obviously their roles as child bearers must be taken into account as well.

 There are some feminazis around who should be avoided if at all possible. I recall working in a government department years ago where there were a lot of silly rules about sexist talk. (We actually couldn't refer to a "manhole cover", it had to be "access hatchway") . Blokes had to take down pictures of girls in bathing costumes, but the women could still have their pics of blokes in budgie smugglers. I hope this sort of silliness has now disappeared from the workplace.


----------



## luutzu (21 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Could members say what they understand by the term 'feminism'?
> 
> The meaning seems very different from that which characterised the movement back with Germaine Greer, Betty Friedan etc.
> 
> ...




To me, feminism or feminist movement should strive to give women equal rights, equal access, equal say in every function of society they so choose. Equality for all, literally. 

Women suffrage weren't allowed in the US until the 1930s [?], heard that American women weren't allowed as Juror until the 1950s or so... so the movement to get that right was welcoming. 

Equal work should be equal pay; equal opportunities to any occupation if the candidate is just as qualified... 

Then there are the extreme of feminism. You have women who doesn't like to have kids, or prefer work and climbing corporate ladders rather than staying at home mums... That's all fine and good but they then make it out as though staying at home mums are weak women, not brave enough, still being oppressed or should consider themselves failures.

Then there's the other extreme like what's her face that twerks and stick her tongues out... she probably think that is feminism too.


----------



## Atari rose (21 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Could members say what they understand by the term 'feminism'?




Well to me it means giving women the same rights as men, I think we are colse to that now but there will always be fundamental differences in the sexes....



Julia said:


> The meaning seems very different from that which characterised the movement back with Germaine Greer, Betty Friedan etc.




Yes it has been hijacked a bit lately. This is a shame but things tend to over correct even now and then. Germain Greer is generally a good person and I enjoy listening to her.

Julie Bishop recently said that she 'didn't find the term particularly useful' or words to that effect.




Julia said:


> My own observations seem to include an increasing incidence of women I'd maybe describe as 'feminazis' becoming more strident, easily offended, seeing harassment when it's not intended etc



.

Yes this is especially true. There seems to be a lot of over-reaction to seemingly racist and sexiest comments some are warranted the majority are not. 



Julia said:


> As this is a male dominated community, I'd be really appreciative if some of you blokes could say what you think feminism is all about, whether there's any need for such a movement these days, whether there ever was, and any other comment that comes to mind.




What feminism is all about in today's society? basically women who don't get what they perceive to will more than likely turn to the feminism movement for support. There would be  a need for the movement in any 1st world society but, I also perceive men just starting to get a but sick and tired of the word being used.


----------



## darkhorse70 (21 November 2014)

Like this comedian said its all fair for femals be treated fairly and equally etc but I mean men should get paid more at work. After all we take the tabs for dinner etc hahahaha


----------



## Calliope (21 November 2014)

Atari rose said:


> Well to me it means giving women the same rights as men, I think we are colse to that now but there will always be fundamental differences in the sexes....




Welcome Atari rose. Yes there will always be fundamental differences, and feminism gives women the right to emphasise those differences, while they are still young enough.

http://thechive.com/2014/01/08/try-your-best-not-to-be-distracted-by-the-short-shorts-35-photos/

We have come a long way since the Bloomer Girls exposed their ankles. What rankles with the feminists is not that the girls are stripping off but that men are enjoying it.


----------



## Logique (21 November 2014)

What I understand by the term _feminism_ is unlikely to be the same as what Anne Summers understands! 

Angela Shanahan's article is interesting in the _Spectator_ today.



> http://www.spectator.co.uk/australi...376602/feminism-no-longer-a-leftright-divide/
> Feminism: no longer a Left/Right divide - 22 November 2014
> 
> Now the Right have set up their own Feminist Club, much like the Left have. Ordinary women need not apply
> ...


----------



## Julia (21 November 2014)

Thanks very much, fellas.  I'm so reassured that to all of you the term just signifies equal opportunity for women with men.  That's how I've always seen it.  Completely different from women becoming so precious that they squawk at every implied insult, even when none was intended.

I asked the question partly prompted by Julie Bishop's comment, and also the remarks of a childhood friend of mine now living in Canada, who grew up in the same male dominated society that I did.  She quoted in a recent email a number of instances in Canada where men were being "held to account" for their harassment of women.  Reading the details, I thought, heavens that's hardly harassment!  And if we women are now equal, which I believe we are in terms of opportunity, why can't these women deal with some unwanted remark from a bloke themselves, without running to the lawyers?

I'm also glad that some of you have responded to the question:  I thought after posting that some men might even have been so intimidated by the feminazi brigade that they'd be reluctant to even voice their thoughts.

Discrimination can be a self-fulfilling prophecy.  If you look for it, you'll surely find it.  But expect to be treated equally, and imo that is what will happen.

Any other thoughts would be much appreciated.


----------



## Value Collector (21 November 2014)

I see feminism as a term meaning, "the empowerment of women". I am all for it, especially in places where women still have a long way to go before they could be seen as equals.

When we get there the term will become redundant i guess, but for now I considered myself a feminist.


----------



## Value Collector (21 November 2014)

I think this girl is discussing the feminazis your describing Julia.

[video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ji4t7HhIjw[/video]


----------



## luutzu (22 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I think this girl is discussing the feminazis your describing Julia.
> 
> [video]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_ji4t7HhIjw[/video]




She's hot.


----------



## Julia (22 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I think this girl is discussing the feminazis your describing Julia.



Yes, VC.  She largely nails it.
The problem I do have with it is that all this exaggerated shrieking devalues genuinely serious instances of abuse.  I heard one of these women recently claiming that a woman was entitled to say she was raped if she'd gone out with a bloke, had too much to drink, so had sex with him voluntarily but would not have if she'd not been drinking.

Such claims devalue the women who really are raped including the children.

Some of the worst offenders are not young women, but the older 'original feminists' like Eva Cox whose attitudes seem to be an extension of their militant political attitudes.


----------



## darkhorse70 (22 November 2014)

Haha VC


----------



## Calliope (22 November 2014)

> Unlike exploited starlets of yesteryear, Kim appears to be calling the shots. If we feminists truly believe in the adage, “My body, my choice”, then surely Kim has a right to drop her dacks for some easy bucks if that is what she really wants to do.
> 
> Anyone prudishly huffing and puffing about sexual exploitation is totally missing the point. Kim K is the P.T. Barnum of booty. She is giving (i.e. selling) the masses what they want. It says as much about us as it says about her.




http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...r-naked-ambition/story-fni0fhie-1227124204830

The new face D) of feminism!


----------



## SirRumpole (22 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/op...r-naked-ambition/story-fni0fhie-1227124204830
> 
> The new face D) of feminism!




They really have to be digitally enhanced don't they ?

Anyway, there has to be cause for cynicism when some women accuse males of sexism for buying this sort of stuff, it's their "sisters" who are letting their side down by flaunting themselves in such a manner.


----------



## Calliope (22 November 2014)

Actually it is "the sisters" who are "buying this sort of stuff". "PAPER" is a women's fashion mag and its sales went through the roof. They say it will become a collectors' item.

Kim struck a big blow for feminism. I doubt that there is  any male body on the planet that could achieve this...not even Putin riding a bear.


----------



## Julia (22 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Anyway, there has to be cause for cynicism when some women accuse males of sexism for buying this sort of stuff, it's their "sisters" who are letting their side down by flaunting themselves in such a manner.



The sisterhood is a joke.  It's not at all about supporting women who are experiencing genuine disadvantage.
 It's all about trying to paint men as sexist, patriarchic and domineering, all adjectives that in reality are more appropriately used about the sisterhood (exchanging matriarchic for patriarchic, of course).

If a woman chooses to work her way through her tertiary education by engaging in prostitution, for example, that's her business, unless there's some force involved.  The sisterhood would insist that such a choice would not be made if men were not so prepared to exploit women.  I'd have said the choice was more about that woman exploiting the men for her own purposes.  But there you go.


----------



## Value Collector (22 November 2014)

Julia said:


> If a woman chooses to work her way through her tertiary education by engaging in prostitution, for example, that's her business, unless there's some force involved.  The sisterhood would insist that such a choice would not be made if men were not so prepared to exploit women.  I'd have said the choice was more about that woman exploiting the men for her own purposes.  But there you go.




Yeah, if your version of feminism is more about telling women what they can and can't do with their bodies, then your not really fighting for women's rights.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 November 2014)

Julia said:


> The sisterhood would insist that such a choice would not be made if men were not so prepared to exploit women.  I'd have said the choice was more about that woman exploiting the men for her own purposes.  But there you go.




Yes, there are reasonable views on each side.

 Unfortunately the feminazis only see one side. If a woman enjoys sex and and can get paid for it, why argue with them ?

 On the other hand if they don't particularly enjoy making money that way but do it through lack of other alternatives, then that is a social problem that needs to be addressed.


----------



## Value Collector (22 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> On the other hand if they don't particularly enjoy making money that way but do it through lack of other alternatives, then that is a social problem that needs to be addressed.




Lots of people work in jobs they don't particularly enjoy, we have lots of safety nets in society, at the end of the day it's your choice what you do, outside of sex slaves, I don't ghink anyone is forced into prostitution.

I mean is it a social problem that needs to be addressed when you have a woman working a cleaning job or changing nappies in an old folks home they she doesn't particularly enjoy, but has a lack of other alternatives?


----------



## SirRumpole (23 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Lots of people work in jobs they don't particularly enjoy, we have lots of safety nets in society, at the end of the day it's your choice what you do, outside of sex slaves, I don't ghink anyone is forced into prostitution.
> 
> I mean is it a social problem that needs to be addressed when you have a woman working a cleaning job or changing nappies in an old folks home they she doesn't particularly enjoy, but has a lack of other alternatives?




It's a fine line between choice and necessity, but your last two examples are jobs that SOMEONE has to do and they have a value to society whereas prostitution is not a necessity to anyone merely satisfying someone else's pleasure.

But yes, if women find prostitution repugnant there are other alternatives including social security.I'm not sure what this argument has to do with feminism though.


----------



## Value Collector (23 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> It's a fine line between choice and necessity, but your last two examples are jobs that SOMEONE has to do and they have a value to society whereas prostitution is not a necessity to anyone merely satisfying someone else's pleasure.
> 
> But yes, if women find prostitution repugnant there are other alternatives including social security.I'm not sure what this argument has to do with feminism though.




Most people who work, work out of necessity, whether they choose to work 30hours cleaning or 2 hours providing a sexual service is their choice, neither is immoral, its just a personal preference based on your like and dislikes.

i wouldn't say prostitution doesn't have value for society, there are lots physiological benefits to having sex, even if it was just pure entertainment value, saying sex workers offer no value to society would be like saying the music or motion picture industry or theme parks or sports entertainment has no benefits to society.


----------



## sydboy007 (24 November 2014)

Been thinking on this one for a bit.

Happened to see some woman's A league soccer on the ABC today.  When you compare the incomes they earn and the recognition they receive, there's a massive gap to that of men.  Just look at the recent football world cup, or the lack of credit tot eh Australian woman's cricket team that has been performing far better than the men have recently.

I also think for a lot of woman who lack an interest in sports makes it hard in the higher ranks.  I've noticed how a few of the guys at work who went to private schools bond over their shared playing of Rugby.  They have a pretty good network due to it amongst old school friends, but also between the private schools as well.  Yes, that also affects men who didn't attend a private school, though my experience is more men than woman enjoy the sport.

The we have the crazy ideas of some men.  Look to the USA when conservative politicians will say they're not scientists so can't say for sure if climate change is occurring, yet they're also not doctors but feel fully qualified to deny woman the right to an abortion and pretty much tell them what they can and can't do with their bodies.  I still remember the nut job Todd Akin in the US talking about legitimate rape and how a woman's body will shut down any pregnancy that occurs so there would be no need for an abortion.  I doubt a man would ever think of using that term about a male rape victim.

There's been quite a bit of new apartment construction in my area and the rose of Australia hotel has been hosting a lot of the tradies in the afternoon.  The odd derogatory comment they make about woman shocks me.  Yes, a group of men a bit drunk, but if you wouldn't say in front of your partner, why say it at all?  I still think there is a low underlying level of misogyny out there in Australia, just like there's a low level of racisim that ebbs and flows with the community attitudes.

Maybe the term feminism is out dated, but there's definitely still a lot of things to change before woman are equal with men in most respects.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 November 2014)

sydboy007 said:
			
		

> Happened to see some woman's A league soccer on the ABC today. When you compare the incomes they earn and the recognition they receive, there's a massive gap to that of men. Just look at the recent football world cup, or the lack of credit tot eh Australian woman's cricket team that has been performing far better than the men have recently.




Pay differences are relative to the audiences that they attract. Women's cricket may make it one day, but if you played a women's world cup cricket match at the same time as a men's match at another comparable venue, I'll wager that the men's match will outrate the women's in terms of attendance and TV audience.

 That's not a statement about the quality of the men's vs women's ability, just that the public personna at the moment is that cricket is a man's game.


----------



## Value Collector (24 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Pay differences are relative to the audiences that they attract. Women's cricket may make it one day, but if you played a women's world cup cricket match at the same time as a men's match at another comparable venue, I'll wager that the men's match will outrate the women's in terms of attendance and TV audience.
> 
> .




Agreed, the pay a sports star can earn is directly related to the revenue generated by ticket sales, pay tv downloads, mechandise and sponsorships.

As long as the sports revenue is being divided between two classes, one side will always be getting more coverage than the other, I have no idea on the stats, but I could imagine some in some sports womans teams get more coverage, eg, beach volley ball, net ball and figure skating.

Maybe we need to integrate men and women in more sports, But a lot of people would say that wouldn't be fair in contact sports, eg rugby league.


----------



## sydboy007 (24 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Pay differences are relative to the audiences that they attract. Women's cricket may make it one day, but if you played a women's world cup cricket match at the same time as a men's match at another comparable venue, I'll wager that the men's match will outrate the women's in terms of attendance and TV audience.
> 
> That's not a statement about the quality of the men's vs women's ability, just that the public personna at the moment is that cricket is a man's game.




Yes the income generated by men's sports is higher, but why?  It seems womans sports, in general, are second rated across a broad spectrum.  It's not so much the industry itself, as they just following the eye balls, but a society thing.  A lot of woman's teams seem pretty invisible, not only in Australia but pretty around the world.  Try asking a cricket / soccer / hockey fan to name some of the great Australian players.  I'd be surprised if they actually named a woman.  Tennis would be the exception.

Maybe it's time to integrate.  A lot of sports could have men and woman competing against each other

Soccer could easily be a mixed team sports.  Cricket, hockey and most non contact sports could also probably get away with mixed teams.

I think the imagery of men and woman playing with and against each other would be a potent symbol that woman are equal with men.


----------



## basilio (24 November 2014)

If one wants to see what feminism could mean check out the work of Sally Wainwright.

Sally is now (finally) recognized  as the best TV writer in the UK. She currently has 3 outstanding series with exceptionally strong female characters. The shows are Last Tango in Halifax, Scott and Bailey and  Happy Valley. These are all well worth a view.

http://www.indiewire.com/article/th...aking-feminist-crime-drama-in-the-uk-20140828
http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-r...like-writing-women-theyre-heroic-happy-valley


----------



## SirRumpole (24 November 2014)

sydboy007 said:
			
		

> Yes the income generated by men's sports is higher, but why?




It could just come down to the fact that men are more interested in sport than women overall.

When sporting discussions arise, women are more likely to express the opinion that sport is a waste of time (possibly because it distracts their partner's attention from the needs of the female) and so women get a bit envious that sport has taken the attention of men from them.

Is lack of interest in sport by women an expression of feminism, or just a cry for attention ?  Maybe one is an expression of the other.

I'd like to hear a psychologist's opinion on that.


----------



## Tisme (24 November 2014)

Well I have had four women doing traditional male roles in a very male dominated industry for a few years now ....ground breaking in many ways. 

I blame my poor performance as a male dominator on the head strong ancestoral and current family women, my departed wife, my daughter and a missing link whereby I lust after and love women, but just can't make a bridge to the sepulchral shores of Realmanland so I can look back from it's headland to the clusters of fabled female weaknesses.


----------



## Calliope (24 November 2014)

Tisme said:


> Well I have had four women doing traditional male roles in a very male dominated industry for a few years now ....ground breaking in many ways.
> 
> I blame my poor performance as a male dominator on the head strong ancestoral(sic) and current family women, my departed wife, my daughter and a missing link whereby I lust after and love women




The Americans have a term for that...it's called being "pussy whipped".


----------



## Hodgie (24 November 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Yes the income generated by men's sports is higher, but why?  It seems womans sports, in general, are second rated across a broad spectrum.  It's not so much the industry itself, as they just following the eye balls, but a society thing.  A lot of woman's teams seem pretty invisible, not only in Australia but pretty around the world.  Try asking a cricket / soccer / hockey fan to name some of the great Australian players.  I'd be surprised if they actually named a woman.  Tennis would be the exception.
> 
> Maybe it's time to integrate.  A lot of sports could have men and woman competing against each other
> 
> ...




Women would not stand a chance against men in soccer, sorry but that's the simple fact of it. You get mixed teams when people are younger, the women all move to women only teams when kids start hitting puberty because they simply cannot keep up. I noticed a massive difference around 14 or 15 when I was playing. Men are simply bigger and stronger and soccer actually is a contact sport, if a women was going shoulder to shoulder with a man she would get knocked over plus she would not keep up.

Also the skill level in women's soccer compared to men's has a gigantic difference. 

I remember when I was playing under 15s soccer just for my local club, nothing special we won for our division but it was only a gold coast local league, we vs'd the women's QLD state team (open) and beat them by several goals, as a striker I found it easy to run around them and they just could not tackle like another male would. Keep in mind that from that point on males continue to grow for several more gears while women do not.

If we vs'd the males team of the same division we would have been absolutely destroyed. Its no contest.

I also remember there was a television program called Soccer Superstar or something like that on Fox 8 where a bunch of non-professional soccer players all competed for a chance to sign with an A league squad. In 1 of the episodes they vs'd the Australian Womens team and they had to play handicapped (the male side had a few less players than the women) and still beat them. You're looking at a bunch of young kids that just went into a competition and have never played together as a team before and they beat the Australian womens team who run their whole life and career around it, yes they were a talented bunch but they are vsing the women that represent our country in the sport, this is the crÃ¨me of the crop in womens soccer in Australia. Again, if they vs'd the Socceroos (the male side) it wouldn't have been close.

It's possible that this is because so many more males play so there is a greater selection. However, if there were mixed leagues where women or men can be selected for the same squad in soccer I can guarantee it would be very rare for any women to be competing against the top level soccer players in the world.

I don't think it's sexist to say that males are simply built differently to females and this is reflected in sports performance.


----------



## basilio (24 November 2014)

The modern woman ? .. perhaps



> Does their work make them cynical about marriage? None admit to it, but all the female detectives I speak to say they continue to be surprised by the games partners played in relationships. “The case that really blew me away was of this woman who said she knew her husband was having an affair, and she just wanted me to give her the evidence,” says Khatri. “So I ask her what she will do with it – bring it up with their families, or go to the court? She told me she would do neither – she would save the evidence for when she is caught cheating.”




http://www.theguardian.com/lifeands...dies-detective-agencies-cheating-social-media


----------



## Julia (24 November 2014)

Hodgie said:


> I don't think it's sexist to say that males are simply built differently to females and this is reflected in sports performance.



No, of course it's not and thanks for raising the example of the physical differences between men and women.
That has nothing to do with misogyny, just reflecting on reality.

The sort of thing that so irritates me is when women squawk indignantly about a man opening a door for them.
Wouldn't we all, as ordinary courteous human beings, hold open a door for someone following us, or if they are just struggling with parcels etc?   It's the faux outrage that's so silly.



> Does their work make them cynical about marriage? None admit to it, but all the female detectives I speak to say they continue to be surprised by the games partners played in relationships. “The case that really blew me away was of this woman who said she knew her husband was having an affair, and she just wanted me to give her the evidence,” says Khatri. “So I ask her what she will do with it – bring it up with their families, or go to the court? She told me she would do neither – she would save the evidence for when she is caught cheating.”



I'm not surprised.  Women are often more manipulative than men in my experience.

Syd, re your remark about the cat calls I suspect blokes do that to try to embarrass and intimidate.
If a woman simply laughs and walks on it usually takes the wind out of their sails.


----------



## Knobby22 (24 November 2014)

I read a great article on feminism, I think it was in Fairfax, that said that there were two strands of Feminism.
Individualistic Feminism exemplified by the right and women such as Julie Bishop and the collective form of feminism used by the Left.

It severely  criticised the Left side for not being inclusive and being too narrow minded on what feminism is. It stated Feminism cannot go forward while the leftist part of the movement limited its thinking and did not take into account other women's attitudes and in fact deliberately excluded them in many cases. 

Most women are by naturally feminists but not in the sense the left wants them to be. It is no wonder most women do not identify with the so called "Feminist movement".


----------



## Craton (24 November 2014)

OK, Julia I'll bite.

Feminism. A word that makes me, as a man, think about how I relate to women. To a lot of people I guess feminism means equality between the sexes as in equal pay, equal rights and the like. But how can this be when there are glaring differences between the male and female of our species?

Firstly, and the most obvious is that men and women are biologically different. This biological difference is something that will always stand in the way of allowing equality between the sexes to exist. To exist with some sort of parity at least. This biological difference will also preclude any equality of rights as well. Why?

If men could bear children then this would be a non-issue but the fact is men cannot and thus, a woman would/should be deemed to have more rights in this regard. Her right to bring life into the world is her right alone. Yes, she may have an obligation to discuss this with her partner but whether she does or does not should not be determined by moral, male or religious dogma.

Also, the fact that it is the woman that bears children makes her the so-called weaker sex. Hence this perceived vulnerability makes her more fragile and thus needs protection provided by the apparently stronger male. This all adds up to the situation that lessens her rights because as the woman cannot protect herself, she is at the mercy and direction of the man and so, by extrapolation, has less rights than man.

Often it is said that men are not only chauvinistic but also misogynistic towards women and taking the role of protectant, he has most certainly misused that power. No doubt this weaker sex scenario is entrenched deep within our social and cultural psyche. In the Christian religion Eve was the first to sin and therefore all women born since are tainted. This may sound simplistic but it is what it is and the clear dominance of man over woman that has existed for many a millennium is evident still to this day, and all from her apparent weakness of body and spirit.

Of course her mind screams for an equality of sorts and in part this has been metered out slowly with women being given the right to vote and more recently, being able to bear arms alongside male soldiers in the line of fire. Still, there can never be true equality because men are men and women are women. This must be conceded before any meaningful agreement can be reached in terms of equality.

To my mind, feminism means the embracing of what a woman is and not being ashamed of having curves, of having hormonal swings, of child bearing, of being a contributing member of our society, of being paid fairly if not equality, of being recognised that she is a human being with the same amount of worth that a man has and of wanting to have the right to expound these very facts. The right to advertise what a woman is without being cajoled, abused or looked down upon. Most of all, to have the same rights and privileges that a man is imbued in the eyes of the courts, in the workplace, in public, in the home and across the land.

I wanted to touch on the subject of the exploitation of the flesh but while our media idols flaunt their “sex sells” angle, the denigration of women along with their rights will continue.

For certain women want to be treated in a fair and just manner and with the same weight of rights a man has. Whether that means equally as a man is another matter. That being said, I reckon we have come a long way in the last three or four decades but I make no mistake, women are still seen as objects of desire... Until man recognises woman as his equal, the status quo remains. 

Disclaimer: I’ve always seen men and women as equals. Both have their strengths, both have their weaknesses and I’d like to think both have the same rights too.

In short, feminism is about being feminine and being proud of it.


----------



## Julia (24 November 2014)

Knobby22 said:


> I read a great article on feminism, I think it was in Fairfax, that said that there were two strands of Feminism.
> Individualistic Feminism exemplified by the right and women such as Julie Bishop and the collective form of feminism used by the Left.
> 
> It severely  criticised the Left side for not being inclusive and being too narrow minded on what feminism is. It stated Feminism cannot go forward while the leftist part of the movement limited its thinking and did not take into account other women's attitudes and in fact deliberately excluded them in many cases.
> ...



Knobby thanks for that.   It sounds right on the money.   Says it all really.

Craton, hope your post never falls into the hands of the feminazis!  They would tear you to shreds.
I feel somewhat similarly inclined, but am trying to understand that you mean well enough, despite the archaic reasoning, viz in particular this:


> No doubt this weaker sex scenario is entrenched deep within our social and cultural psyche. In the Christian religion Eve was the first to sin and therefore all women born since are tainted




Just can't believe any modern man could say that!!!

What about all the women who choose not to be baby bearing machines?  Who are simply individuals in their own right?   Why on earth should they be required to be, as you put it, "feminine"?  Wear pretty dresses and always present a loving presence for the cave man husband when he comes home at night?

I'm reminded of some of the articles in such pap as the Women's Weekly in the 60s where women were advised that "if you want to keep your husband happy, be sure to be dressed nicely, have fresh make up on, a bright smile and a welcoming drink with the kiss of greeting, no matter what your day.  Always remember he's the head of the household and must be treated with loving respect".

Good god!

Hodgie earlier made the entirely relevant point that of course women have in most cases less physical strength than men.  That's just a biological fact.  But many women have turned what strength they have into a strong defensive force in order to deal with the 'knock them down and take them' mentality that still exists in some chauvinistic males.

Your post has actually just demonstrated the ongoing need for the feminist movement, proving my original premise to be wrong.  I'd really thought overall women had achieved respect as individuals, rather than the role of an accessory to men.


----------



## Craton (25 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Craton, hope your post never falls into the hands of the feminazis!  They would tear you to shreds.



Well, I did say I'd bite and I've taken the hook, line and sinker 


> I feel somewhat similarly inclined, but am trying to understand that you mean well enough, despite the archaic reasoning, viz in particular this: "No doubt this weaker sex scenario is entrenched deep within our social and cultural psyche. In the Christian religion Eve was the first to sin and therefore all women born since are tainted"
> 
> Just can't believe any modern man could say that!!!



It's simply an observation, we may not admit to such a thing but put yourself in the shoes of a man, then imagine hearing for the first time that the apple was taken by a 'woman'. It's there, in the back of the mind, deep within the subconscious whether you or I like it or not.



> What about all the women who choose not to be baby bearing machines?  Who are simply individuals in their own right?   Why on earth should they be required to be, as you put it, "feminine"?  Wear pretty dresses and always present a loving presence for the cave man husband when he comes home at night?




Please don't get me wrong, I have huge respect for the female gender, I also believe they have the same rights as men and have the same rights as men to be as individual as they care to be. However, the cavemen are all too numerous where I live and I suspect elsewhere too! Thinking about the so called sporting hero's here.



> I'm reminded of some of the articles in such pap as the Women's Weekly in the 60s where women were advised that "if you want to keep your husband happy, be sure to be dressed nicely, have fresh make up on, a bright smile and a welcoming drink with the kiss of greeting, no matter what your day.  Always remember he's the head of the household and must be treated with loving respect".
> 
> Good god!



Pursuing some of the mags my teenager daughter bought (What? With centrefolds!) I'm not sure we've come a long way since those days but in a way too, those articles empower and give women a voice.

I know, beyond belief but I have seen first hand what women will do to attract and try and keep a man. Flashing obscene amounts of cleavage, wearing the shortest of skirts and more make up than a King's Cross hooker. 
Ask me about my first grandson and how he was created in the vain attempt to keep my son "attached" to the child's mother. Both were teenagers at the time.

It was sicking to see my son so manipulated but to my son's credit, he's a wonderful father to the lad even though thankfully, the relationship ended long before the child was born.

That's not being feminine now is it? That's being a full on bitch full stop. 


> Hodgie earlier made the entirely relevant point that of course women have in most cases less physical strength than men.  That's just a biological fact.  But many women have turned what strength they have into a strong defensive force in order to deal with the 'knock them down and take them' mentality that still exists in some chauvinistic males.
> 
> Your post has actually just demonstrated the ongoing need for the feminist movement, proving my original premise to be wrong. I'd really thought overall women had achieved respect as individuals, rather than the role of an accessory to men.




Again, that subconscious thing about strength and the weaker sex. Unfortunately I think you are quite correct about the accessory (conquest) factor and I'd hazard a guess that most men will not have the gonads to admit it. Remember Julia Gillard's misogynist comments, one doesn't have to guess why she made them. Remember Abbotts' wink? Says it all right there. It goes to the very heart of the feminism movement I reckon.

However I do think that overall, men are a lot more sensitive and respectful in how they act towards and what they say around women. I'm not sure if that's because of the fear of repercussions or if indeed, most of us have finally come out and left the cave behind. Thing is I'm a bloke, I hear what blokes says when women are not around. No doubt it's the same with you sheila's, eh.

Julia, I must add that I find this woman, man thing fascinating, it's the most basic of human emotions, the attraction between the sexes, the want to love and be loved, procreation et al. How we interact between the sexes speaks volumes about us as a species. Throw in all the different cultures and sexual preferences into the mix and the mind bogles!


----------



## burglar (25 November 2014)

Craton said:


> ... the mind bogles!




A man will risk love to get sex, while a woman will risk sex to get love!


----------



## Tisme (25 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> The Americans have a term for that...it's called being "pussy whipped".




 Could be right

I really am not threatened at all though and I don't have a need to threaten either.


----------



## Tisme (25 November 2014)

Julia said:


> I'm reminded of some of the articles in such pap as the Women's Weekly in the 60s where women were advised that "if you want to keep your husband happy, be sure to be dressed nicely, have fresh make up on, a bright smile and a welcoming drink with the kiss of greeting, no matter what your day.  Always remember he's the head of the household and must be treated with loving respect".
> 
> .




I think you are falling into a trap of sameness by wheeling our the same kind of mantra the vocals used in the sixties and seventies you refer to.

The Darren Stevens of this world never really existed as a force in this country, although I'm sure there were/are those women who do dress to impress for a myriad of reasons. I was fortunate to have a wife who took great pleasure in dressing well and treating me like I was loved and valuable; in no way did I think less of her because she was happy to do the "feminine" stuff ... stuff that evolved from women's wants and needs, with men all too happy to encourage the eye candy choices the women made and go to the pub when the fashion and prevailing man's worth turned sour on occasions.


----------



## Julia (25 November 2014)

Glad you had such a lovely wife, Tisme.  My comment stands re the crap that was perpetuated by women's magazines back when I was a naive young wife, accepting as my lot that I should of course work full time, and in addition do all the shopping, all the cooking and washing up, all the housework, and be prepared always to be available to entertain my husband's business guests.

I'll never forget one evening, after he'd been lying on the couch watching TV while I ironed shirts, my husband running a finger over a polished window ledge, and saying  "you obviously haven't done the dusting today"!

So don't tell me those days were all in my imagination.   It wasn't until women like Germaine Greer and Betty Friedan started speaking up that anything began to change.  Even in the 70s it was not common for banks to grant mortgages to women without the guarantee of a husband or male relative!!!

Craton:  thanks for accepting my comments so pleasantly.   As I said, I know you mean well.  And yes, some women are absolutely what you describe.
In an ideal world we would simply all just think of ourselves as people, without feeling any need to attribute any particular traits to either men or women.


----------



## pixel (25 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Glad you had such a lovely wife, Tisme.  My comment stands re the crap that was perpetuated by women's magazines back when I was a naive young wife, accepting as my lot that I should of course work full time, and in addition do all the shopping, all the cooking and washing up, all the housework, and be prepared always to be available to entertain my husband's business guests.
> 
> I'll never forget one evening, after he'd been lying on the couch watching TV while I ironed shirts, my husband running a finger over a polished window ledge, and saying  "you obviously haven't done the dusting today"!
> 
> ...




I can understand where you're coming from, Julia;
but what made you stop reading Women's Weekly?

No need to answer that  my point is: How much has really changed in the way women are portrayed in "their" magazines? These days, I have to spend increasing hours in doctors' waiting rooms. To pass the time, I amuse myself by flicking through the mags; most of which I refer to as "Women's Daze" and "No Idea". 
While there may be some mention of confident and self-reliant role models, the bulk of articles seem to deal with superficial heroine worship, how to make yourself desirable for "your man", and what make-up will cover your - Shock, Horror! - skin blemishes.

I may be wrong and young women no longer read that kind of tripe, but then - how come it's being printed? Someone must be buying that trash and be influenced by it. And that is a worry...


----------



## Calliope (25 November 2014)

*me  me she diviorced me and took me to the cleanersRe: Feminism*



Tisme said:


> I was fortunate to have a wife who took great pleasure in dressing well and treating me like I was loved and valuable




Yes you were very fortunate Tisme. On the other hand my first wife was a very attractive woman who was also attractive to other men and who could turn on the charm, and she played her cards accordingly. I was the typical pussy whipped husband and she easily manipulated me by simply withdrawing her "charms" to gain what she wanted. Of course when she realised she could do better than me she shot through.

However it wasn't all bad. During the interval between my next and final marriage, with my newly acquired know-how, I played the field with several similarly attractive women who were happy to cuckold their husbands.

An attractive woman or a charming woman, will have men eating out of her hand. Feminists of course are bitter because they have no charm. James Barrie got it right;

“Charm. It's a sort of bloom on a woman. If you have it, you don't need to have anything else; and if you don't have it, it doesn't much matter what else you have.”
― J.M. Barrie


----------



## SirRumpole (25 November 2014)

Calliope said:
			
		

> An attractive woman or a charming woman, will have men eating out of her hand. Feminists of course are bitter because they have no charm. James Barrie got it right;




That's the other side of "equality" isn't it ?

How many women have slept(?) their way into promotion above their ability, either by favours or threats of disclosure afterwards ? I don't hear the feminists criticising the use of female charms to get ahead, it seems to come down to making the most of one's assets.



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> I'll never forget one evening, after he'd been lying on the couch watching TV while I ironed shirts, my husband running a finger over a polished window ledge, and saying "you obviously haven't done the dusting today"!
> 
> So don't tell me those days were all in my imagination. It wasn't until women like Germaine Greer and Betty Friedan started speaking up that anything began to change. Even in the 70s it was not common for banks to grant mortgages to women without the guarantee of a husband or male relative!!!




Maybe things haven't changed all that much.



> “What the housewives of Australia need to understand as they do the ironing is that if they get it done commercially it’s going to go up in price and their own power bills when they switch the iron on are going to go up.”
> 
> Tony Abbott- Prime Minister


----------



## Tisme (25 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Glad you had such a lovely wife, Tisme.  My comment stands re the crap that was perpetuated by women's magazines back when I was a naive young wife, accepting as my lot that I should of course work full time, and in addition do all the shopping, all the cooking and washing up, all the housework, and be prepared always to be available to entertain my husband's business guests.
> 
> I'll never forget one evening, after he'd been lying on the couch watching TV while I ironed shirts, my husband running a finger over a polished window ledge, and saying  "you obviously haven't done the dusting today"!
> 
> ...




I don't think I suggested your imagination was in play Julia. I'm merely saying the Bewitched household was not all that common here....most had to work for a living, but......

1) get married and you were turfed from the public service (and banks);
1a) disparate pay on the basis women weren't 100% as productive as men;
2) want a loan or hire purchase and hubby had to approve it (no hubby no loan;
3) widows pension was appalling;
4) divorced women were pariahs;
5) expectation for the woman to cook the meals and do the washing (especially if stay at home);
6) do the shopping;
7) no drinking in the general bars (where most men didn't want to be anyway) and just don't drink;
8) always the passenger on car trips;
9) assume hubby's surname and even Christian name;
10) perhaps given an allowance for household budget (most men in my town gave the pay packet over to the wife as they left the work premises and got a shilling or two for a drink)
11)  etc


How boring things were back then and the burden on men to keep their women in check must have been exhausting ......


----------



## burglar (25 November 2014)

Tisme said:


> ... most had to work for a living, but ...




Yah make a big song and dance about the ironing while the man goes to work.
But not all men got pleasant jobs!


----------



## Julia (25 November 2014)

pixel said:


> my point is: How much has really changed in the way women are portrayed in "their" magazines? These days, I have to spend increasing hours in doctors' waiting rooms. To pass the time, I amuse myself by flicking through the mags; most of which I refer to as "Women's Daze" and "No Idea".
> While there may be some mention of confident and self-reliant role models, the bulk of articles seem to deal with superficial heroine worship, how to make yourself desirable for "your man", and what make-up will cover your - Shock, Horror! - skin blemishes.
> 
> I may be wrong and young women no longer read that kind of tripe, but then - how come it's being printed? Someone must be buying that trash and be influenced by it. And that is a worry...



Such a good point, pixel.  I see those magazines when standing in the check out queue and wonder the same thing.  Cannot see why any woman would waste money on reading about who is sleeping with whom, who has lost/gained weight, who is about to dump their boyfriend, and of course the latest "make yourself desirable" advice.

The essential difference between now and the stuff I quoted earlier from the 70s is that then it was all about the need for women to make themselves desirable to men.  Now it's perhaps more about making women happy about themselves, though why that should now involve such bizarre procedures as labiaplasty beats me.

Good list, Tisme, of how things were.

So much progress has been made.  I do believe that women now, with the right ability (do they need more than men?) can achieve what they determine for themselves.  But I guess that reflects my own experience, and also needs to take into account that I've not toed the line for an employer for many years and it could now be more competitive.

Many of you are employed.  How are women treated in your work place?   Does gender actually influence work relationships or has the point been reached where people are just people, judged on their ability and their personality?


----------



## SirRumpole (25 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Many of you are employed.  How are women treated in your work place?   Does gender actually influence work relationships or has the point been reached where people are just people, judged on their ability and their personality?




One of my workplaces some years ago employed "positive discrimination" in which jobs were automatically given to women if they were deemed to have the qualities required for the position, regardless of how many males were competing for the job and their qualifications.

I don't think this is a particularly fair way of doing things, and it caused a lot of resentment among males who may have considered themselves better qualified. It was obviously a PC way of addressing perceived discrimination against women at the time.

 I don't know if this policy still applies in the particular workplace I was employed in. I doubt if it did much good for the self esteem of the women appointed under this regime to be regarded as only getting the position because of their gender.


----------



## Julia (25 November 2014)

Agree, Rumpole.   Appointments should be made on merit, nothing else.


----------



## Tisme (25 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> One of my workplaces some years ago employed "positive discrimination" in which jobs were automatically given to women if they were deemed to have the qualities required for the position, regardless of how many males were competing for the job and their qualifications.
> 
> I don't think this is a particularly fair way of doing things, and it caused a lot of resentment among males who may have considered themselves better qualified. It was obviously a PC way of addressing perceived discrimination against women at the time.
> 
> I don't know if this policy still applies in the particular workplace I was employed in. I doubt if it did much good for the self esteem of the women appointed under this regime to be regarded as only getting the position because of their gender.




A decade or more back there seemed to be an explosion of females named Di who had the titular "Human Resource Manager" position, but were predisposed to being the bossy bitch who made other female staffers suffer the consequences of their gender. 

These were replaced with "facilitators", the women (mainly in govt) with a task no one really knows the worth of, but delivers company policy in workshop groups for no apparent gain, but still manages to look exasperated from all the hard preparation she has done at home preparing overhead transparencies and gantt charts that state the bleeding obvious and no one is interested in anyway.....yawn....unless of course she is hot, the workshop is in an hotel with a hot tub and the Sambuca/Licor43 mix is cheap.


----------



## Hodgie (25 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Many of you are employed.  How are women treated in your work place?   Does gender actually influence work relationships or has the point been reached where people are just people, judged on their ability and their personality?




I have seen first hand that job applications will be instantly discounted based on age and gender. But not against women, for them.

I have been involved with going through job applications as well as the interview process to get a replacement PA along side my previous manager and he said something to the effect of, I think this position is only suitable for a young girl or an older women.

His reasoning is that he thinks any female who is not at the beginning their working life or coming towards the end of their career would get bored doing office type work (taking phone calls, emails, preparing documents etc).

But he would not have a male in that position because he doesn't think a male can multi task well enough. 

It's kind of the opposite type of discrimination. 

Also,  in general, those type of office positions are completely dominated by females from what I have viewed so I think that his thoughts were quite common amongst others in positions of power. I don't think people often say it as blatantly as he did to me but I think that those general types of thoughts exist.

To put it in perspective, this manager was in his 60s, so perhaps when the older generations move out of the workforce things will change because they are still running things in a lot of organisations.


----------



## pixel (25 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Many of you are employed.  How are women treated in your work place?   Does gender actually influence work relationships or has the point been reached where people are just people, judged on their ability and their personality?




I'm obviously no longer employed; but while I was, I tried to hire and promote on a "gender-neutral" basis.
BTW, I applied that maxim as early as the '70s, albeit at that time I was still in Europe, where such attitudes were slightly more advanced than in Australia.
However, about 10 years later, in a similar position here in WA, I still applied the same principle - with somewhat mixed results. 

*Case 1.* Looking for a Group Supervisor, I promoted one lady on ability; all her colleagues were quite okay with it, and she ran managed without problems for over a year. As an aside, in one of her references, I found the commendation "Miss xxx is always well groomed and will be an asset in any office environment." Nothing about her scholastic prowess - that was something I had to find out by myself. 
After a year or so, she took Maternity Leave and, after two babies and about 3 years, wanted her Supervisor position back. That had of course not remained vacant for all those years, but given to one of her former colleagues, who may not have been quite as well groomed, but she did a splendid job.
Miss xxx got stroppy and refused to resume at the lower level. HR took the easy way out: "Redundancy"

... to be continued


----------



## Craton (25 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Craton:  thanks for accepting my comments so pleasantly.   As I said, I know you mean well.  And yes, some women are absolutely what you describe.



Am happy to have a heated but rational discussion and I do try my best to be as honest, as open and truthful as possible. 


> In an ideal world we would simply all just think of ourselves as people,



Preciously!







> without feeling any need to attribute any particular traits to either men or women.




Totally agree. Fact is opposites attract and burglar's comment 







> A man will risk love to get sex, while a woman will risk sex to get love!



 is so very apt. Hormones/pheromones are very hard to fight but for those of us that can see through the "gloss", we can have very meaningful (and non sexual) relationships with the opposite sex. I know from experience this to be true.

Now of course that raises the spectre of the 'green eyed monster' of jealousy and from what I've seen of the opposite sex, you girls are masters extraordinaire at this very devious of human emotions. Also spoken from experience.

I may seem to be going off tangent but the point is, feminism is all well and good but I'm not sure the execution of it is hitting home as it should. Speaking of which, DV day today. I think this awareness does a great deal for the feminist movement. 

Just my take on it but standing up against DV and fighting for the right to breast feed when and where the baby needs it does more to empower females, does more to make men realise that women are not mere objects of desire (or possessions) than all the screaming done by the feminazis mentioned elsewhere. That's got to be a good thing IMHO.

Re: Jobs. Where I come from there was a time when once a woman married, she was not allowed to work. I can also remember the furore when we got our first female commercial radio DJ and that was the mid 70's!

As Hodgie says, there's still a lot of the 'old school' running things but their time wont last and yes, things will change, as they inevitably do.


----------



## Julia (25 November 2014)

Thanks for additional comments re workplace situations.  I can remember one bloke in a market research firm I worked for, mostly females, walking in of a morning and saying "gidday, you bints".



Calliope said:


> However it wasn't all bad. During the interval between my next and final marriage, with my newly acquired know-how, I played the field with several similarly attractive women who were happy to cuckold their husbands.



So you effectively took your revenge on your ex wife by using compliant women to this end.

I can't help thinking you relate the above with a sense of having the ultimate victory.
If a woman had offered a similar revelation she would be described as a slut for sleeping around in those days.

Seems there is very much still a double standard.


----------



## pixel (25 November 2014)

pixel said:


> ... to be continued




*Case 2:* The second Supervisor took an interest in streamlining procedures, asking for specific program modifications that would make her group's jobs easier, and even attended night school to implement some mods herself. After a while, she was ready to move into a D&M support role, opening the chance for someone else to advance to Supervisor.

*Case 3:* When I had to build a development team from scratch, the first two members - definitely chosen on qualification and ability - happened to be male. After we had finished the system specs and decided to develop in-house, I could add programmer positions; two of the successful applicants were female, the younger one would not have been out of place in any beauty pageant either. In a very sweet-natured and unpretentious way.
While I would like to claim credit for hiring just the right mix of people who challenged each other to do well as a team, I am realistic enough to admit a lot was due to sheer dumb luck. Nonetheless, I was invited to her wedding and she made a big deal of the fact that I had always treated her as nothing but a team member and maintained a similar climate of mutual respect inside my department.

*Sequel:* There came the time when the big catch-up projects were finished and redundancies had to be offered. As luck would have it, I knew a couple of my peers around Town, one of whom needed a programmer with just the skills this lady had. I had met him before, both socially and at professional functions, and thought he was quite okay to suggest as a Boss: a middle-aged family man.
She quit after four weeks: At after hours system testing, the barstud tried to hit on her.

PS: Julia, while there are indeed companies with double-standard cultures, I believe it's up to Management to influence cohesion among work colleagues. On one account, I'm disappointed that she didn't gather evidence and take legal action. We need more cases like the David Jones one splashed across the headlines. But too often it's becoming too stressful for the victim, so she asks herself 'why bother?'


----------



## Calliope (26 November 2014)

Julia said:


> So you effectively took your revenge on your ex wife




By what convoluted reasoning did you arrive at that conclusion?



> by using compliant women to this end.




No.I allowed them to use me. I was the compliant male.


----------



## Tisme (26 November 2014)

Calliope said:


> By what convoluted reasoning did you arrive at that conclusion?
> 
> 
> 
> No.I allowed them to use me. I was the compliant male.




I'm with you on this one Calliope. Julie seems to imply women can't think for themselves.

I have found myself wondering if I should find a spot in the country to hide from the women. It's the burden of handsomeness and stamina that males like you and me have to endure through no fault of our own, but birth right.


----------



## Julia (26 November 2014)

Meanwhile, all the celebratory joking doesn't alter the harsh reality that one woman every week is killed by a partner or former partner.
As one commentator put it yesterday:  if one person every week was killed in a shark attack there would be a national outcry.

And then there are the thousands of terrified women who are physically, sexually and emotionally abused, threatened with their children being killed, forced to witness hideous torture on family pets as an example of his power.

The violence is not confined to any socio economic group or level of intelligence.  Some doctors' wives are particularly at risk because of their husbands' access to drugs to render them compliant.

This is the basis of my disgust and anger at the feminazis who shriek about misogyny where it doesn't in fact exist and who see sexist insults where none were intended.  If they were to turn their outrage instead to the reality of the powerlessness of some women they might have some reasonable claim to be acting on behalf of the sisterhood.


----------



## Value Collector (26 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Meanwhile, all the celebratory joking doesn't alter the harsh reality that one woman every week is killed by a partner or former partner.
> As one commentator put it yesterday:  if one person every week was killed in a shark attack there would be a national outcry.
> 
> .




Perhaps this might be the answer.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 November 2014)

Violence against women is totally inexcusable of course. I wonder though if the "macho" alpha male behaviour is attractive to the female because she thinks it will be used to protect her and then it ends up being used against her.

 Maybe some critical thinking by the ladies of their partners attitudes towards women in the early days of their relationship may give them some warning of what may be to come.

 It seems nice guys finish last in some women's eyes as they go for the beefcake rather that the brains.


----------



## dutchie (26 November 2014)

Julia said:


> If they were to turn their outrage instead to the reality of the powerlessness of some women they might have some reasonable claim to be acting on behalf of the sisterhood.




Like this incredible situation:

Democratic Republic of Congo: The worst place in the world to be a woman

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/re...ld-to-be-a-woman/story-fnq2o7dd-1227135044653

*An estimated 48 women are raped in the country every hour.*

Horrific.


----------



## Craton (26 November 2014)

dutchie said:


> Like this incredible situation:
> 
> Democratic Republic of Congo: The worst place in the world to be a woman
> 
> ...




Shocking to say the least.
I don't get it. What is the attraction of raping? How in the hell can this non-consensual behaviour be deemed anything but feral, barbaric and savage in the extreme?

Peer pressure, yep piss ant excuse. Makes one feel like a man. Seriously? Is it the hormones? Is it a mental disease? 

I know the perpetrators are mental that's for sure. Me, I just don't get it, I simply fail to see any attraction in this type of behaviour. Sure I get horny as hell but I don't go and frigging rape someone simply to satisfy my urges, sheesh!

The frightening thing is that it is endemic through all parts of our society from the kiddie fiddler to the abuser of the frail, aged and disabled and everything else in between. These monsters that walk amongst us don't have a care for their victims, they stalk their prey and/or take advantage in an instant like the predators they are, and just like a pox on the earth, they must be eradicated, must become the hunted and victims must speak out against it and we, must protect those in fear.


----------



## johenmo (26 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> It seems nice guys finish last in some women's eyes as they go for the beefcake rather that the brains.




I can't understand those women who say they prefer "bad boys" because they're more exciting.  Time & time again I have seen the relationships fail, the woman say never again, & then repeat the error.  And I don't understand the reverse either.  

I work in a male-oriented workplace and quite a few females who have made it up the ladder have not been good examples - with a completely different set of behaviours based around their femininity for those can help them and those who can't.  Fortunately we have had some who were brilliant role models of how to achieve without being nasty.

There's a side of "feminism" that I don't like.  Where a woman wants to have & raise children & the couple may decide that one will stay at home.  And it fits what she wants so she has a full-time job with her children.  And then she is treated poorly socially because of this choice.  Other females saying "Oh" then turning away to talk to other females (who work).  They then may not want to socialise because of this - that if you don't work, you're worthless.  I have talked with lots of women who have had this role in a partnership/marriage/relationship/call it what you like & it hurts and saddens them.  I believe this will take a long time to correct because it doesn't fit the model.


----------



## Julia (26 November 2014)

Craton said:


> Shocking to say the least.
> I don't get it. What is the attraction of raping? How in the hell can this non-consensual behaviour be deemed anything but feral, barbaric and savage in the extreme?
> 
> Peer pressure, yep piss ant excuse. Makes one feel like a man. Seriously? Is it the hormones? Is it a mental disease?
> ...



Rape is much more about power than simple sexual desire.   If it were just sex, the offenders could use prostitutes if they are unable to attract willing partners.  Consider the depraved individual who rapes an 80 year old woman.  Nothing to do with desire or sexual compulsion.

It's about diminishing women, regarding them as objects to be used, chattels in many societies.




johenmo said:


> There's a side of "feminism" that I don't like.  Where a woman wants to have & raise children & the couple may decide that one will stay at home.  And it fits what she wants so she has a full-time job with her children.  And then she is treated poorly socially because of this choice.  Other females saying "Oh" then turning away to talk to other females (who work).  They then may not want to socialise because of this - that if you don't work, you're worthless.  I have talked with lots of women who have had this role in a partnership/marriage/relationship/call it what you like & it hurts and saddens them.  I believe this will take a long time to correct because it doesn't fit the model.



Thanks for your contribution, johenmo.  Such women simply need not care what others say about them.
They have made the choice that they find right for their family.  End of story.  No obligation to meet the expectations of others.


----------



## Value Collector (26 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Rape is much more about power than simple sexual desire.   If it were just sex, the offenders could use prostitutes if they are unable to attract willing partners.  Consider the depraved individual who rapes an 80 year old woman.  Nothing to do with desire or sexual compulsion.
> 
> It's about diminishing women, regarding them as objects to be used, chattels in many societies.
> 
> ...




I think there would be a lot of cases where its about power, but I think a lot of date rape situations are just about not taking no for an answer. Also there are men who genuinely find elderly women attractive, so we can't say the raping of elderly women is all about power and not sexual attraction.

There was a doco on the abc the other week about elderly prostitutes, they were very busy ladies, it's not my glass of rum, but there must be a market for it.

A guy I used to work with is currently in jail for rape, he says he is innocent and didnt have sex with her, I have no idea I wasn't there, but if the story the girl said was true, then he was drunk and didn't take the hint when she was saying no, and despite her objections date raped her. 

I dont think he is the type of guy to do it for power, but who knows, his life is ruined now.


----------



## sptrawler (27 November 2014)

Feminism to me, is about being with the same lady for 40 years, she annoys the hell out of me and has a reluctance to paid work.

However she has a love of keeping a beautifully clean house, is always there to give counsel, to our adult children.
Has at times de railed fantastic opportunities, and on other occassions been the reason to avoid disaster.

Is disciplined, if somewhat conservative. Has a love of learning and a hate of t.v. 
She is very self disciplned, and somewhat routine in her behaviour. 
Thankfully it all helps, with balancing my general neglect to detail.

She is the person, we all go to for an objective view, it might not be the answer we want.
But it will be objective, with a feminist bent.

Yes she is the matriarch


----------



## Calliope (27 November 2014)

I have just read a true crime book by Jack Olsen called 'Salt of the Earth". A reviewer said of Olsen;

"If anyone ever had the gall to question the role of women in our lives, that the female is without doubt, the stronger sex, Jack Olsen proves by example that it is the strong females in our lives that hold us together and do not allow us to fall into an oblivion of self-hatred and despair - it is the females in our lives we need the most"

I commend the book.


----------



## Julia (27 November 2014)

VC, yes, date rape is still rape.  It's still a man using his power over a woman.

I'd like to suggest to you that unless:

1.  you are a woman
and
2.  have been raped

it's not possible to understand the reality.


----------



## SirRumpole (27 November 2014)

Julia said:


> VC, yes, date rape is still rape.  It's still a man using his power over a woman.
> 
> I'd like to suggest to you that unless:
> 
> ...




Males can be raped too, by other males.


----------



## Value Collector (27 November 2014)

Julia said:


> VC, yes, date rape is still rape.  It's still a man using his power over a woman.
> 
> .




I understand date rape is still rape, that's not what I was discussing, I was talking about motive.

You suggested a mans only motive for rape was "having power", I agreed that is probably a contributing motive in a lot of cases, But I don't think it would be the only motive.

Offcourse being able to overpower your victim is necessary for a rape to occur, but doesn't mean the motive or enjoyment comes from the act of overpowering alone.



> I'd like to suggest to you that unless:
> 
> 1.  you are a woman
> and
> ...




the victim doesn't necessarily have better insights to the motive of the crime.

 I'd like to suggest to you that unless:

1.  you are a man
and
2.  have been a rapist

it's not possible to understand the reality

( this play on words doesn't in anyway suggest I am a rapist, I am simply turning the argument around to make a point)


----------



## Tisme (27 November 2014)

Julia said:


> VC, yes, date rape is still rape.  It's still a man using his power over a woman.
> 
> I'd like to suggest to you that unless:
> 
> ...




Julie you need to be careful you don't shutdown the commentary you sought to engage in by using selective hearing. As impudent and insensitive some post might be, you are actually getting involved in a subject we men have been conditioned to avoid for fear of the ramifications and hurt they may cause.


----------



## Craton (27 November 2014)

That's an interesting observation re. rape Tisme 







> ...we men have been conditioned to avoid for fear of the ramifications and hurt they may cause




Back to the OP topic then, feminism implies an anti-rape stance doesn't it not?

If Julia's dominance theory holds true then feminism is a protest against male dominance too.

However, rape whether man on woman, vise versa or same sex is a violation of the victim's rights and this is what gets up my nose. Those that use without consent another as one's own sex toy and think they are beyond reproach are simply fricking oxygen thieves. If these monsters morals are set so slow, how in the hell can they be allowed function within our society?

Does feminism address this?

Sorry. </ end rant>


----------



## SirRumpole (27 November 2014)

Craton said:


> Does feminism address this?




I'm not sure that it has to, by itself anyway. Rape is a crime, the whole of society should address it.


----------



## Julia (27 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> You suggested a mans only motive for rape was "having power", I agreed that is probably a contributing motive in a lot of cases, But I don't think it would be the only motive.



Please do not misquote me.  I said:


> Rape is* much more* about power than simple sexual desire.



I absolutely did not suggest a man's *only* motive for rape was having power.  To actually rape anyone involves overpowering them, so on a purely physical basis it's about power, quite obviously.   And then there's the dominance issue which at least Craton has the sense to recognise.



> the victim doesn't necessarily have better insights to the motive of the crime.



You have no idea what you're talking about.   If a woman has been the victim of repeated bashings and sexual degradation, the man making it clear to her on a sustained basis that she will not refuse him whatever he wants, that she has no rights, and that she'd better co-operate if she doesn't want to be killed, she isn't in any doubt about what motivates him, I can assure you.



> I'd like to suggest to you that unless:
> 
> 1.  you are a man
> and
> ...



By all means engage in your sophistry in other matters, VC, but perhaps have a little more sensitivity when it comes to something as vile as rape.
And on this:


> There was a doco on the abc the other week about elderly prostitutes, they were very busy ladies, it's not my glass of rum, but there must be a market for it.



You might like to provide a link to these prostitutes in their 80s.



Tisme said:


> Julie you need to be careful you don't shutdown the commentary you sought to engage in by using selective hearing.



It's Julia, Tisme.  



> As impudent and insensitive some post might be, you are actually getting involved in a subject we men have been conditioned to avoid for fear of the ramifications and hurt they may cause.



Could you expand on this?  I'm not clear what you mean.   

It is simply a reality that rape is something too many women have experienced.  If that's uncomfortable for men, that's unfortunate.
It was even more unfortunate for a child raped systematically over several years by a grandfather, and whose father subsequently asserted that he could understand how it would happen because said grandfather probably wasn't getting as much sex as he needed from the grandmother, and he had to get a bit from somewhere.

There is a real problem when a child's father regards her as an appropriate sexual toy for an old man.



Craton said:


> Back to the OP topic then, feminism implies an anti-rape stance doesn't it not?
> 
> If Julia's dominance theory holds true then feminism is a protest against male dominance too.
> 
> ...



Not a rant at all, Craton.  Your concern and anger is much valued.   
Does feminism address this?  Ideally, but my original objections to the feminazi brigade go to the devaluing of serious rape and other sexual, physical and emotional abuse, when screams of outrage occur somewhat unnecessarily.

On RN Breakfast this morning, Kelly interviewed a cadet from some years ago in the Defence Academy along with Neil James, well known commentator on defence matters.  She claimed 'bullying and harassment'.  She did not, as far as I heard, specify what this constituted.  She said friends were raped.  She did not explain whether they had lodged complaints or not.

Neil James quoted an accusation of abuse:  it constituted the complainant hearing a male cadet tell a dirty joke.


----------



## Value Collector (27 November 2014)

Julia said:


> Please do not misquote me.




Ok when you said this:



> Rape is much more about power than simple sexual desire. If it were just sex, the offenders could use prostitutes if they are unable to attract willing partners. Consider the depraved individual who rapes an 80 year old woman. Nothing to do with desire or sexual compulsion.




You are giving me the impression that your saying the motive for rape, is to experience power.

What I am saying is that if you think it's just about power rather than sexual desire, you would be wrong. You also hinted that you think men can't be attracted to 80 year old women, so rape involving them is nothing to do with sexual desire, that's wrong also.



> To actually rape anyone involves overpowering them, so on a purely physical basis it's about power, quite obviously




To actually bash and rob anyone involves overpowering them, so on a purely physical basis it's about power, not money.

See what I did there, just because you have to over power the victim, doesn't mean your motive is experiencing power, It some cases it may be, but not all and I wouldn't think most. 



> You have no idea what you're talking about. If a woman has been the victim of repeated bashings and sexual degradation, the man making it clear to her on a sustained basis that she will not refuse him whatever he wants, that she has no rights, and that she'd better co-operate if she doesn't want to be killed, she isn't in any doubt about what motivates him, I can assure you.




In that case of repetition maybe, but one off incidents unless he clearly explains his motives, how would she know. All she knows is what she sees.

If I got bashed and robbed, I would have no idea of the motives, all I would know is that I have been bashed and robbed, the possible motives vary 1, it could be a power / a thrill thing 2, did he need drug money 3, was it to prove himself to get into a gang 4, did some hire him to get back at me.  who knows?



> By all means engage in your sophistry in other matters, VC, but perhaps have a little more sensitivity when it comes to something as vile as rape




Well that's offensive.

My comment was simple, when you say this



> Rape is much more about power than simple sexual desire




I think your going to be wrong in a lot of cases, I can't see how I am making a false argument or being insensitive.

What's insensitive about saying there are many different reasons rapes happen including sexual desire.


----------



## Value Collector (27 November 2014)

Julia said:


> You might like to provide a link to these prostitutes in their 80s.




Here is the documentary, it's about grandmothers who are escorts, if you just want to see the 84year old prostitute fast forward to 6.45 minute mark ( she appears again at the 13min mark and 29.50 min mark)

she began escorting 4 years ago, when she was 80.


----------



## Tisme (27 November 2014)

Julia said:


> It's Julia, Tisme.
> 
> 
> Could you expand on this?  I'm not clear what you mean.
> ...




Yeah I'm very pleased you have remained arbitrary, just reminding you resist the urge to use the "unless you have", "unless you are a women", etc to shutdown someone's viewpoint. Nothing else and certainly not meant to be twisted into some other abstract like another member embarked on.


----------



## Julia (27 November 2014)

I give up and withdraw.  I started the thread to discuss what 'feminism' means these days.
There have, to my great appreciation, been some genuinely thoughtful responses.

But when it becomes an exercise in sophistry, with males purporting to understand what rape is to women, even when little children are the targets, it's entirely pointless.

As the sole female contributor up against the dominant male opinion, I should have known better.


----------



## Value Collector (27 November 2014)

Julia said:


> I give up and withdraw.  I started the thread to discuss what 'feminism' means these days.
> There have, to my great appreciation, been some genuinely thoughtful responses.
> 
> But when it becomes an exercise in sophistry, with males purporting to understand what rape is to women, even when little children are the targets, it's entirely pointless.
> ...




I never said anything about what rape meant to women, I was commenting on what the motives of men were, and i certainly didnt say anything about children.

You said it was mainly a power over women thing and not a sexual thing, I disagreed saying while power might be a factor in some rapes, it was far from being the sole reason. i cant see the sophistry.

I honestly didnt think it would lead to such a multi post exchange as it did, I really dont know why you can't see that there would be a multitude of reasons it happens and sexual attraction would be a main one.

But look, I can see you manner has changed from your usual self, perhaps this topic is personal to you, I dont want to upset you, so I will leave it there.


----------



## Julia (27 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> But look, I can see you manner has changed from your usual self, perhaps this topic is personal to you, I dont want to upset you, so I will leave it there.



OK.  Thank you.


----------



## Tisme (28 November 2014)

Value Collector said:


> But look, I can see you manner has changed from your usual self, perhaps this topic is personal to you, I dont want to upset you, so I will leave it there.




I could see that coming. You behaved as I predicted, as many/most man would behave (me included) when confronted with the prospect of hurting the (only) woman....which makes its own point about majority versus minority behaviours of men towards women.


----------



## sydboy007 (29 November 2014)

http://www.inc.com/kimberly-weisul/the-hidden-downside-of-being-a-powerful-woman.html?cid=sf01001



> The researchers write that women with job authority face the so-called double bind, in which their actual job duties conflict with cultural stereotypes about the role of women. "On the one hand, they are expected to be nurturant, caring and agreeable, consistent with the normative cultural constructions of feminity," the researchers write. "On the other hand, they are also expected to be assertive and authoritative, consistent with the expectations of the leadership role." Women are often viewed as lacking the assertiveness and confidence associated with strong leaders, but if women do come across as assertive or confident, they get criticized for being unfeminine.
> 
> The result: Stress. And sometimes, depression. Whereas male leaders have the highest levels of life satisfaction, women leaders, in general, have life satisfaction about equal to that of women with supposedly lower-status occupations, or women who don't work outside the home at all.






> But it's not just subordinates who may be unhappy with a female boss. Next time you're at a cocktail party--and I don’t think my social circle is particularly retrograde--watch what happens when both men and women are asked some version of, "What do you do?" When a guy gives a description of his big job at Hypermegaglobalcorp, all the other guys, and plenty of the women, will act interested and impressed. Socially, the guy gets a big ol' slap on the back. When a woman talks about her big job at Hypermegaglobalcorp, it's too often met with a stare that says, "Oh, so that's why the homework isn't getting done, and your kids look like rug rats."


----------



## Craton (29 November 2014)

Julia said:


> I give up and withdraw.  I started the thread to discuss what 'feminism' means these days.
> There have, to my great appreciation, been some genuinely thoughtful responses.
> 
> But when it becomes an exercise in sophistry, with males purporting to understand what rape is to women, even when little children are the targets, it's entirely pointless.
> ...




Please do not give up Julia. I for one value your views and input not only here but elsewhere in ASF. 

I am a little disappointed that more female ASF members have not contributed to this thread although not surprising, as you pointed out, in a male dominated world.

So back to what feminism means.  

Thinking outside of my own personal subjective reactions and experiences and thanks to Google Fu http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminism, over time the definition of what feminism aimed to achieve has changed or become refined. 

In recent times, it seems agreed that the feminist movement or feminism, had it's early beginnings with the Suffragette movement (voting rights, property rights, etc), then changed with the second wave feminist movement (burning the bra circa the 60's, 70's and 80's, defacto rights, job equality, sexual and physical abuse, etc) to now where feminism has morphed into a third wave of feminism.

This third wave being termed neo-feminism circa 1990 onwards, aiming to address the failings of the 2nd wave. Abolishing gender role expectations and stereotypes, and defending sex work, pornography, reproductive rights, etc, the so-called "Lipstick Feminism" of today. From a personal perspective this neo-feminism is very similar to what I view feminism to be.

Memory tells me that it takes around 20~30yrs (barring major events like world wars) for cultural attitudes to change and to permeate, become accepted and solidify throughout society, the preceding seems about right. 

Now if we are in the era of neo-feminism, an era where women can choose to be whatever they set out to be, apart from equal pay and more women in positions of authority and leaving, sexual harassment, rape and DV out of it, where to from here for the modern woman and the feminist movement aka feminism?

Is it just a question of keeping the pressure on and awareness up, or as has been the case, refining what has come before and bringing on a fourth wave?


----------



## SirRumpole (29 November 2014)

Feminism has contributed to the entrance of women into jobs where traditionally they have not been before.

Airline pilots, police and army combat roles to name a few.

Given that women are physically and psychologically different from men, discussion seems to have been squashed as to whether men are more suitable than women for some jobs, and also vice versa.

So, can there be true "equality" when men and women have different physical, psychological and mental characteristics ?

It sometimes irks me when education feminists think it's a national tragedy that there are less girls than boys doing certain subjects at school and uni. Maybe they just don't want to ? Surely our educational establishments don't practise discrimination in the subjects students can take ?

http://theconversation.com/study-finds-more-girls-opting-out-of-maths-and-science-12221


----------



## Craton (29 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Feminism has contributed to the entrance of women into jobs where traditionally they have not been before.
> 
> Airline pilots, police and army combat roles to name a few.
> 
> ...




SR, that would be taking a very broad brush. I would suggest that instead of speaking in generalised terms, each of us be awarded by our individual traits much as Pixel has shown.

Surely you'd agree that there a instances where a woman could do a man's work/job equally, if not better and the same in reverse.

Physical: no argument there, it's a biological fact but I've met women that I'd never want to tangle with and I'm no minnow.

Psychological: Perhaps, just perhaps, men need to take a leaf or two out of the women's handbook on this one or, a by-product of our male dominated world.

Mental: Spatial versus abstract? Again, perhaps a by-product of our male dominated world.

At the very least, a most pleasing complimentary arrangement.

Further, the thought of women being equal is a very new notion within our society, barely a hundred years so I'd like to see how we've fared say in a couple of hundred years. Yet, like share trading, keeping the emotions by both parties out of it is the real challenge because I'm damn sure we can be equally emotional. 

Ah, you've added to your post...

I'd say the fact that reproduction of our species plays a big part in a woman's choice of educational pathways and indeed, career paths. All of which feminism tries to address IMHO.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 November 2014)

Craton]
SR said:


> I'd say the fact that reproduction of our species plays a big part in a woman's choice of educational pathways and indeed, career paths. All of which feminism tries to address IMHO.




What does feminism try to "address" in the way of female career paths ?

Surely a woman's career path should be what she wants it to be, not a contest with men in particular educational areas ?

As I said, some people think it's a tragedy that girls don't take maths or science as much as boys. I think it's because girls in general are less interested in those subjects and I don't think they should be pushed into those areas for the sake of some feminist theory that they have to prove themselves "equal" to men in those areas.

eg is it a problem that there are more female nurses than males in that profession ? Should the "masculists" complain about it ?


----------



## Craton (29 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, fair enough, probably too much generalisation on my part.






> What does feminism try to "address" in the way of female career paths ?
> 
> Surely a woman's career path should be what she wants it to be, not a contest with men in particular educational areas ?



 Agreed and that's most definitely addressed by feminism.







> As I said, some people think it's a tragedy that girls don't take maths or science as much as boys. I think it's because girls in general are less interested in those subjects and I don't think they should be pushed into those areas for the sake of some feminist theory that they have to prove themselves "equal" to men in those areas.




Also agree that no one should be pushed into a "gender contest" and seriously doubt feminists set out to do this to prove a theory. 

From that article it appears that our education system is at fault if maths is no longer a 'core' subject. If memory serves correctly, both Maths and Science along with English were must do subjects when I was at high school. That being said, I was part of the last tranche that sat for the Leaving Certificate as it was called back then.

If maths and science interest or take up is so disproportionate against the female gender and from that article the numbers speak for themselves, we must determine why this is the case. Of more interest, why is it important that women are represented in this space?

I can't see it as a contest or theoretical ploy but I can understand the concern as without that female representation, women orientated studies/research et al, done by women (especially for women) and from a purely female perspective, without it, this will mean that male domination, male bias and the male perspective is inbuilt into those fields of endeavour. Again, making it easy to buy into the male dominated ethos. A downside is that it would be seen as playing right into the feminist hands.

So yeah, I can see the reasoning behind the need to encourage more female participation in the upper echelons of maths and science.



> eg is it a problem that there are more female nurses than males in that profession ? Should the "masculists" complain about it ?




Interesting. I think you're making the incorrect distinction between equality in terms of rights and the equality in terms of the percentage of any gender within any given profession. I think it is a given that some professions will have a bias one way or another. If it means a very low percentage of females in maths and science because of a natural penchant against these disciplines so be it.

Still, in terms of job equality, I'd like to see how we fare in a couple of hundred years time simply because women being accepted and treated as equals, is relatively new in the scheme of things.


----------



## SirRumpole (29 November 2014)

Craton said:
			
		

> So yeah, I can see the reasoning behind the need to encourage more female participation in the upper echelons of maths and science.




So I wonder if we should have separate strands of Maths and Science specifically aimed at boys and girls ?

 I wonder how that would be done. Possibly taking into account what we know from neurology as to how males and females think differently. Having women teachers & scientists set the syllabus for the girls course, and men for the boys course ?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (29 November 2014)

Please excuse my entrance in to this topic.

I am aware, as you all should be that people in 100 years time people will p themselves laughing at our conclusions as we do of those heading in to the Great War 100 years ago.

I am male, of Viking and Celt ancestry, presently defined as Australian.

My view of women is as mothers, aunts, sisters, daughters and delightful others and wise others.

I see Feminism as a passing fad to assuage the guilt of over-educated women, much as over-educated men bemoan the fact that they are not rich, or have a beautiful girlfriend, or powerful or some other such transient grasp at power.

Feminists are as much muppets as the over-educated.

They seek what they will never have.. Friendship, intimacy and belonging.

Just my take on it all.

gg


----------



## SirRumpole (29 November 2014)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Please excuse my entrance in to this topic.




I'm sure you are always welcome oh wise one.


----------



## Julia (30 November 2014)

Craton said:


> Surely you'd agree that there a instances where a woman could do a man's work/job equally, if not better and the same in reverse.



An example of this might be in finance/investment.   I know a couple of female full service brokers, but no female financial planners.  All but a very few economists and other commentators on finance, markets, and investment are male.

On retirement and super forums, a common remark is "if anything happens to me my wife wouldn't have any idea how to manage the Super".   Yet no suggestion that this be changed.

On this forum the membership is overwhelmingly male.  The occasional comment comes from another female on politics or religion.  Why is it so?  There are no physiological or age related factors that should deter women from being good at making money, yet there seems to be still an outdated assumption amongst some men, and women for that matter, that it belongs to the boys' club.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 November 2014)

Julia said:
			
		

> On this forum the membership is overwhelmingly male. The occasional comment comes from another female on politics or religion. Why is it so? There are no physiological or age related factors that should deter women from being good at making money, yet there seems to be still an outdated assumption amongst some men, and women for that matter, that it belongs to the boys' club.




There are a number of highly placed female executives, business owners, judges, barristers, scientists, you name it so there don't appear to be as many barriers in the way of women making it big in whatever they want to do as there were in years past. 

I think we need to distinguish between areas where there is still some discrimination by the "boy's club" and those areas that women generally aren't particularly interested in, and we should be careful not to engage in  gender warfare on a false premise.


----------



## Craton (30 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> So I wonder if we should have separate strands of Maths and Science specifically aimed at boys and girls ?
> 
> I wonder how that would be done. Possibly taking into account what we know from neurology as to how males and females think differently. Having women teachers & scientists set the syllabus for the girls course, and men for the boys course ?




I don't think that would be necessary but if it's a solution, why not?
However I'll defer discussion on that to others more suitably qualified to comment.

You've mentioned the neurological differences between the sexes a few times now, please expand on this for me. On second thought, nope, it's OK. I'll DMOR.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 November 2014)

Julia, you rightly pointed out that this forum is mostly male. Personally I would like to see a higher input by females, and there is no barrier to that happening.

 Perhaps ladies are more worried about being shouted down by more aggressive males (I know that doesn't bother you as I've found out a few times  ), however  there is always going to be argument and debate on forums, so maybe it is a generally female characteristic to avoid confrontation even on an anonymous forum. I've noticed this on other forums too.


----------



## Knobby22 (30 November 2014)

I would not be surprised if some of the members that we think are male are actually female. We know what stuff the girls go through including one who was hassled in this forum. In fact I think you might really be a girl Sir Rumpole (just kidding).


----------



## SirRumpole (30 November 2014)

Knobby22 said:


> . In fact I think you might really be a girl Sir Rumpole (just kidding).




What gives you that idea sweetheart ?


----------



## Knobby22 (30 November 2014)

She who must be obeyed.


----------



## Value Collector (30 November 2014)

Julia said:


> On this forum the membership is overwhelmingly male.  The occasional comment comes from another female on politics or religion.  Why is it so?  There are no physiological or age related factors that should deter women from being good at making money, yet there seems to be still an outdated assumption amongst some men, and women for that matter, that it belongs to the boys' club.




I guess it also comes down to personal interest, I don't think there is an absense of women because of sexism, they just don't choose to visit this site.

There are probably lots of female dominated sites, on various other topics.

I am a feminist, but I am against mandating certain participation levels in things, I mean I am against forcing boards or managements to have certain numbers of each sex mandated.

I don't care whether board members are male or female, as long as they have the skills, but to say " we better higher her because we need to up our female / male ratio" is wrong.


----------



## Craton (30 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Possibly taking into account what we know from neurology as to how males and females think differently.




If men and women do think differently, it seems to be a result of our culture not biology.

From here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...e-different-brains-claims-neuroscientist.html



> Men and women do not have different brains, claims neuroscientist
> Neuroscientist Prof Gina Rippon claims male and female brains only differ because of the relentless ‘drip, drip, drip’ of gender stereotyping.
> 
> The idea that men are from Mars and women are from Venus, with male and female brains wired differently, is a myth which has no basis in science, a professor has claimed.
> ...


----------



## SirRumpole (30 November 2014)

Craton said:


> If men and women do think differently, it seems to be a result of our culture not biology.
> 
> From here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/...e-different-brains-claims-neuroscientist.html




I wonder if the author of that article is a feminist.

Research has shown that the structure of men's and women brains are different and that leads to a different way of thinking by the sexes. One is not more or less intelligent than the other, they just use grey and white cells in different ways.



> Men and women do think differently, at least where the anatomy of the brain is concerned, according to a new study.
> 
> The brain is made primarily of two different types of tissue, called gray matter and white matter. This new research reveals that men think more with their gray matter, and women think more with white. Researchers stressed that just because the two sexes think differently, this does not affect intellectual performance.
> 
> ...




The article you posted seems fairly typical of feminists who try and alter the reality of biology to mesh with their own views of "equality".


----------



## sptrawler (30 November 2014)

Julia said:


> An example of this might be in finance/investment.   I know a couple of female full service brokers, but no female financial planners.  All but a very few economists and other commentators on finance, markets, and investment are male.
> 
> On retirement and super forums, a common remark is "if anything happens to me my wife wouldn't have any idea how to manage the Super".   Yet no suggestion that this be changed.
> 
> On this forum the membership is overwhelmingly male.  The occasional comment comes from another female on politics or religion.  Why is it so?  There are no physiological or age related factors that should deter women from being good at making money, yet there seems to be still an outdated assumption amongst some men, and women for that matter, that it belongs to the boys' club.




I can only speak from the perspective of my immediate family, and close friends, as they give candid responses.

However I find there is a distinct lack of interest in financial matters, especially by the females, other than the generic overview i.e we would like an investment property.

As for if, anything happens to me, I made it condition of starting the SMSF, that the better half input the data into the software.
Mainly because she is smarter with accounting logics, which isn't logical to me, it's reverse logic.IMO


----------



## Julia (30 November 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Julia, you rightly pointed out that this forum is mostly male. Personally I would like to see a higher input by females, and there is no barrier to that happening.
> 
> Perhaps ladies are more worried about being shouted down by more aggressive males (I know that doesn't bother you as I've found out a few times  ), however  there is always going to be argument and debate on forums, so maybe it is a generally female characteristic to avoid confrontation even on an anonymous forum. I've noticed this on other forums too.



Don't confuse a determination to stand up for oneself with any remote liking for confrontation.  The alternative option is to never offer a contrary opinion, or call out something which seems illogical.  Might as well, then, just not even join a forum in the first place.

I'd much rather see a constructive, objective discussion with willingness to consider alternative views.  This is something you display yourself quite often with a preparedness to reconsider thoughts expressed when an alternative is proposed.



The aggression on stock and investment forums seems exaggerated, seems to come from some sort of atmosphere of competition.  It's so completely different from the generosity of intellectual sharing that exists on forums about literature and music where diversity of views are welcomed.

Don't underestimate the effects on anyone of being a target.  It's why, e.g.,  I defend Tink's right to express her attachment to her religion in the face of concerted attacks, even though I'm completely opposed to religion.


----------



## Tink (1 December 2014)

Julia, we have a few females in here, sails, Miss Hale, DocK, there is probably more.


----------



## Craton (1 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder if the author of that article is a feminist.
> 
> Research has shown that the structure of men's and women brains are different and that leads to a different way of thinking by the sexes. One is not more or less intelligent than the other, they just use grey and white cells in different ways.
> 
> The article you posted seems fairly typical of feminists who try and alter the reality of biology to mesh with their own views of "equality".




Like most things, there'll always be opposing views. 

Funny where this topic has taken me and I find that people have/are raising their kids as gender neutral or opposite to the kid's gender. I can't help but wonder how these kid's brains are wired.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 December 2014)

Craton said:


> Like most things, there'll always be opposing views.
> 
> Funny where this topic has taken me and I find that people have/are raising their kids as gender neutral or opposite to the kid's gender. I can't help but wonder how these kid's brains are wired.




True, but when we start talking about "gender neutral" toys, then we are getting into the world of wacky feminist fundamentalism. 

I can tell you that as a young boy I would much rather have got a slot car set for Christmas than a dolly, and that was with very little advertising on the minimal amount of tv that we were allowed to watch, and therefore little social conditioning.

 It is radical feminists that are trying to change the "wiring" to suit their own theories instead of just accepting that boys and girls are different (thank God !) and have their own interests.


----------



## Craton (1 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> True, but when we start talking about "gender neutral" toys, then we are getting into the world of wacky feminist fundamentalism.
> 
> I can tell you that as a young boy I would much rather have got a slot car set for Christmas than a dolly, and that was with very little advertising on the minimal amount of tv that we were allowed to watch, and therefore little social conditioning.




SR, pre TV advertising was a lot different http://www.thepeoplehistory.com/toys.html and window shopping was a favourite family pastime. I would also counter that since the time of men hunting and women gathering there has always been social conditioning.







> It is radical feminists that are trying to change the "wiring" to suit their own theories instead of just accepting that boys and girls are different (thank God !) and have their own interests.




Fundamentalism and radical seems to be the norm nowadays eh.

Still, there is much still to learn about how our brain functions and here I'm thinking transgender like Chaz Bono. Sorta blows the whole born male, think male; born female, think female theory out of the water too doesn't it?


----------



## sydboy007 (1 December 2014)

While in London recently I did one of the Yeoman guided tours at the Tower of London.  Highly recommend it if you go there.

He said he's not sexist but his 2 question survey seems to show where the interests between the sexes lies. 

basically he said if you could only see the armoury or the crown jewels which would you see.  Overwhelmingly the men wanted to see the armoury, while the woman pretty much all wanted to see the crown jewels.

I'm sure there's a phd thesis in there as to the whys of that.  But it is how it is.

I've read a few articles over the years where there is a growing debate about segregating boys and girls at school since girls have a greater ability to sit and learn compared to younger boys.  From a bit of googling I can't find any of the articles, but it was interesting to see the pilot programs in some of the Aussie states were having significant benefits for the boys in terms of their math /  english / writing scores.  There was also positive steps in terms of the boys engagement at school as the style of classes involved a lot more physcial activities.

The fact is we have different levels of hormones hitting out bodies as we develop, so it's not too hard to accept that there's going to be differences in the best way for boys and girls to learn.

I'd like to see more of what kids are taught integrated into real life.  Too much seems theoretical and removed from day to day life.  Create interest and the learning is so much easier.


----------



## Julia (1 December 2014)

Tink said:


> Julia, we have a few females in here, sails, Miss Hale, DocK, there is probably more.



Yes, and you left out the uber sensible Ruby, Tink.  But none of them post on any regular basis.


----------



## Value Collector (2 December 2014)

I would be interested to hear what people thought of this ladies comments about the Kim Kardashian photo shoot.

To me her comments are a step back for feminism, she makes comments alluding that Kim's husband should have stopped her doing this, and that women should dress a certain way etc. Telling women what they can and can't wear and what they can and can't show in photos is the opposite of feminism to me, it's the same line of thinking the Muslims use when forcing women into burqas, she also describes Kim as being a cheap $3 bill and having slurrish ways.

The part I am talking about starts at the 2.30 minute mark.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I would be interested to hear what people thought of this ladies comments about the Kim Kardashian photo shoot.
> 
> To me her comments are a step back for feminism, she makes comments alluding that Kim's husband should have stopped her doing this, and that women should dress a certain way etc. Telling women what they can and can't wear and what they can and can't show in photos is the opposite of feminism to me, it's the same line of thinking the Muslims use when forcing women into burqas, she also describes Kim as being a cheap $3 bill and having slurrish ways.
> 
> The part I am talking about starts at the 2.30 minute mark.





Maybe you are starting with a false premise, that the perceived needs of feminism trumps all other concerns.

I think that most men would not be wanting their wives to be flaunting their private parts in public, and frankly I would have a low opinion of women who do this. It's their right to do it, but I would say that I would prefer to seek the company of women who have some degree of dignity, and the appreciation of public and private roles.


----------



## Value Collector (2 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe you are starting with a false premise, that the perceived needs of feminism trumps all other concerns.
> 
> .




What are the concerns you are talking about that would trump the rights of women?



> I think that most men would not be wanting their wives to be flaunting their private parts in public




 In this case the husband was fine with it. But does society have the right to judge him on being fine with it?



> and frankly I would have a low opinion of women who do this.




Why? what makes you think low of a women who poses naked? 



> It's their right to do it, but I would say that I would prefer to seek the company of women who have some degree of dignity



,

Dignity - the state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect.

It's weird to me that some one showing their body makes them unworthy of honour or respect in your eyes. Although not the same, Muslims say they have no respect for women that wear short skirts, of in some cases just show their arms, face or hair.

Aren't people worthy of respect regardless of what they wear? 

I mean it's not like she did a streak at a footy match, I would lose respect for people that did that, mainly because the purpose was to be a public nuisance, but taking photos in a studio, and publishing them in a magazine, is a lot different to me, my opinion of her hasn't changed either way.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> What are the concerns you are talking about that would trump the rights of women?




The spread of pornography and the consequent devaluation of women in the minds of young males who then grow up to have an ingrained image of women as being little more than sex objects. If you complain about domestic violence, consider how much the "women as sex slaves" image has contributed to it.



> In this case the husband was fine with it. But does society have the right to judge him on being fine with it?




Society will always make a judgement on social concerns, and has the right to do so. It doesn't mean that society is always right, but those concepts are not easy to define in a lot of cases.



> Why? what makes you think low of a women who poses naked?




It doesn't conform to my definition of dignity and self respect that people should have about themselves and their partners, plus the fact that a lot of people who posed nude are now getting indignant that those photos are circulating around the internet, so there is obviously some shame attached to the process.
,


> Dignity - the state or quality of being worthy of honour or respect.
> 
> It's weird to me that some one showing their body makes them unworthy of honour or respect.




Fine, send your partner off to pose nude for a few magazines, you may not have to slave away on the stock market any more.


----------



## sydboy007 (2 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I would be interested to hear what people thought of this ladies comments about the Kim Kardashian photo shoot.




Reminds me of Lina Esco and her involvement in the free the nipple campaign.  The idea behind it is to show the double standards within the USA and how showing acts of violence within films is often glorified, but a female nipple is often censored.

http://www.freethenipple.com/

I'd say we're at least a generation away from seeing the naked body as something to be ashamed of.


----------



## Value Collector (2 December 2014)

> The spread of pornography




I don't see pornography that's made by and viewed by consenting adults as immoral, so I don't fear its "spread", its always been around.

And I don't really see a nude photo as being real pornography any way.



> and the consequent devaluation of women in the minds of young males who then grow up to have an ingrained image of women as being little more than sex objects.




If you have the opinion that a woman who shows her body deserves less respect, you're devaluing women more than me, and if you pass the opinion to your children that it's ok to disrespect the girl wearing the shorter dress or the girl that happened to send a topless text to her boyfriend then it's your views that are contributing to the devaluation of women and creating an image of sex objects, not the act of wearing the shorter dress or the nude photo itself.

I will raise my boys to respect all women regardless of what they wear, or the photos they take



> If you complain about domestic violence, consider how much the "women as sex slaves" image has contributed to it.




I can't see a link between the photo and sex slaves, if you see a women nude and think "sex slave" that's your issue.



> It doesn't conform to my definition of dignity and self respect that people should have about themselves and their partners,




On the same line of thinking Muslims believe that women who show their hair or legs or sometimes even face should be disrespected.



> plus the fact that a lot of people who posed nude are now getting indignant that those photos are circulating around the internet, so there is obviously some shame attached to the process.




Taking photos or videos of yourself or your consenting partner is not immoral, hacking a computer and stealing and spreading them is, that's what they are upset about, its the invasion of privacy.

Also, the fact that people like you will shame them for it, its not the act or photo that upsets them, its the publics reaction to it.




> Fine, send your partner off to pose nude for a few magazines, you may not have to slave away on the stock market any more




That would be her choice, I don't own my partner, I can't "send her off" to do anything. But my partner I a beautiful women, if he decided to do some classy nude photographs I wouldn't be against it, it might be fun to look back when we are old.

It's just the human body, nothing to shame people for.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 December 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> If you have the opinion that a woman who shows her body deserves less respect, you devaluing women more than me, and if you pass the opinion to your children that it's ok to disrespect the girl wearing the shorter dress or the girl that happened to send a topless text to her boyfriend then it's your views that are contributing to the devaluation of women, not the act of wearing the shorter dress or the nude photo itself.




I don't go around beating up women, but some do

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...internet-pornography-admits-Keir-Starmer.html


----------



## Tisme (2 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I would be interested to hear what people thought of this ladies comments about the Kim Kardashian photo shoot.
> 
> To me her comments are a step back for feminism, she makes comments alluding that Kim's husband should have stopped her doing this, and that women should dress a certain way etc.




I don't care what they say, that presenter is a bloke!

If you have spent time n the USA (and you probably have) you would know it is a dominating male society. Some States the women look so much alike with Stepford hairstyles and dress sense that it can be unsettling.


----------



## Value Collector (2 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I don't go around beating up women, but some do
> 
> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...internet-pornography-admits-Keir-Starmer.html




I maintain my points, pornography when made and viewed by adults is not immoral.

and, 

When you raise children and expose them to the concept that women who dress a certain way deserve less respect, they will grow up disrespecting the females they encounter.

I don't care whether a female is lawyer, a high class escort, school teacher or a lap dancer their jobs don't entitle me to disrespect either of them.


----------



## Value Collector (2 December 2014)

Tisme said:


> If you have spent time n the USA (and you probably have) you would know it is a dominating male society. Some States the women look so much alike with Stepford hairstyles and dress sense that it can be unsettling.




I haven't noticed it, but that is probably because of the areas I have spent time in, being mostly LA and other parts of California.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 December 2014)

> I maintain my points, pornography when made and viewed by adults is not immoral.




The Internet has ensured that children get more access to pr0n than ever before. Try doing some research (including reading the article I quoted) about the effects of pr0n on young minds and whether you think that's ok. Continued exposure to it is probably just as bad as exposure to religion that you keep complaining about.



> I don't care whether a female is lawyer, a high class escort, school teacher or a lap dancer their jobs don't entitle me to disrespect either of them.




You could say the same about politicians, but disrespect them we do.

It's about the effects that their actions have on society and their low standards of public behaviour.

If I believe that a women stripping off for money entitles them to less respect than a woman scientist who conducts herself with dignity in public and achieves something positive for society, then I have a right to that opinion, just as I have a right to judge the behaviour of politicians and their antics.


----------



## Craton (2 December 2014)

I think some of the comments re. Kim Kardashian are missing and muddying the point by the use of semantics. The real question is of course, natural or shaved vajayjay, is one more feminist than the other?

Sorry, back to normal transmission....


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> The Internet has ensured that children get more access to pr0n than ever before. Try doing some research (including reading the article I quoted) about the effects of pr0n on young minds and whether you think that's ok. Continued exposure to it is probably just as bad as exposure to religion that you keep complaining about.
> 
> 
> .




Only if they actively search for it, but even still, is disrespecting women the solution?



> It's about the effects that their actions have on society and their low standards of public behaviour.




Low standards? Thats your subjective view, as I said a Muslim might think you wife or daughters have low standards for choosing to bare their legs, off course this gives them no right to disrespect them.



> If I believe that a women stripping off for money entitles them to less respect than a woman scientist who conducts herself with dignity in public and achieves something positive for society, then I have a right to that opinion, just as I have a right to judge the behaviour of politicians and their antics




Every one is entitled to a certain level of respect for just being human, unless someone is doing something immoral and harming others, you have no right to think less of them as a person.

You can give extra respect to a person for their work in a field that appeals to you, but thinking less of a person just because their line of work involves nudity is just silly, who says sex workers and pr0n stars are not contributing something positive to society anyway?

You do have the rites to your opinion, but that doesn't mean your opinion isn't wrong or bigoted.

Look, females are in charge of their own bodies, I don't make the rules, you don't make the rules, they make the rules. If they decide to sleep with multiple men, take nude photos, wear short skirts of anything else, then it in no way gives permission for people to disrespect them.


----------



## burglar (3 December 2014)

Craton said:


> ... Sorry, back to normal transmission....


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2014)

> Every one is entitled to a certain level of respect for just being human, unless someone is doing something immoral and harming others, you have no right to think less of them as a person.




It's a matter of relativity. If I say I respect a scientist more than a stripper that's ok with you ?


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> It's a matter of relativity. If I say I respect a scientist more than a stripper that's ok with you ?




That's not what you said to begin with, having extra respect for a certain occupation is different from having a distain for individuals with another occupation.

It's fine to look up to a certain group, but looking down on individuals of another group simply because they show certain body parts is wrong. Teach your children, especially your boys to respect all women, and they will grow up to be better people, if they hear you making comments like "look at the skirt shes wearing, she must be a tart/slut" your boys will grow up to think its ok to disrespect girls that wear certain clothes.


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> It's a matter of relativity. If I say I respect a scientist more than a stripper that's ok with you ?




What if she is stripping to pay for university, will you think low of her then and high later?



----------

Here is an interesting discussion.


----------



## pavilion103 (3 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> What if she is stripping to pay for university, you'll think low of her then and high later.




How could anyone think "high" of someone later who compromised by stripping to get a degree?

That's like saying I think lowly of someone because they robbed a bank but highly of them later because they have a mansion and a Ferrari.

This is another example where the law doesn't reflect morality. Both are immoral acts but one is legal. Thank God that even 90% of my atheist friends recognize that stripping is immoral.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2014)

> Teach your children, especially your boys to respect all women, and they will grow up to be better people, if they hear you making comments like "look at the skirt shes wearing, she must be a tart/slut" your boys will grow up to think its ok to disrespect girls that wear certain clothes.




If boys were more attracted to women for their views and opinions and value to a relationship, rather than for their propensity to flash their parts around for the pleasure of other men, that would be a good thing imo.

I'm not going to go around berating women for exposing their parts, nor am I going to encourage others to do this, I'm just making a comment as to the type of woman I would be more interested in having a relationship with, and its certainly not one whose main claim to fame is providing cheap titillation (pardon the expression) for others.


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> How could anyone think "high" of someone later who compromised by stripping to get a degree?
> 
> That's like saying I think lowly of someone because they robbed a bank but highly of them later because they have a mansion and a Ferrari.
> 
> This is another example where the law doesn't reflect morality. Both are immoral acts but one is legal. Thank God that even 90% of my atheist friends recognize that stripping is immoral.




lol, Pav your ridiculous opinions never cease to amaze me. So, If you found out that a female scientist that found a cure for aids through years of painstaking research, had funded her tuition by doing some topless waitressing or working a stripper pole, you wouldn't have any respect for her?

It's nothing like robbing a bank, because nothing is being stolen.

What exactly is immoral about a consenting female taking her clothes off for a consenting audience?

-----------------------


----------



## Tisme (3 December 2014)

The trouble with public nudity is the high % of not so good looking females. Men should never go out totally nude.

It is no secret in the ranks that junior sports' "Pie Nights" for the charitable Dads, are known to employ female uni students to perform the strip and sex entertainment.


----------



## pavilion103 (3 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> lol, Pav your ridiculous opinions never cease to amaze me. So, If you found out that a female scientist that found a cure for aids through years of painstaking research, had funded her tuition by doing some topless waitressing or working a stripper pole, you wouldn't have any respect for her?  It's nothing like robbing a bank, because nothing is being stolen.  What exactly is immoral about a consenting female taking her clothes off for a consenting audience?  -----------------------




I'd respect her work ethic and dedication to finding a cure and respect her achievements in that particular area. I'd respect her if she acknowledged that what she did was wrong and that she recognize used this and has turned away from it.  

A consenting audience... Many of those likely married men. I wonder if their wives are consenting too. Men fulfilling their lustful desires outside of their marriage. It makes he wife feel inadequate and can often make them not measure up in the husbands eyes. This is the slippery slope which can lead to divorce and splitting up families.
Am I going to respect someone who strips knowing that these types of men will come and see them? No way in hell!!!

You are so short sighted and blind.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> What exactly is immoral about a consenting female taking her clothes off for a consenting audience?
> 
> -----------------------




What would you say if the Kim Kardashian in your video clip was a male waving around an erection ?


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2014)

> I'm not going to go around berating women for exposing their parts, nor am I going to encourage others to do this, I'm just making a comment as to the type of woman I would be more interested in having a relationship with, and its certainly not one whose main claim to fame is providing cheap titillation (pardon the expression) for others




In my opinion there is a lot more important things look for in a potential partner than clothing, If your writing off women because of the length of their skirts, that seems very shallow to me.


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> What would you say if the Kim Kardashian in your video clip was a male waving around an erection ?




Kim wasn't spreading her legs or anything, so it not really fair to compare the waving of an erect penis.

But, I don't care in the slightest if people take nude shots of men erect or not, why would I care. It probably happens every day, I am not affected by it in the slightest.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> But, I don't care in the slightest if people take nude shots of men erect or not, why would I care. It probably happens every day, I am not affected by it in the slightest.




Does it happen on TV shows ?


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> In my opinion there is a lot more important things look for in a potential partner than clothing, If your writing off women because of the length of their skirts, that seems very shallow to me.




Talk about moving goalposts. I'm talking about complete nudity not the length of skirts.


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> A consenting audience... Many of those likely married men. I wonder if their wives are consenting too. Men fulfilling their lustful desires outside of their marriage.




If a married man goes to see a stripper, and he knows his wife is not ok with it, so has to lie and break promises they have made, then that man is acting immorally, not the stripper, and not the men who are single or whos wives are fine with it.



> Am I going to respect someone who strips knowing that these types of men will come and see them? No way in hell!!!




why not? I respect my local baker, even though he knows some of his customers are overweight and shouldn't be eating his pies, or have promised their partner they will keep to their diet.


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Talk about moving goalposts. I'm talking about complete nudity not the length of skirts.




we have been talking about both,


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Does it happen on TV shows ?




Kim's original photo was in a magazine. the TV show that I uploaded, put the naked photo up but censored it.

But yes you do some times see quick glimpses of penis in tv shows, due to broadcasting rules there wouldn't be an erect penis or any open leg vaginal shots. 

A popular show called "game of thrones" showed a penis twice, I don't actually watch it, so I am not sure if it was censored in Australia broadcast.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Kim's original photo was in a magazine. the TV show that I uploaded, put the naked photo up but censored it.
> 
> But yes you do some times see quick glimpses of penis in tv shows, due to broadcasting rules there wouldn't be an erect penis or any open leg vaginal shots.
> 
> A popular show called "game of thrones" showed a penis twice, I don't actually watch it, so I am not sure if it was censored in Australia broadcast.




I wonder if "feminism" extends to equal rights for women to see parts of male anatomy that men can see of women.


----------



## trainspotter (3 December 2014)

Back on topic please:-

Feminism is a collection of movements and ideologies aimed at defining, establishing, and defending equal political, economic, cultural, and social rights for women. This includes seeking to establish equal opportunities for women in education and employment.

Men want the woman they marry to be a chef in the kitchen, a lady in the living room and a ***** in the bedroom. Not that difficult really ?


----------



## burglar (3 December 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> ... You are so short sighted and blind.




 ... ?


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2014)

trainspotter said:


> Men want the woman they marry to be a chef in the kitchen, a lady in the living room and a ***** in the bedroom. Not that difficult really ?




What do women want men to be ?

If anyone finds out, please let us know.


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder if "feminism" extends to equal rights for women to see parts of male anatomy that men can see of women.




you always seem to have things slightly backwards.

It's not about males or females having some sort of right to see parts of the opposite sex, it's about men or women being in charge of their own bodies, and not being told how they can and can't dress.

eg, I am against forcing women to wear a burqa, But not because I think men have a right to see her body, I think she has the right to dress how she likes. If she really wants to where a burqa, she can, she shouldn't feel obligated though, and we shouldn't look down on her either way, it's her body, her rules.

-------

But in general, men have a lot more freedom to show their body, pretty much most men go topless at the beach without a stir, I women takes her top off and she is labelled and attention seeking tart.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> you always seem to have things slightly backwards.




No , just a different perspective



> It's not about males or females having some sort of right to see parts of the opposite sex, it's about men or women being in charge of their own bodies, and not being told how they can and can't dress.




So you would be in favour of abolishing the indecent exposure laws so men and women can go nude in public if they desire ?


----------



## Craton (3 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> I wonder if "feminism" extends to equal rights for women to see parts of male anatomy that men can see of women.




Not so funny really as there is a clear bias towards showing the naked female body. As a bloke even I find this one sided disparity entirely wrong. I'm also of the view that society as a whole has a real issue any male nudism and especially seeing one with an erection. Why is this, what is so special about an aroused male organ that must never be seen nor spoken about?

Surely an aroused member is confirmation that mankind has the potential to continue to live upon the face of this earth. So why is the image of this so taboo and not celebrated and yet, the naked female form is so readily accepted?

No doubt the answers lie in the reasons why feminism was born.


----------



## Craton (3 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> No , just a different perspective
> 
> 
> 
> So you would be in favour of abolishing the indecent exposure laws so men and women can go nude in public if they desire ?




Yep.


----------



## Calliope (3 December 2014)

Craton said:


> Not so funny really as there is a clear bias towards showing the naked female body. As a bloke even I find this one sided disparity entirely wrong. I'm also of the view that society as a whole has a real issue any male nudism and especially seeing one with an erection. Why is this, what is so special about an aroused male organ that must never be seen nor spoken about?




It is in pornography watching where people reveal their preferences and "male nudism and especially seeing one with an erection" is very popular in Australia. Each country has its own preferences;



> The rugged ideal of the buff, beer-swilling Australian male appears hard to resist too with 'aussie (gay)' the top search term down under.




Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...our-MILF-Syrians-like-aunt.html#ixzz3Kn6Er2mK


----------



## Julia (3 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> What do women want men to be ?
> 
> If anyone finds out, please let us know.



I can only comment from a personal perspective but the first thing would be for them not to be as judgmental, even toward one another, as is shown in some of the posts here, viz "you are wrong to think that" etc.
I don't see that any of us have a monopoly on truth.  We all find aspects of life acceptable or not according to our own personal standards.
If Rumpole finds some behaviour or appearance unattractive and inappropriate, then that's up to him.  Not for anyone else to tell him he should feel otherwise.

Then, preferably, to go somewhere else to discuss the more graphic representations of sexual arousal.

Men are what they are, hugely different amongst one another, and very different from most women.
Ideally thoughtful, able to regard others with kindness and compassion, capable of listening, funny, calm in a crisis, caring about their own health and fitness, behaving with respect toward anyone including women and animals.

And not regarding women merely as objects for their amusement and pleasure


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> No , just a different perspective




No, it's completely different.

Saying you have the right to see a girls body is very much different from saying she has the right to show it. the first option implies she doesn't have the right to cover up.



> So you would be in favour of abolishing the indecent exposure laws so men and women can go nude in public if they desire




Well, I would probably change the definition of "indecent exposure" for a start.

I don't really see all nudity as being indecent, I mean some people are offended by breast feeding, that's just ridiculous in my opinion, But I would consider it ok for a female to go bare chested in all the places where its ok for men to go bare chested eg at the beach, in the pool, round the house in summer time, mowing the lawn, washing the car etc.


----------



## Calliope (3 December 2014)

I believe that complete exposure doesn't always achieve the best results...that's why we have burkas and bikinis.


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2014)

Julia said:


> as is shown in some of the posts here, viz "you are wrong to think that" etc.
> I don't see that any of us have a monopoly on truth.  We all find aspects of life acceptable or not according to our own personal standards.




Personal opinions are fine, but just because some one has an opinion doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean it can't be shown to be untrue. When there are two opposing views, the truth doesn't necessarily lie in the middle, one side can just be wrong.

You probably would have no problem with people pointing out that racist opinions are wrong to hold, I would readily admit it is your right to hold a racist opinion, however it's my right to point out that holding such an opinion is wrong.

Much of the time the truth does indeed lie between two extreme points, but this can bias our thinking: sometimes a thing is simply untrue and a compromise of it is also untrue. Half way between truth and a lie, is still a lie.



> If Rumpole finds some behaviour or appearance unattractive and inappropriate, then that's up to him.  Not for anyone else to tell him he should feel otherwise




no one is suggesting he doesn't have the right to feel that way, I just pointed out that the criteria he uses to judge women might be a bit shallow because of that, and also suggested it would be wrong if people used personal feelings such as that to take the rights of others away.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2014)

> and also suggested it would be wrong if people used personal feelings such as that to take the rights of others away.




If you read my posts properly you would see I said women have a right to take their clothes off for the entertainment of others, but we are all free to interpret that action in our own way, as to our opinion of the person doing it.


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2014)

Julia said:


> as is shown in some of the posts here, viz "you are wrong to think that" etc.
> I don't see that any of us have a monopoly on truth.  We all find aspects of life acceptable or not according to our own personal standards.




Personal opinions are fine, but just because some one has an opinion doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean it can't be shown to be untrue. When there are two opposing views, the truth doesn't necessarily lie in the middle, one side can just be wrong.

You probably would have no problem with people pointing out that racist opinions are wrong to hold, I would readily admit it is your right to hold a racist opinion, however it's my right to point out that holding such an opinion is wrong.

Much of the time the truth does indeed lie between two extreme points, but this can bias our thinking: sometimes a thing is simply untrue and a compromise of it is also untrue. Half way between truth and a lie, is still a lie.



> If Rumpole finds some behaviour or appearance unattractive and inappropriate, then that's up to him.  Not for anyone else to tell him he should feel otherwise




no one is suggesting he doesn't have the right to feel that way, I just pointed out that the criteria he uses to judge women might be a bit shallow because of that, and also suggested it would be wrong if people used personal feelings such as that to take the rights of others away.


----------



## Value Collector (3 December 2014)

Calliope said:


> I believe that complete exposure doesn't always achieve the best results...that's why we have burkas and bikinis.




Agreed, But it's not up to you or I to tell women what to wear.


 There was a time when a women in a bikini would have been arrested, I am glad we are past that.

here is funny page showing some women from the past being arrested, and the police enforcing the length of bathing suit skirts with measuring tape, do we really want to let the "prude patrol" have more power.

http://www.messynessychic.com/2012/06/20/arrested-for-their-bathing-suits/


----------



## Tisme (3 December 2014)

Forbidden fruit is always more fun to pick than the free stuff on the ground. I'm more into the thrill of the hunt rather than serving myself at the bain marie. Desensitising the erotica would be a terrible loss of emotion for our young people IMO... and yes we all know they watch Redtube, Disney p0rn, etc but they are one dimensional characters on the screen (I'm told).

My wife used to love it when I went to Sydney for conferences and shows at the Cross:- I came back feeling all maleness after learning so much at the conferences......


----------



## Calliope (3 December 2014)

I had a strict upbringing. When I was a boy I wasn't allowed to watch Donald Duck because he and Daisy wore no nether garments. I guess Disney was ahead of his time.


----------



## Julia (3 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> Personal opinions are fine, but just because some one has an opinion doesn't mean it's right, and it doesn't mean it can't be shown to be untrue. When there are two opposing views, the truth doesn't necessarily lie in the middle, one side can just be wrong.



In some areas, yes, but on the question of how women dress and people's reactions to that, it's a matter of taste, not right or wrong.
Obviously the same goes for every individual woman.  I'm personally more offended by rolls of fat, fully clothed, than a bare midriff without the fat.  But that's nothing more than my own view.


----------



## sydboy007 (3 December 2014)

I suppose there's still the male stud and equivalent female who's pretty much referred to as a wh.....

Still seems woman bare a far great stigma for being sexually active than men.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> Still seems woman bare a far great stigma for being sexually active than men.




Probably due to the attitudes towards the oldest profession throughout history, but I imagine a lot of women enjoy the power they have over men by just flashing a few titbits.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 December 2014)

Interesting article on the persecution of boys in the DV debate



> We mustn't make boys feel bad about being male
> By ABC's Elizabeth Jackson
> 
> Posted about 5 hours agoWed 3 Dec 2014, 3:55pm
> ...


----------



## Value Collector (4 December 2014)

Julia said:


> In some areas, yes, but on the question of how women dress and people's reactions to that, it's a matter of taste, not right or wrong.
> Obviously the same goes for every individual woman.  I'm personally more offended by rolls of fat, fully clothed, than a bare midriff without the fat.  But that's nothing more than my own view.




The issue wasn't whether you personally like the way people dress, it was whether women have the right to choose how they dress without being disrespected for it, the conversation was also whether it's ok to look down on women based only on the industry they work in. Thats what I was saying wasn't right.


----------



## Purple XS2 (4 December 2014)

Besides landing on the moon, perhaps the most spectacular achievement of our "western culture" is to approximate social equality between men & women - a work in progress.

Curiously enough, this struggle has encouraged unexpected creatures - those who advocate the  non-existence of "gender", even more bizarrely, the interchangability of "gender", to emerge, and to stand with us.

They aren't on our side: they are the enemies of all that sexually reproduces. They are the enemies of every life form beyond amoeba.

P.


----------



## Value Collector (4 December 2014)

Purple XS2 said:


> Curiously enough, this struggle has encouraged unexpected creatures - those who advocate the  non-existence of "gender", even more bizarrely, the interchangability of "gender", to emerge, and to stand with us.
> 
> They aren't on our side: they are the enemies of all that sexually reproduces. They are the enemies of every life form beyond amoeba.
> 
> P.




you lost me there, what are you actually talking about?


----------



## SirRumpole (4 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> you lost me there, what are you actually talking about?




Maybe he means the "gender neutral" toy advocates.


----------



## Value Collector (4 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe he means the "gender neutral" toy advocates.




I can't see the link there, I can't see how a gender neutral toy is going against organisms that sexually reproduce.


----------



## Tisme (4 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I can't see the link there, I can't see how a gender neutral toy is going against organisms that sexually reproduce.




I think it's something about kinky sex with an amoeba


----------



## SirRumpole (5 December 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> But in general, men have a lot more freedom to show their body, pretty much most men go topless at the beach without a stir, I women takes her top off and she is labelled and attention seeking tart.




Don't know about that. Looking at the highlights of the Walkley awards there were a lot of bare female shoulders, upper breasts and backs that is the accepted norm these days.

If all the blokes walked up wearing singlets instead of tuxes, what would the reaction be ?


----------



## Value Collector (5 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Don't know about that. Looking at the highlights of the Walkley awards there were a lot of bare female shoulders, upper breasts and backs that is the accepted norm these days.
> 
> If all the blokes walked up wearing singlets instead of tuxes, what would the reaction be ?




What would cause the biggest up roar, a Man taking his shirt off on the red carpet, or a woman revealing her chest?

You will have a point when women can swim at a public pool wearing only board shorts or bikini bottoms without be labelled tarts.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> What would cause the biggest up roar, a Man taking his shirt off on the red carpet, or a woman revealing her chest?
> 
> You will have a point when women can swim at a public pool wearing only board shorts or bikini bottoms without be labelled tarts.




No, I have a point now.

 As a bloke, try getting in to an RSL wearing a singlet. Women walk straight through, men would be turned away. Why the difference in dress rules ?


----------



## Hodgie (5 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> No, I have a point now.
> 
> As a bloke, try getting in to an RSL wearing a singlet. Women walk straight through, men would be turned away. Why the difference in dress rules ?




That is quite an annoying rule, at my local RSL they kick any male out that is wearing thongs and/or a singlet past 7pm (also, no hats allowed).

I have asked one of the staff about it and they said it has nothing to do with safety or anything like that, they just require patrons to look 'respectable'.

Obviously we as a society have deemed different types of attire as being considered respectable for each gender.


----------



## Value Collector (5 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> No, I have a point now.
> 
> As a bloke, try getting in to an RSL wearing a singlet. Women walk straight through, men would be turned away. Why the difference in dress rules ?




your muddying the water here, any establishment has the right to set what ever dress code they like, I wasn't talking about dress codes.

I was talking about the body parts society lets you show without judging you and attacking your character.

Lets use your RSL analogy, If we removed the dress code, so you could dress completely as you choose, If a workmen came in out of the heat, wiped his brow and removed his shirt and stepped up to the bar, there wouldn't be an uproar, male nipples don't seem to offend.

However if a female came in out of the heat, wiped her brow and removed her shirt and stepped up to the bar, there would be an uproar (women cop hell for even breastfeeding sometimes)

If a Man tried to enter your RSL topless he would be denied entry, which is the establishments right, However if a women tried to enter topless, she may very well be reported to the police and be detained.


----------



## Value Collector (5 December 2014)

Hodgie said:


> That is quite an annoying rule, at my local RSL they kick any male out that is wearing thongs and/or a singlet past 7pm (also, no hats allowed).
> 
> I have asked one of the staff about it and they said it has nothing to do with safety or anything like that, they just require patrons to look 'respectable'.
> 
> Obviously we as a society have deemed different types of attire as being considered respectable for each gender.




Any private establishment can set what ever dress code they like, you can start a club where chicken suits are required if you like.

The hat thing goes back to an old army tradition, In a lot of army boozers, if you walk in wearing a hat people start counting to 10, if your still wearing your hat at the count of 10, you have to shout the bar.


----------



## SirRumpole (5 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> However if a women tried to enter topless, she may very well be reported to the police and be detained.




You must be joking. She would be surrounded by males wanting to buy her a drink.





> Any private establishment can set what ever dress code they like, you can start a club where chicken suits are required if you like.




Not arguing about establishment's *rights* to set dress codes, the point is WHY are men's bare shoulders and armpits considered unseemly, but not women's ?

My RSL would throw out men wearing singlets but let in women wearing similar dress. That seems to be discrimination or judgemental determination of what is appropriate for men and women.

 As someone who supports equal rights, you should be opposed to this apparent contradiction.


----------



## Value Collector (5 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> You must be joking. She would be surrounded by males wanting to buy her a drink.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You your self said you would look down on such a girl, 

.


> As someone who supports equal rights, you should be opposed to this apparent contradiction




I support the rights of private establishment to maintain any dress code they choose.

i believe if you want to done a dress and some heels they would probably let you in. 

The point I am trying to make is different to dress codes, dress codes exist because they want guests to look neat and tidy, not because they are offended by body parts.

Its simple male nipples are ok to show in public, female nipples aren't. You cant honestly say that a female going topless would be judged no differently than a man, if you think she would be your just wrong, there not much else i can say,


----------



## SirRumpole (6 December 2014)

Value Collector said:
			
		

> Its simple male nipples are ok to show in public, female nipples aren't. You cant honestly say that a female going topless would be judged no differently than a man, if you think she would be your just wrong, there not much else i can say,




There's not much else I can say either because you totally ignore the point I was making about dress code discrimination.

Continue your fixation with nipples if you desire, it is irrelevant to whether you can wear a singlet in an RSL.



			
				Value Collector said:
			
		

> The point I am trying to make is different to dress codes, dress codes exist because they want guests to look neat and tidy, not because they are offended by body parts.




"Neat and tidy", is a value judgement isn't it ?


----------



## Value Collector (6 December 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> "Neat and tidy", is a value judgement isn't it ?




I don't know what you mean by "Value judgement", But basically I guess the people who have been elected by the members of the club to run the club have decided they want guests to look a certain way, any private establishment is within its rights to do that.

If you disagree, speak to fellow members and take it up with the board of directors.



> There's not much else I can say either because you totally ignore the point I was making about dress code discrimination.




That's because I wasn't talking about dress codes. Dress codes are a red herring you brought up, which has nothing to do with what parts of the body people are judged for showing.

yes, you can't wear a singlet after 7pm at your RSL, I don't care about that. that a private organisations rule.

I am talking about how society reacts to a man showing parts of his body compared to a women.




> it is irrelevant to whether you can wear a singlet in an RSL.




Dress codes in RSL's are irrelevant to the point I was making


----------



## trainspotter (6 December 2014)

Shhhhhhh someone might hear you !!


----------



## Calliope (7 December 2014)

trainspotter said:


> Shhhhhhh someone might hear you !!




It's those pesky Brazilian feminists TS. Now Brazilian Butt Lifts and Bum-Bum contests have taken the world by storm.


----------



## Tisme (8 December 2014)

I guess we kinda knew this was going on:

http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-...iving-Up-On-Women-And-Checking-Out-Of-Society

My guess is there are women out there who reckon the men deserve all they get if they wont get with the program.


----------



## burglar (8 December 2014)

Tisme said:


> ... My guess is there are women out there who reckon the men deserve all they get if they wont get with the program.




"Where _have_ all the good men gone?"


----------



## SirRumpole (8 December 2014)

burglar said:


> "Where _have_ all the good men gone?"




To ASF


----------



## trainspotter (9 December 2014)

Calliope said:


> It's those pesky Brazilian feminists TS. Now Brazilian Butt Lifts and Bum-Bum contests have taken the world by storm.




Itt must be global deforestation is the cause ?  Years ago there were huge forests. Think of the Amazon. Moisture producing fertile tracts of land. Logged out and burned to farming land.  The alleged photography can be found all over the Internet ... Miss bum bum had a very unfortunate accident so I read.  FEMINISM / when do you relinquish control and let the "better half" do the thinking and organization skills required to be a man. The world is my toilet cause I stand up to pee. ... map skills is another problem yet to be resolved. But in fact I celebrate the difference between man and woman. It's finding the right combination of  personality  to make it work.  

End blog

P.S. landing strip for me


----------



## sydboy007 (14 December 2014)

In February, this powerful short French video showed men what it feels like to be subjected to sexism and sexual violence. “Oppressed majority” takes place in an alternate reality where women jog half naked and work while the men take care of the kids and endure daily sexual harassment. Directed by Ã‰lÃ©onore Pourriat, it shows a father taking his child to kindergarten and going through the rest of his day facing catcalls and sexist remarks.

[video=youtube_share;V4UWxlVvT1A]http://youtu.be/V4UWxlVvT1A[/video]

Sheryl Sandberg is on a mission to change the sexist stock images we have been saddled with (anybody who has ever looked for depictions of working mothers would understand the difficulty of navigating image libraries.) Sandberg is partnering with Getty Images to create a special stock-image file that evades many of the sexist traps in stock images now, and to properly represent modern women.





In January, a 1981 Lego ad made the rounds on Reddit and social media. For some, the ad illustrated how ads back then adhered less stringently to gender roles. The story behind the ad is even more compelling. It's not only the brainchild of a female creative director, but the model herself is also a living embodiment of female empowerment. That little girl grew up to be Rachel Giordano, a now-37-year-old naturopathic doctor.


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 December 2014)

pavilion103 said:


> A consenting audience... Many of those likely married men. I wonder if their wives are consenting too. Men fulfilling their lustful desires outside of their marriage. It makes he wife feel inadequate and can often make them not measure up in the husbands eyes. This is the slippery slope which can lead to divorce and splitting up families.




Quite a few of them are also heterosexual women. Nothing too unusual about that in such places.

Strippers don't bother me really, they're a long way down the list of evils in society. Alcohol, violent video games, violent films, religion, cigarettes, illicit drugs and dangerous driving are all examples of far more problematic things in my view.

To be balanced, I do know a couple (well, I know him not really her) who did split up over that very issue. Group of us went to a concert, went into the city (Adelaide) afterwards and ended up in a pub fist then a strip club. Both males and (with one exception heterosexual) females in the group. All went inside except one woman who split with her partner there and then. That said, I very much doubt that was the only issue, sound relationships don't end over a single incident like that so there must have been more too it. The rest of the women had no problem with it at all.

Everyone's views are different on subjects like this. I don't think there's a "wrong" and a "right" so long as everyone is consenting and no real harm is being done. Personally, I find the pushing of religion far more offensive and a much greater cause of harm than a strip club but that's just me.


----------



## Value Collector (14 December 2014)

sydboy007 said:


> naturopathic doctor.




I shudder at seeing those two words put together.


----------



## tech/a (14 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I shudder at seeing those two words put together.




Holistic practitioner


----------



## Julia (14 December 2014)

Value Collector said:


> I shudder at seeing those two words put together.



+1.


----------



## Value Collector (15 December 2014)

tech/a said:


> Holistic practitioner




I prefer the term "charlatan", but "Quack" or "Snake oil salesman" work just as well.


----------



## Tisme (18 December 2014)

Interesting radio interview with Ann Coulter admonishing the majority of rape claimers as merely attention seekers

Part 1 https://soundcloud.com/rightwingwat...ape-accounts-as-girls-trying-to-get-attention

Part 2 https://soundcloud.com/rightwingwatch/coulter-rapists-usually-named-clinton-or-kennedy


----------



## sydboy007 (21 February 2015)

just a gentle reminder that not all women get to live in the modern world

http://www.dailylife.com.au/news-an...g-rules-for-female-staff-20150218-13hszo.html

According to the International Transport Workers' Federation, a major trade union group, female flight attendants can only be hired by Qatar Airways if they're single. They must remain so for five years after starting work. If they want to marry, they have to ask the airline's permission. If and when they get pregnant, they must notify the airline as soon as they know. Pregnancy is a breach of contract and can lead to firing.

In much of Asia, airliners use majority-female - and young - cabin crews, and their roles fall somewhere between cheerleaders and brand beauty symbols. China Southern Airlines holds an annual, televised American Idol-style competition for its potential female crew that includes a swimsuit pageant. VietJet, a Vietnamese low-cost carrier, three years ago held a bikini contest of its own - while on board a flight.


----------



## Logique (21 February 2015)

Imagine a male host carrying on like Julia Morris, drooling over the male host and contestants in _I'm a Celebrity.._ on Network Ten.

Not a peep out of Tim Blair's _Frightbat_ brigade. They'd run a bloke out of the country for the same behaviour. 

It's only sexism if a man says it.


----------



## Value Collector (21 February 2015)

Logique said:


> Imagine a male host carrying on like Julia Morris, drooling over the male host and contestants in _I'm a Celebrity.._ on Network Ten.
> 
> Not a peep out of Tim Blair's _Frightbat_ brigade. They'd run a bloke out of the country for the same behaviour.
> 
> It's only sexism if a man says it.




The "drooling" is for comedic value, I don't think anyone thinks it's serious, it's is simply sarcastic humour.


----------



## cynic (22 February 2015)

Logique said:


> ...
> It's only sexism if a man says it.




Careful there Logique, your last sentence does sound just a wee bit sexist!

Having said that, I've certainly noticed that some (not all) "feminists" freely express some unsavoury opinions of the stereotypical male. 
It's as though nobody wants to call such people to account for making such sweeping generalisations. 
(Perhaps I only see it that way because I'm just a wee bit sexist!)


----------



## pixel (22 February 2015)

Logique said:


> Imagine a male host carrying on like Julia Morris, drooling over the male host and contestants in _I'm a Celebrity.._ on Network Ten.
> 
> Not a peep out of Tim Blair's _Frightbat_ brigade. They'd run a bloke out of the country for the same behaviour.
> 
> It's only sexism if a man says it.




Yeah, I remember a - male! - commentator calling Olympian ice skater Katharina Witt a "good sort". 
Boy! was he copping it from the fem brigade! And he didn't even "drool"


----------



## Logique (22 February 2015)

cynic said:


> Careful there Logique, your last sentence does sound just a wee bit sexist!...



Yes fair enough, I know Julia M. is just trying to supply a bit of colour and excitement, and often does.  It goes more to the show's producer, who needs to 'mentor' her a little bit. 

She has enough talent to steer clear of the Sunday morning RSL stuff.


----------



## Logique (9 March 2015)

In Fairfax, therefore one must be cautious, but as reported, this is alarming.

Silence about sexual harassment in hospitals a major issue, doctors say - March 9, 2015 
http://www.smh.com.au/national/heal...-major-issue-doctors-say-20150308-13y9ki.html

The female surgeon who brought this matter to light should not be pilloried by feminists. 

Not good enough male surgeons, lift your game.


----------



## burglar (9 March 2015)

Logique said:


> ... She has enough talent to steer clear of the Sunday morning RSL stuff.




I spent a lotta Sunday mornings in the RSL.
I know not, to what stuff you refer!


----------



## Logique (28 August 2015)

The sisterhood won't be too happy with this.  Browsing their invective thesauruses as we speak. 



> The era of fainting couch feminism
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/re...g-couch-feminism/story-fnpug1jf-1227498682155
> 
> What fragile wilting flowers we women have become, with our jazz hands and trigger warnings, our “fainting couch feminism”.
> ...


----------



## Tink (26 October 2015)

I wasn't sure whether to post this in the freedom of speech thread or here -- 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29402

As many of you might have heard, Bruce Jenner (Caitlyn) was recently named “Woman of the Year”. 

Germaine Greer, a feminist, has been silenced on this issue, and giving her opinion.

_The Australian feminist author is scheduled to appear at Cardiff University for a public lecture, Women & Power: The Lessons of the 20th Century.

"What they are saying is because I don't think surgery will turn a man into a woman, I should not be allowed to speak.

"I do not know why universities cannot hear unpopular views, and think about what they mean."

The petition was initiated on Friday by Rachael Melhuish, women’s officer at the Cardiff University Students’ Union. _

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-25/germaine-greer-defends-views-on-transgender-issues/6883132


----------



## SirRumpole (26 October 2015)

This award is probably just another PC nod to a minority group.

The whole question of "Person whatever" awards is a matter of opinion anyway.

Barrack Obama got a peace price for what ?

Means nothing.


----------



## Craton (26 October 2015)

Tink said:


> I wasn't sure whether to post this in the freedom of speech thread or here --
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29402
> 
> ...




An interesting issue and one that puzzles me deeply, one I find hard to resolve as the question will always remain.

How can an operation, or series thereof, erase all the associated social conditioning and biases embedded within an individual?

At the risk of being flamed, I can accept that the change will improve the quality of life and certainly the mental state of a transgender person but there is no amount of debate will convince me that a man can fully "become" a woman or vice versa.

A more suitable appoach would be to add a "GLBTG of the Year" award to acknowledge this group.


----------



## ghotib (26 October 2015)

Tink said:


> I wasn't sure whether to post this in the freedom of speech thread or here --
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29402
> 
> ...



_

What an insult to the great Germs. She has not been silenced on this or any other issue._


----------



## Tisme (26 October 2015)

SirRumpole said:


> This award is probably just another PC nod to a minority group.
> 
> The whole question of "Person whatever" awards is a matter of opinion anyway.
> 
> ...





Yes facebook is full of "best of" tommyrot too.

It's like these business councils that spring up proclaim they are the voice for a bunch of pty ltds who probably have no idea who the organisation is (usually a sham Liberal Party organ to funnel ill gotten gains as it turns out).


----------



## pixel (26 October 2015)

"The squeakiest wheel gets the oil."
All it takes is a bunch of nincompoops to set up a presence on Social Media, claiming to defend the rights and interests of a minority group, and there will be some media coverage giving them Five Minutes in the Sun. Spin and perception replace reason and become reality.

Sometimes, such kind of "news" feeds on itself and attracts an ever-growing mob of idealists, weirdos, and credulous acolytes who perpetuate the squeaking. Sometimes, a group of business people see a Buck in it. It could be manufacturers of bike helmets or pool fencers. In Jenner's case it was probably cosmetic surgeons. Then it's just a matter of time until some politician sees votes in it - and you have a new Political Correctness protecting the Rights of yet another Downtrodden Minority.


----------



## Tisme (26 October 2015)

Here you go Pixel ... it's all your to do as you wish:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0230762/awards


----------



## Tink (27 October 2015)

When a man in a frock is considered as “Woman of the Year”, just wrong in my view, and Germaine Greer is considered as conservative, because she is saying BIOLOGY is important -- then you have to wonder where these universities are heading.

Agree with your post, Craton.


----------



## Tisme (27 October 2015)

Tink said:


> When a man in a frock is considered as “Woman of the Year”, just wrong in my view, and Germaine Greer is considered as conservative, because she is saying BIOLOGY is important -- then you have to wonder where these universities are heading.
> 
> Agree with your post, Craton.




You think it lampoons women?


----------



## Logique (30 December 2015)

> Why do bystanders struggle to do the right thing when they see violence against women?
> December 29, 2015 - Catharine Lumby
> SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-d...inst-women-20151229-glw9ei.html#ixzz3vk6t41HB




The moral of the story being, Air France, don't seat Catharine Lumby next to a 'large gentleman'. _"..he was angry to be seated next to a woman.."_ says Lumby. I think we know who was angry Catharine. 

Lumby, an academic, gets paid to teach this stuff to corporate groups (or used to).  But apparently it was too much trouble for her to just move to one of the vacant seats, daring the Air France cabin staff to remove her. 

Playing the victim, it's always somebody else's fault.


----------



## Tisme (30 December 2015)

Logique said:


> The moral of the story being, Air France, don't seat Catharine Lumby next to a 'large gentleman'. _"..he was angry to be seated next to a woman.."_ says Lumby. I think we know who was angry Catharine.
> 
> Lumby, an academic, gets paid to teach this stuff to corporate groups (or used to).  But apparently it was too much trouble for her to get up, and just move to one of the vacant seats, daring the Air France cabin staff to remove her.
> 
> Playing the victim, it's always somebody else's fault.




She does segue quickly into a man yelling abuse equating to physical abuse. Then advocates other passengers do something, presumably physical, to teach him a lesson.  I'd like to know why someone would yell out in the first place and why she didn't demand the federal police do something the other end?


----------



## Craton (30 December 2015)

Tink said:


> Agree with your post, Craton.




Ow, I missed this so late reply, thank you Tink.


Re: 







> Why do bystanders struggle to do the right thing when they see violence against women?
> December 29, 2015 - Catharine Lumby
> SMH: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/why-do...#ixzz3vk6t41HB




Not enough info to comment on that specific incident however it's violence in general me thinks. Being born and raised in the bush then spending a decade in the big smoke one thing was blatantly apparent and that is, how we interact with one another.

The city seems to breed a culture where eye contact is a no-no, a g'day is hardly acknowledged and forget about lending assistance even when it is asked for. Having said that, it is also apparent that there is a fair majority of us that practice the fine art of "...it's not my problem." and "...don't want to get involved." but geez we're quick to get the phone camera out though eh!

Sad really....


----------



## SirRumpole (30 December 2015)

Tisme said:


> You think it lampoons women?
> 
> View attachment 64784




That's close to the ugliest chick I've ever seen.

What an absolute crock of an award.


----------



## Tisme (4 January 2016)

I'm starting to warm to Peter 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-04/dutton-apologises-after-sending-text/7065546


----------



## Tink (12 May 2016)

No, I don't consider him a woman.
He is a man.

Just as this is a man -
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...tart-new-life-as-a-six-year-old-a6769051.html

Just as this is a man -
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/a...mat-Medusa-ears-nose-removed-dragon-lady.html

_You have the right to mutilate your body all you like, you do not have the right to demand that I go along with it._

---------------------------------------------------

Germaine Greer comes under fire for controversial transgender comments

_"If you're a 50-year-old truck driver who's had four children with a wife and you've decided that the whole time you've been a woman, I think you're probably wrong."_

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...r-controversial-transgender-comments-Q-A.html

-----------------------------------------------------

_Chaos in Australian Education 

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=25851&page=6_


----------



## Tisme (12 May 2016)

Tink, you are allowing common sense get in the way of progress. Your views are sooo 20th century !


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2016)

I'll agree with Germaine.

How many men would want to have an affair/marriage with a transgender ? They are not the same as naturally born women. But, if they want to identify as women that's ok by me, just don't expect me to think of them as one.


----------



## pixel (12 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> I'll agree with Germaine.
> 
> How many men would want to have an affair/marriage with a transgender ? They are not the same as naturally born women. But, if they want to identify as women that's ok by me, just don't expect me to think of them as one.




Rumpy: That, too, is 20th century thinking.
The Political Correctness of the 21st Century demands that you submit to the Thought Control and adapt every "New Idea" pushed by a vocal minority through Social Media and spread by complicit Media. Never mind that the speed with which new fads come could nauseate you: If you want to stay "in", buy all the opinion-making magazines and keep informed about the Kardashians, Jenners, Greens. 

It's too late for us old fuddy-duddies to be adjusted. But the New Gospel can be trotted out into Pre- and Primary Schools to bring the kids into line, keep their minds flexible enough to "beliebe" and consume.


----------



## Logique (12 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> You think it lampoons women?
> View attachment 64784



However that individual gender 'identifies', there'll be some freaked out co-patrons at the amenities block!


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2016)

pixel said:


> Rumpy: That, too, is 20th century thinking.
> The Political Correctness of the 21st Century demands that you submit to the Thought Control and adapt every "New Idea" pushed by a vocal minority through Social Media and spread by complicit Media. Never mind that the speed with which new fads come could nauseate you: If you want to stay "in", buy all the opinion-making magazines and keep informed about the Kardashians, Jenners, Greens.
> 
> It's too late for us old fuddy-duddies to be adjusted. But the New Gospel can be trotted out into Pre- and Primary Schools to bring the kids into line, keep their minds flexible enough to "beliebe" and consume.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-12/gayby-baby-makers-launch-education-school-toolkit/7406772


----------



## pixel (12 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-12/gayby-baby-makers-launch-education-school-toolkit/7406772




that's precisely my point.
... and my biggest bug bear.

If being gay or hetero suits you, I don't hold it against you. We can find enough topics to have meaningful and friendly conversations. But I object to constantly having your sexual otherness shoved down my throat as if it were now compulsory. You still belong to a minority, so don't try and claim otherwise.

If you're a tranny and only want to talk about your feelings, I'm sorry, but we don't have much in common. So I'm not interested. Get over it and look for someone else to socialise.

If ever we meet at a concert, political rally, or friends' BBQ, I'll accept you as a human being and treat you with the respect you afford me and any others. Unless I want to get laid - and rest assured, I'm so over it! - your sexual orientation is totally irrelevant.


----------



## Value Collector (12 May 2016)

pixel said:


> If you're a tranny and only want to talk about your feelings, I'm sorry, but we don't have much in common. So I'm not interested. Get over it and look for someone else to socialise.
> 
> .




lol, I think they just want to be treated as you would treat any one else, They aren't generally asking for special consideration, just the right to live as any other person of their gender lives.


----------



## bellenuit (12 May 2016)

Value Collector said:


> lol, I think they just want to be treated as you would treat any one else, They aren't generally asking for special consideration, just the right to live as any other person of their gender lives.




Not wanting to go too far off topic but this is something I read in Scientific American today that is relevant to transgender issues.

*The Spectrum of Sex Development: Eric Vilain and the Intersex Controversy*

http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ent-eric-vilain-and-the-intersex-controversy/


----------



## SirRumpole (12 May 2016)

Kids shouldn't be operated on for gender issues , they can make up their own minds later.


----------



## pixel (12 May 2016)

bellenuit said:


> Not wanting to go too far off topic but this is something I read in Scientific American today that is relevant to transgender issues.
> 
> *The Spectrum of Sex Development: Eric Vilain and the Intersex Controversy*
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ent-eric-vilain-and-the-intersex-controversy/




Belle and VC;
We're getting way off-track when we drag medical and psychological issues into the debate. It may be - loosely - related to feminism, but that was not at all part of my previous post.

The key word in the sentence you pulled out of my reply is "*only*". Maybe I should've bolded it.
I made it quite clear, and repeat: When there is common ground for social contact and mutual interests, I certainly treat everybody the same: friendly and with respect. Whether someone is convex or concave matters only on those rare occasions when two (or more) like-minded people "need a room".


----------



## Value Collector (12 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> Kids shouldn't be operated on for gender issues , they can make up their own minds later.




They aren't operating, they are just giving her a drug that will delay male puberty Which would be devastating for a young girl, later than can give her the female hormones, which will make her develop as a woman would.


----------



## Tink (13 May 2016)

_....they are just giving her a drug...._

Yes, using children as guinea pigs.

Let children enjoy their childhood rather than all this gender talk of who they would like to be.

I also have to question, who in their right mind would disfigure another human being as I posted above.


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2016)

bellenuit said:


> Not wanting to go too far off topic but this is something I read in Scientific American today that is relevant to transgender issues.
> 
> *The Spectrum of Sex Development: Eric Vilain and the Intersex Controversy*
> 
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/a...ent-eric-vilain-and-the-intersex-controversy/




The usual unscientific article associated with  social engineering relying on verbs like helped, made up often frequency of supposedly insensitive cliches few have ever heard of, pooh poohing the idea that there are only two sexes (which I thought was the natural basis for reproduction), etc.

It's just a piece that rails against the presupposed ignorance of those that know better.


----------



## pixel (13 May 2016)

60-70 years ago, if a student tried to write with their left hand, teacher would smack the "bad hand" with the cane or ruler and force the "southpaw" to "do it right".
We've come a long way since then.

If parents and teachers stopped making a fuss about childish issues, taught and treated every child as a child, there won't be any need to drug so many youngsters, operate on them, or have a Shrink mess with their "gender identification". In many non-English languages, a child is an "it". No need to expose every child to the possibility that some of their class mates may be uncertain - as yet - about their gender.

But I guess it's keeping a whole bunch of shrinks and pharmacists employed.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 May 2016)

pixel said:


> 60-70 years ago, if a student tried to write with their left hand, teacher would smack the "bad hand" with the cane or ruler and force the "southpaw" to "do it right".
> We've come a long way since then.
> 
> If parents and teachers stopped making a fuss about childish issues, taught and treated every child as a child, there won't be any need to drug so many youngsters, operate on them, or have a Shrink mess with their "gender identification". In many non-English languages, a child is an "it". No need to expose every child to the possibility that some of their class mates may be uncertain - as yet - about their gender.
> ...




The thing that I loath is that children are being used as foot soldiers to push minority agendas, by the gay lobby in particular in respect to gay parenting, using bullying as a cover.

Sure bullying must be eliminated but it's not just gays that get bullied, in my day it was kids with glasses or those not good at sport, but I didn't see the shortsighted police at my school.


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The thing that I loath is that children are being used as foot soldiers to push minority agendas, by the gay lobby in particular in respect to gay parenting, using bullying as a cover.
> 
> Sure bullying must be eliminated but it's not just gays that get bullied, in my day it was kids with glasses or those not good at sport, but I didn't see the shortsighted police at my school.




the fat kid, who would be thin by today's obese standards


----------



## Value Collector (13 May 2016)

Tink said:


> _....they are just giving her a drug...._
> 
> Yes, using children as guinea pigs.
> 
> ...




off topic so I won't draw this out.

But do understand how devastating it would be for a little girl to start growing a beard and turning into a man?

I can't see a problem with delaying puberty with a drug, its completely reversible, puberty is not.


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2016)

Could always move to Sicily


----------



## Tink (14 May 2016)

_As was mentioned in the multicultural thread -_

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/f...=20836&page=14&p=903978&viewfull=1#post903978


----------



## Logique (22 May 2016)

Ah, the Huffington Post, a hub of staff hiring diversity:


> WHITER THAN MEDIA WATCH- Sunday, May 22, 2016
> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...lytelegraph/comments/whiter_than_media_watch/
> 
> At the *Huffington Post*, they love to talk about *diversity*.
> ...



http://twitter.com/lheron/status/733758898855940098


----------



## Logique (17 June 2016)

"..she immediately knew it was wrong it was a completely repulsive act". Oh that makes it alright then. And a bloke would have got off on the same defence.

Spit away girls. Be as "completely repulsive" as you like. Just be "instantaneously remorseful".





> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...ilytelegraph/comments/nick_off1/#commentsmore
> 
> *No conviction* for little Miss Minus:
> 
> ...


----------



## Tisme (25 October 2017)

With the ALP pretty much a shoe in at the next election and the unsavoury aspect of having the man hating Wong and Plebersik tag team in control of the agenda I was rather intrigued by a random article by some woman who's probably made her mark by crawling over the backs of male ingenuity and industry.

In this article Georgina Dent pats herself endlessly on her own back for being able to not play the man, literally the man. Now I don't know if this is a triumph for equal rights, but it seems to me that men have by and large rarely played the insult game with woman and don't tend to parade themselves as special in news columns for being polite.

The article is really a self congratulatory biased  piece, ageist overtones and dismissive of men having any redeeming features in general = Tanya and Penny personify this attitude.




> It is something I think about often but particularly when a comment, that I wholeheartedly oppose, is made in a public forum. In that instance I try to play the point not the person. Of course I’m sure some people will disagree but I did the same when Tony Abbott referred to a candidate’s sex appeal. Instead of just throwing insults at him I tried to explain why his comments were inappropriate and damaging.
> 
> I don’t tread carefully to placate anyone but because I want to make it as difficult as possible for anyone to dismiss my perspective as the rantings of another angry man hating feminist. I realise I won’t always succeed but also I’m not sure whether just getting angry at the person would always succeed either.




https://womensagenda.com.au/latest/...bersek-s-leadership-potential-is-not-excused/


----------



## SirRumpole (25 October 2017)

Tisme said:


> The article is really a self congratulatory biased piece, ageist overtones and dismissive of men having any redeeming features in general = Tanya and Penny personify this attitude.




Nothing seems to be said about Jacquie Lambie and her nymphomaniac desires for "a man with a packet".


----------



## Tisme (25 October 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Nothing seems to be said about Jacquie Lambie and her nymphomaniac desires for "a man with a packet".





That's because real men, who don't involve themselves in or defend counter culture movements, aren't easily indoctrinated into believing they have special insult sensors. 

Sure there are the few males bleeding out into the whimpy boys classroom, but do we care.....nup.


----------



## Tisme (25 January 2018)

All too familiar:


----------



## dutchie (25 January 2018)

This was (Dr.) Jordon Peterson at his best. He was totally brilliant in this interview. Cathy Newman put so many of her words in Jordan's mouth, he corrected her with calm reason, intelligence and self-discipline that actually enabled him to present his case clearly, confidently, and concisely. 

Watch the original here. Well worth watching and a lesson on how to handle a provocative/aggressive feminist.

3,666,871 views

Well worth watching videos by Jordon Peterson.


----------



## SirRumpole (25 January 2018)

One up for the blokes ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-25/gentleman-ladies-guide-proper-bathroom-etiquette/9357034


----------



## Tisme (25 January 2018)

dutchie said:


> This was (Dr.) Jordon Peterson at his best. He was totally brilliant in this interview. Cathy Newman put so many of her words in Jordan's mouth, he corrected her with calm reason, intelligence and self-discipline that actually enabled him to present his case clearly, confidently, and concisely.
> 
> Watch the original here. Well worth watching and a lesson on how to handle a provocative/aggressive feminist.
> 
> ...





And they wonder why women are dismissed when these discussions take place. She reminds me of my siblings who always used gender for their own lack of talent in various spheres.

Where's a SJW when you need one!!!


----------



## dutchie (25 January 2018)

After watching the above video
all non-fascists, non-antifas, non left wing, non ABC loving, non MSM 
i.e. most ordinary and sensible people should watch this...


----------



## Tisme (25 January 2018)




----------



## Tisme (6 March 2018)

Sensitive deconstruction of the various reasons women find feminism:


----------



## Tisme (13 March 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Interesting article on the persecution of boys in the DV debate




 I think it's about time you got with the program...how fun would this be. I'm thinking of getting a pink jumper and wear it over shoulder with loose knot,




> *How to Be a Feminist As a Man*
> Three Parts:Reading Up on Feminist IssuesHaving Supportive Discussions with FeministsDisplaying Feminist Behavior in Your Relationships with WomenCommunity Q&A
> 
> The feminist movement focuses on the need for action to achieve equality of the sexes and other gender identities.[1] If you are a heterosexual man, you may find it difficult to support the women around you and your female romantic partners. As feminism continues to evolve and become more mainstream, many men are identifying as feminists and are taking the necessary steps to act as allies for women in their day-to-day lives.[2]
> ...


----------



## Logique (15 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> I think it's about time you got with the program...how fun would this be. I'm thinking of getting a pink jumper and wear it over shoulder with loose knot,



The material is a little concerning, as it contains ideas that are easily 30 years out of date. Feminism has matured and moved on, as women's rights have grown. This sort of language seems divisive, and isn't helpful:







> https://www.wikihow.com/Be-a-Feminist-As-a-Man
> ...As a result of the patriarchal system, individuals who are not heterosexual men (including women) are discriminated against or are not given fair treatment.[4]
> ...This means that as a man, you are entitled to higher wages than women... and have access to financial and social support that is not extended to women.  Because you benefit from male privilege as a man, it is important that you acknowledge this privilege in your discussions with feminists.[8]...


----------



## moXJO (15 March 2018)

Tisme said:


> I think it's about time you got with the program...how fun would this be. I'm thinking of getting a pink jumper and wear it over shoulder with loose knot,



Don't forget to cap that with a miniature white poodle, thats fed on an all vegan diet.
See you at the cafe for a soy latte,  where we can discuss intersectional feminism.


----------



## moXJO (15 March 2018)




----------



## Tisme (16 March 2018)

moXJO said:


>





One of the reasons many coppers in the USofA are man mountains

Fairly obvious the problem there is that someone forgot to tell the perp that he must quota his aggression based on the gender of the coppers. Someone f$%ked up royally not explaining that to him when they let him in.


----------



## Tisme (5 June 2018)

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...s/news-story/44137b74c67ab4a3da2828ba3806dab6

Of course there's Clementine Ford and ABC presenter in the mix


> *Meanjin’s #MeToo snafu: journal editor apologises, contributors donate fees*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## moXJO (6 June 2018)

Tisme said:


> https://www.theaustralian.com.au/ne...s/news-story/44137b74c67ab4a3da2828ba3806dab6
> 
> Of course there's Clementine Ford and ABC presenter in the mix



This is one in a long list of examples of feminists being for white female power over equality.


----------



## moXJO (12 June 2018)

Haha.... feminists. 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.25997f2a287a

I like their comment rules:

*What type of posts should I avoid?*
*Partisan stereotypes or generalizations.*

The best comments avoid generalizing groups of people. Comments stating “all conservatives” or “all liberals” do little to provide thoughtful conversations about the issues at hand.

Of course, this rule applies to areas outside of politics. We don’t allow comments that degrade others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, political beliefs, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability or other classifications.


----------



## Tisme (13 June 2018)

moXJO said:


> Haha.... feminists.
> 
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...ory.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.25997f2a287a
> 
> ...




Well it's those women who are perpetuating the vermin by having males babies. They're the ones who have to have gala weddings celebrating the union of an ar5ehole and a women, even putting on a uniform in the shape of a white dress. They're the ones who compete and crush other women in competition for the alpha dickhed using deception, lipstick, bling, dress and the implicit promise of some jigagig as their lures.

Ever watch a clutch of women having a gathering and you see assassin like smiles lipping banal, double speak, subterfuge and combativeness, all served with an after party quantity of back stabbing, white anting and impudence. The best a male does is just tell his mates that buggerlugs is a vvanker. 

I believe it's this highly competitive nature of females to be number one women in a male's focus, that the primary reason they (femmes de force)  have built rules of engagement is to control the chaos of the mating game and spitefully relegate the status of men in the process. The secondary issues to them, which should be primary ones, is personal development, wealth opportunity, safety, esteem, etc


----------



## SirRumpole (13 June 2018)

Merit is code for status quo when appointing board members according to the ABC.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-13/gender-double-standard-in-corporate-australia/9861516


----------



## Tisme (13 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Merit is code for status quo when appointing board members according to the ABC.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-13/gender-double-standard-in-corporate-australia/9861516




They just don't get it do they.


----------



## PZ99 (14 June 2018)

Feminism has been around since Adam was a girl


----------



## Tisme (14 June 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Feminism has been around since Adam was a girl


----------



## SirRumpole (18 June 2018)

Just wondering if feminism may be partly responsible for some horrendous murders of women in lonely places.

All this talk about "women should be able to go wherever they want" seems like false bravado to me. 

There are ratbags out there who prey on lone women and the police can't be everywhere, so should the feminists get real about the dangers ?

I'm sure there are lots of men who would volunteer to see a lady safely home, but then the feminists stick there noses in and screech "we don't need men, we can protect ourselves".

The fems are doing more harm than good imo.


----------



## Tisme (18 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Just wondering if feminism may be partly responsible for some horrendous murders of women in lonely places.
> 
> All this talk about "women should be able to go wherever they want" seems like false bravado to me.
> 
> ...




Naive if you ask me. A women alone thinking she is safe on dark streets is immediately betting her welfare and life on there not being a predator on the lookout for a victim.


----------



## basilio (18 June 2018)

I was wondering when the rape and murder of Euridice Dixon was going to be mentioned on ASF.  Very , very sad,  to see it used to beat up feminism. 

How has this tragedy affected women? What should we be doing ?

* Women respond to Eurydice Dixon murder: 'We all have a right to walk home safely' *
Six women reflect on the death of a talented Melbourne comedian as she walked home late at night

Jane Caro, Nayuka Gorrie, Freya Logan, Kripa Krithivasan, Rebecca Cameron, Ingrid Smith

Fri 15 Jun 2018 09.20 BST   First published on Fri 15 Jun 2018 08.07 BST





‘Another young woman, bursting with potential, on the brink of her adult life, going about her business killed by a man who regarded her as an object.’ Photograph: Julian Smith/AAP
Eurydice Dixon was a young comedian, who is remembered as a talented performer and “remarkable” young woman with a bright future. She walked home after performing a comedy gig on Tuesday night. Her body was found on Wednesday morning in Melbourne’s Princes Park, and Jaymes Todd, 19, has since been charged with her rape and murder.

Her death has prompted women across the country to talk about victim blaming, moving around their cities at night and being sick of having to live in fear.






*‘We need men of goodwill to demand respect for women’*
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/15/we-all-have-a-right-to-walk-home-safely


----------



## SirRumpole (18 June 2018)

basilio said:


> I was wondering when the rape and murder of Euridice Dixon was going to be mentioned on ASF. Very , very sad, to see it used to beat up feminism.




You're an idealist bas, but the reality is out there and can't be dismissed with the wave of a hand and trite statements like "men should change their behaviour" as if all men are at fault.

A large number of these assailants would no doubt have mental health issues and changing their behaviour is impossible because they have no control over it in the first place.

Everyone has a right to be free of crime, but we just aren't, that's the reality. Society has to start looking after each other, the feminists want it divided into men v women.


----------



## basilio (18 June 2018)

So perhaps Rumpy instead of trite comments like "men should change their behaviour " we should say something really intelligent like

" Women shouldn't walk in dark places. "  or " Don't trust men you don't know " or perhaps " Be careful about men you do know (because in fact women are most likely to be abused/bashed/raped by men they know ".  Any other thoughts ?

A friend and colleague has been in tears since the murder of Euridice. He taught her in primary school. He later gave her private tuition as an artist. Her family, friends, colleagues are devestated. If you chose to read the story from The Guardian you  might have recognised a womens persepective.

To dismiss these attackers as people with "mental issues" is another cop out. It ignores the "normal" attackers. The Harvey Weinsteins, the guys who use Ropynal to stupify and rape women. It ignores the "alpha males" who lord about being as rude, crude and sexist as they can get away with and daring anyway to pull them up.

Alpha males ? Just absolute xxxxing tossers.

The stories of women in The Guardian story bear a read. Check them out.
*How dare we exist in spaces at night?’*
*‘There are demons in the dark’*
*‘Trust us when we tell you that the fear is real’
‘I am permanently vigilant’
‘There’s creeps everywhere you go

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/jun/15/we-all-have-a-right-to-walk-home-safely
*
And if you are interested in the bigger picture of reducing aggression between men and women this site is good value.

       CHANGE  the  STORY

A shared framework for the primary
prevention of violence against women
and their children in Australia

https://www.ourwatch.org.au/getmedi...event-violence-women-children-AA-new.pdf.aspx


----------



## SirRumpole (18 June 2018)

basilio said:


> " Women shouldn't walk in dark places. " or " Don't trust men you don't know " or perhaps " Be careful about men you do know (because in fact women are most likely to be abused/bashed/raped by men they know ".




That would be sensible advice that I would give to a daughter.


----------



## Darc Knight (18 June 2018)

Who was the other Woman raped and Murdered in Melbourne by that psychopath Bailey now serving Life? He stated that when he met her that night that she would be nice then psychologically abusive to him. That psychological abuse and her somewhat provocative dress (short skirt) were enough to  provoke an already unstable person to do such an horrendous thing. Yes, I know he may be lying. But, from my experience Feminists are very good at psychological abuse which can be enough to tip extreme people.

"We all have the right to walk home safely". What a load of sheet!!! I lived in constant fear as a Child. That's why I, along with most other Males, did weights, Martial Arts and Boxing.


----------



## moXJO (18 June 2018)

Women generally  raise men from birth onwards. The school system then takes over and thats female dominant.
So those crucial years women have a massive influence. It's not like women don't have the opportunity to change behavior. If anything they cause a lot of it.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 June 2018)

moXJO said:


> Women generally  raise men from birth onwards. The school system then takes over and thats female dominant.
> So those crucial years women have a massive influence. It's not like women don't have the opportunity to change behavior. If anything they cause a lot of it.




Yes, lack of good male role models in schools could be part of the problem.


----------



## basilio (18 June 2018)

moXJO said:


> Women generally  raise men from birth onwards. The school system then takes over and thats female dominant.
> So those crucial years women have a massive influence. It's not like women don't have the opportunity to change behavior. If anything they cause a lot of it.






Darc Knight said:


> Who was the other Woman raped and Murdered in Melbourne by that psychopath Bailey now serving Life? He stated that when he met her that night that she would be nice then psychologically abusive to him. That psychological abuse and her somewhat provocative dress (short skirt) were enough to provoke an already unstable person to do such an horrendous thing. Yes, I know he may be lying. But, from my experience Feminists are very good at psychological abuse which can be enough to tip extreme people.




Well this takes us into another rabbit warren doesn't it ? From these comments are we suggesting that "feminists" in particular and women generally are the root  cause of mens bad behaviour ? 

We just finished a Royal Commission into Child sexual abuse in institutions. Thousands of children were abused in Churches, schools, orphanages, childrens homes in fact every institution  it seems in Australia.

Were these abuses the result of "feminists" in particular and/or women in general as well ?


----------



## moXJO (18 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Well this takes us into another rabbit warren doesn't it ? From these comments are we suggesting that "feminists" in particular and women generally are the root  cause of mens bad behaviour ?
> 
> We just finished a Royal Commission into Child sexual abuse in institutions. Thousands of children were abused in Churches, schools, orphanages, childrens homes in fact every institution  it seems in Australia.
> 
> Were these abuses the result of "feminists" in particular and/or women in general as well ?



The complaint that men need to change. Despite the fact women raise them and have plenty of time to modify young mens behavior. So whats going on?
Its not all on men. Women need to come to the table as well. 

Bad parenting doesn't help and bad fathering more so. 

 I think the majority of 3rd wave feminists are fckwits by the way. I'm for equality,  but thats not what they are selling.


----------



## Tisme (18 June 2018)

basilio said:


> I was wondering when the rape and murder of Euridice Dixon was going to be mentioned on ASF.  Very , very sad,  to see it used to beat up feminism.
> 
> How has this tragedy affected women? What should we be doing ?
> 
> ...




FFS another opportunity to glorify yourself.


----------



## basilio (18 June 2018)

Tisme said:


> FFS another opportunity to glorify yourself.



Tosser..

Perhaps it would have just been gracious to  acknowledge the horror of Eurydice death rather than suggesting that  feminism in particular and women in general were somehow responsible for her rape and murder.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Perhaps it would have just been gracious to acknowledge the horror of Eurydice death rather than suggesting that feminism in particular and women in general were somehow responsible for her rape and murder.




It's a too complex a problem to say anything one thing is wholly responsible. There's a lot of misogyny going around from shock jocks,  police,  army louts , and a certain religious minority that definitely has an impact as well imo.


----------



## Tisme (18 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Tosser..
> 
> Perhaps it would have just been gracious to  acknowledge the horror of Eurydice death rather than suggesting that  feminism in particular and women in general were somehow responsible for her rape and murder.




See this is the problem you and macca diminish others to  puff out your chests. You are nasty individuals who hate and I mean hate.  You crawl over others misery to inflate your own self worth byu implying common sense is an evil concept.

Next argument will be that I'm a rapist because I don't agree that women should put their way in harms way.

When was the last time you sent your daughter out in the night to prove a point, to be sacrificed for your utopian ideal?

I had enough of you when you  started running off complaining about your precious feelings being hurt, even though it is you with the vitriol and viscious insults/ Don't crawl over my posts to make out you are the guardian of truth, just admit both of you are cowards and move on.


----------



## Tink (19 June 2018)

_Postmodernism, Marxism & PC, modern ideological poison
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/t...ism-pc-modern-ideological-poison.33852/page-4_


----------



## basilio (19 June 2018)

The Gospel of Women according to Tisme.


Tisme said:


> Well it's those women who are perpetuating the vermin by having males babies. They're the ones who have to have gala weddings celebrating the union of an ar5ehole and a women, even putting on a uniform in the shape of a white dress. They're the ones who compete and crush other women in competition for the alpha dickhed using deception, lipstick, bling, dress and the implicit promise of some jigagig as their lures.
> 
> Ever watch a clutch of women having a gathering and you see assassin like smiles lipping banal, double speak, subterfuge and combativeness, all served with an after party quantity of back stabbing, white anting and impudence. The best a male does is just tell his mates that buggerlugs is a vvanker.
> 
> I believe it's this highly competitive nature of females to be number one women in a male's focus, that the primary reason they (femmes de force) have built rules of engagement is to control the chaos of the mating game and spitefully relegate the status of men in the process. The secondary issues to them, which should be primary ones, is personal development, wealth opportunity, safety, esteem, etc




I think it's a bit rich. Tisme offers some of the most offensive observations about women as per one of his gospel pieces above.  They are posted as part of his "Chief tosser" role on ASF.

And then.. he is concerned about me trawling through his  nasty little comments and reminding us what he says.


----------



## macca (19 June 2018)

Tisme said:


> See this is the problem you and macca diminish others to  puff out your chests. You are nasty individuals who hate and I mean hate. .




How did I get a mention ? I have been away for months and haven't posted in that time.

For what it is worth, there are plenty of places that neither male or female should be walking around alone at midnight if they are prudent.

I know of many places that I wouldn't walk alone that late at night.


----------



## moXJO (19 June 2018)

basilio said:


> The Gospel of Women according to Tisme.
> 
> 
> I think it's a bit rich. Tisme offers some of the most offensive observations about women as per one of his gospel pieces above.  They are posted as part of his "Chief tosser" role on ASF.
> ...



And with that lets move on.


----------



## Darc Knight (19 June 2018)

I don't know any Men who abuse Women. But I do know Men who are just as bad as their Partners when it comes to being nasty, but generally the Woman always wins. I do know one big Bloke who took out a DVO against his GF. This particular Women scares every bloke I know lol.

Generally speaking, we live in a Female dominant society now IMO. Extreme cases like these tragic murders etc are "outliers" which just give the Feminists more opportunities to scream and shout and keep their heels well and truly on Men's throats in everyday situations.


----------



## fiftyeight (19 June 2018)

If extreme feminism and extreme masculinity p!ss me off equally, can I be an extreme 'good PERSON'?


----------



## SirRumpole (19 June 2018)

fiftyeight said:


> If extreme feminism and extreme masculinity p!ss me off equally, can I be an extreme 'good PERSON'?




I hope that is what most of us are.


----------



## fiftyeight (19 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I hope that is what most of us are.




 Of course we are!!!!!


----------



## wayneL (20 June 2018)

Oh good God, more pathetic virtue signalling.

Men of good well don't rape or murder women, basilio. And all the bleating from men of goodwill, soy boys et al, is not going to stop the deranged, pathological and culturally incongruent  from doing so.


----------



## basilio (20 June 2018)

*How would you feel being followed by a 7' 7" gorilla late at night in a dark street ?*
Ideas on how people of good will could protect  people from "tossers" of all sorts

*After Eurydice, what should men do?*
Send via Email

I get off the train in the darkness, and see a woman. She is smaller than me. Most are. She strides with purpose – upright, head on a swivel – seemingly alone, with only her “situational awareness” for company.

She would have seen me, too. I’m the big stranger behind her, leaning into the wind, dressed all in black – boots, hat, coat, with a beard.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/na...ydice-what-should-men-do-20180619-p4zmfk.html


----------



## SirRumpole (20 June 2018)

basilio said:


> *How would you feel being followed by a 7' 7" gorilla late at night in a dark street ?*
> Ideas on how people of good will could protect  people from "tossers" of all sorts
> 
> *After Eurydice, what should men do?*
> ...




I'm no gorilla, but I think that if a woman seemed worried about me walking behind her, I'd simply overtake her and walk on.

What would you do bas ?


----------



## basilio (20 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I'm no gorilla, but I think that if a woman seemed worried about me walking behind her, I'd simply overtake her and walk on.
> 
> What would you do bas ?




Did you read the story Rumpy ? It discussed the question and came up with a few useful ideas. It also included other ways of supporting people (without getting killed yourself) who are being harassed in public.

s


----------



## SirRumpole (20 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Did you read the story Rumpy ? It discussed the question and came up with a few useful ideas. It also included other ways of supporting people (without getting killed yourself) who are being harassed in public.
> 
> s




I did read it bas, and this is good advice.



> Tonight I use another trick, crossing the street then walking in parallel until I’m well in front, but clearly in sight, where this girl can assess the threat from afar - regarding me like one might regard an animal through a long lens scope.




Seems fairly similar to my own hypothetical actions.


----------



## Tisme (20 June 2018)

macca said:


> How did I get a mention ? I have been away for months and haven't posted in that time.
> 
> For what it is worth, there are plenty of places that neither male or female should be walking around alone at midnight if they are prudent.
> 
> I know of many places that I wouldn't walk alone that late at night.




LOL my apologies, I was slang matching another member who arcs up about stupid stuff.

Of course you are right, even males shouldn't walk alone at night in risk situations


----------



## Tisme (20 June 2018)

basilio said:


> The Gospel of Women according to Tisme.
> 
> 
> I think it's a bit rich. Tisme offers some of the most offensive observations about women as per one of his gospel pieces above.  They are posted as part of his "Chief tosser" role on ASF.
> ...




Hang on, I just have to grab another tissue .... my eyes are a torrent from the laughter.

For an educator I suspect someone's  lack of comprehension was a major cause for concern amongst someone's peers? Of course the longer you associate with a group the more you take on their personality and maturity ....just saying.


----------



## basilio (20 June 2018)

Tisme said:


> Hang on, I just have to grab another tissue .... my eyes are a torrent from the laughter.
> 
> For an educator I suspect someone's  lack of comprehension was a major cause for concern amongst someone's peers? Of course the longer you associate with a group the more you take on their personality and maturity ....just saying.




Your right Tisme.  It is a joke. You are a joke. There is nothing to misunderstand about you Tizzie. Your nasty drivel spells it out in spades.

And  in the end too much of a tosser to work out when to shut up.


----------



## Tisme (20 June 2018)

Pat Robertson:

https://www.nytimes.com/1992/08/26/us/robertson-letter-attacks-feminists.html



> ..............described the proposal as part of a "feminist agenda" that "is not about equal rights for women." Claims of 'Anti-Family'
> 
> Instead, the letter said, "it is about a socialist, anti-family political movement that encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become lesbians."...........


----------



## Tisme (20 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Your right Tisme.  yadda, yadda, ......tosser




Tossers:


----------



## SirRumpole (21 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Your right Tisme.  It is a joke. You are a joke. There is nothing to misunderstand about you Tizzie. Your nasty drivel spells it out in spades.
> 
> And  in the end too much of a tosser to work out when to shut up.




From long experience on other forums I know that Tisme is no misogynist. 

I just think that both he and I don't like the distrust engendered between men and women by the radical feminists who want to turn nasty incidents like sexual harassment , rape and murder into gender wars where all men are evil and must be avoided or suspected instead of being turned to for help and support.

The male's natural role is to protect women, but the demonisation of men by the feminazis has turned women against us and has confused men into inaction for fear of being accused of paternalism or some other confected evil.

Men and women need to work together to solve the violence against women problem, a fact which is being recognised by the moderate feminists for whom I have a lot more respect for than the Clementine Ford's of the world.


----------



## Tisme (21 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> From long experience on other forums I know that Tisme is no misogynist.




Thanx for that. You also know I'm not one to resort to the kind of invective thrown at me by posters who refuse to accept they themselves display a paternal misogyny by playing unsolicited protector of the "weaker" sex. Their words actually ingrain the notion of second tier status based on pinky bits.

Who was the first in Oz to employ an all female team in a male dominated industry.....me. Who is it who sheltered, fed and watered children whose parents were too busy failing in their jobs, me. Who was it who opened his house up to asians, muslims, blacks, et al as a safe haven, me. Who paid the mortgage payments of struggling families to keep a roof over their head, me. Who put otherwise forgotten young adults through uni, me. Who never asked for anything in return, me.

My conscience is clear. What can those who want a piece of me bring to the table, except abuse and personal insults. Deeds not words make the man.


----------



## basilio (22 June 2018)

Tisme said:


> Thanx for that. You also know I'm not one to resort to the kind of invective thrown at me by posters who refuse to accept they themselves display a paternal misogyny by playing unsolicited protector of the "weaker" sex. Their words actually ingrain the notion of second tier status based on pinky bits.
> 
> Who was the first in Oz to employ an all female team in a male dominated industry.....me. Who is it who sheltered, fed and watered children whose parents were too busy failing in their jobs, me. Who was it who opened his house up to asians, muslims, blacks, et al as a safe haven, me. Who paid the mortgage payments of struggling families to keep a roof over their head, me. Who put otherwise forgotten young adults through uni, me. Who never asked for anything in return, me.
> 
> My conscience is clear. What can those who want a piece of me bring to the table, except abuse and personal insults. Deeds not words make the man.




There you are.  A paragon of real virtue and truly a* saint *amongst men. 

No way am I going to  disparage the mighty range of good works you say you have done Tisme.  Your telling your story whichever way you want.

But that makes it even more puzzling to read and re read the nasty investive you continually use on this forum on the topics of Muslims, abuse of women and the behaviour of women overall.  In particular  your treatment of any efforts to question issues like the Harvey Weinsten abuse and the fallout from that 
situation were wierd. 

But maybe that's the sort of cat you are.

(PS Perhaps its time to take a another look at the Gospels of St Tisme as writ on ASF)


----------



## basilio (22 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I just think that both he and I don't like the distrust engendered between men and women by the radical feminists who want to turn nasty incidents like sexual harassment , rape and murder into gender wars where all men are evil and must be avoided or suspected instead of being turned to for help and support.




I think that is waaaayy overstating what the conversation has been about responding to incidents like the death of Euridice Dixon. If anything the discussions I have read from women have been quite strong on looking to men for assistance in changing aggressive/boorish behaviours that are disrespectful.

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/drive/gen-on-eurydice/9875732


----------



## wayneL (22 June 2018)

Here's the thing bas. 

Tisme has never brought this up before, and I believe only brought it up in defence of your snearing smear tactics. 

In a parallel discovery,  I found out via a third party that a client of mine has been financing hostels for homeless people.

You may be surprised to learn that my wife and I have taken in 7 homeless youths over the years,  and I only mention that to illustrate a point, in no way am I fishing  for kudos.

These are virtuous actions,  not to gain brownie points,  but just because. 

Contrast that with the pompous "virtue signalling" of the current iteration of the toxic left... 

Bleeting about climate change and living large on carbon

Bleeting about refugees and diversity,  while living in the whitest areas their respective countries,  with massive mansions and dozens of spare bedrooms. 

Bleeting about abuse,  while protecting paedophiles. 

Etc etc etc. 

While you talk the talk basilio,  others walk the walk.


----------



## Tisme (22 June 2018)

wayneL said:


> While you talk the talk basilio,  others walk the walk.




I posted what I did, because I knew the poison that runs through ol'mate's veins is so strong he/she would reveal the level of toxicity. If anyone return served the gutter language and personal insults he/she does, he'd be off complaining to the boss again about how unfair he's been treated.


----------



## Lantern (22 June 2018)

Was not sure if posting this would be a good idea, but figured if I explained it you could make up your own minds.

It tells some of the story of an American lesbian woman who wondered what it would be like to live in a mans shoes for a while. As she became aware of the major differences of the different worlds of the different sexes she found it took quite an emotional toll.


----------



## basilio (22 June 2018)

Wayne, Tisme whatever you've have done for the greater good.... fantastic.  I'm not going to join the circle of good works club because in this universe it would invoke the mandatory "virtue signalling" howl.

In that context I redouble my comments about the apparent difference between your private behaviours and the vitriol you heap on Muslims, women who stand up for themselves, men who support them, and people who believe that the current range of extreme nationalist movements are somehow a good thing. It just doesn't jell.  

On a level of logic and evidence I'm still bemused at how Wayne steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the reality of CC and therefore the impact it will have on everyone - left, right, Muslim, Atheist, Christian LGBTI. I bring this issue up here because, in my view, it demonstrates the most specious use of evidence for a view and willlingness to repeatedly double down on a clearly wrong belief -  for whatever inconcievable reason you have.


----------



## wayneL (22 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Wayne, Tisme whatever you've have done for the greater good.... fantastic.  I'm not going to join the circle of good works club because in this universe it would invoke the mandatory "virtue signalling" howl.
> 
> In that context I redouble my comments about the apparent difference between your private behaviours and the vitriol you heap on Muslims, women who stand up for themselves, men who support them, and people who believe that the current range of extreme nationalist movements are somehow a good thing. It just doesn't jell.
> 
> On a level of logic and evidence I'm still bemused at how Wayne steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the reality of CC and therefore the impact it will have on everyone - left, right, Muslim, Atheist, Christian LGBTI. I bring this issue up here because, in my view, it demonstrates the most specious use of evidence for a view and willlingness to repeatedly double down on a clearly wrong belief -  for whatever inconcievable reason you have.



Oh my. 

This post illustrates that either you are a moron incapable of English  comprehension,  disingenuously mendacious,  or both. 

Please review my oft repeated, official view on clinate  change $ which had not changed for quit some time now) ,  and you will see why this post is not just a baseless insult,  but fully, 100% justified. 

Unbelievable.


----------



## TikoMike (22 June 2018)

So based on feminist logic can we now blame all Muslims for Muslim terror attacks now? Should we be telling Muslims to behave themselves and to tell other Muslims not to blow themselves up in crowded buses or trains or run over people with trucks? Should we tell ALL Muslims to also not rape and treat their women better too?

Although the death of that female comedian is tragic, seriously these feminists are like vultures, they sit on their tree ignoring all other violence that passes by but as soon as a man/psychopath commits violence against a woman they swoop down like the vultures they are. I saw a recent statistic that women end up killing their partners or children more often than men kill their partners or children, but the feminists will never mention this as it doesn't fit their damsel in distress narrative Duluth model scam.


----------



## Darc Knight (22 June 2018)

wayneL said:


> You may be surprised to learn that my wife and I have taken in 7 homeless youths over the years,  and I only mention that to illustrate a point, in no way am I fishing  for kudos.




You may not be seeking kudos but you certainly deserve them. We may disagree on a number of other things at times, but my hat is certainly off in a show of respect to you good Sir.


----------



## basilio (22 June 2018)

TikoMike said:


> I saw a recent statistic that women end up killing their partners or children more often than men kill their partners or children




Can you find the source of that statement Tiko ? It is an exceptionally surprising statistic given the offical figures on the situation of deaths in families.
*Family homicide in Australia*
Jenny Mouzos & Catherine Rushforth
ISSN: 
0817-8542
Subject: 

Weapons
*Foreword* | The family is viewed by most people as providing a nurturing and loving environment. But for some, the family environment can be deadly. In Australia, almost two in five homicides occur between family members, with an average of 129 family homicides each year. The majority of family homicides occur between intimate partners (60 per cent), *and three-quarters of intimate partner homicides involve males killing their female partners.* On average, 25 children are killed each year by a parent, with children under the age of one at the highest risk of victimisation. The less common types of family homicide include children killing their parents (12 incidents per year), homicide between siblings (six incidents per year), and homicides between other family members (11 incidents per year). This paper explores the differences in the characteristics of the various types of family homicides in Australia and highlights the need for specific prevention strategies to target these homicides.
https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi255


----------



## Darc Knight (22 June 2018)

Theres stats out there that more domestic violence is committed by Women than by Men. And that's not taking into account all the psychological crap Men have to endure.


----------



## wayneL (22 June 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Theres stats out there that more domestic violence is committed by Women than by Men. And that's not taking into account all the psychological crap Men have to endure.



Yes. 

Haven't got the figures in front of me,  but females are more likely to be violent.  However females are unlikely to do a great deal of damage,  because of the physical difference. 

Men are more likely to inflict a deal of damage. 

This is the difference.


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2018)

wayneL said:


> Yes.
> 
> Haven't got the figures in front of me,  but females are more likely to be violent.  However females are unlikely to do a great deal of damage,  because of the physical difference.
> 
> ...




This story indicates that women are more calculating and kill for different motives than men.

https://www.news.com.au/national/cr...s/news-story/e5e6a97cc432c0f79363917471b78791


----------



## basilio (22 June 2018)

If you read the full article about Dr Parkers thesis on various reasons for homicide in relationships you will come across this statement.

_In her thesis, Dr Parker wrote men were still “overwhelming” responsible for the greatest number of homicides.

“Although males consistently account for the majority of homicide offenders and victims, this research indicated that females were most likely to commit homicides for gain and love but fall victim to jealously and thrill homicides.”
_


----------



## basilio (22 June 2018)

wayneL said:


> Yes.
> 
> Haven't got the figures in front of me,  but females are more likely to be violent.




Can you find the source of this statement ?


----------



## Darc Knight (22 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Can you find the source of this statement ?




Google research by WA Law Reform Commissioner Augusto Zimmermann.

I might do it when I come back from the Shop


----------



## Macquack (22 June 2018)

Tisme said:


> Thanx for that. You also know I'm not one to resort to the kind of invective thrown at me by posters who refuse to accept they themselves display a paternal misogyny by playing unsolicited protector of the "weaker" sex. Their words actually ingrain the notion of second tier status based on pinky bits.
> 
> Who was the first in Oz to employ an all female team in a male dominated industry.....me. Who is it who sheltered, fed and watered children whose parents were too busy failing in their jobs, me. Who was it who opened his house up to asians, muslims, blacks, et al as a safe haven, me. Who paid the mortgage payments of struggling families to keep a roof over their head, me. Who put otherwise forgotten young adults through uni, me. Who never asked for anything in return, me.
> 
> My conscience is clear. What can those who want a piece of me bring to the table, except abuse and personal insults. Deeds not words make the man.



Geez, you forgot to add that you are modest as well.

"Who was the first in Oz to employ an all female team in a male dominated industry.....me." - Tisme
Would you care to elaborate on this claim with some facts?


----------



## Tisme (22 June 2018)

wayneL said:


> Yes.
> 
> Haven't got the figures in front of me,  but females are more likely to be violent.  However females are unlikely to do a great deal of damage,  because of the physical difference.
> 
> ...




John Archer study?

Perhaps we should resurrect the skimmington procession.


----------



## TikoMike (22 June 2018)

One man dies every 10 days as a result of domestic violence in Australia. Even the left wing ABC had to concede the statistic as being true http://www.oneinthree.com.au/news/2...onfirms-one-male-is-a-victim-of-domestic.html

The feminists will never mention this statistic given their narrative.


----------



## TikoMike (22 June 2018)

News reports 2018 - Domestic violence murders - these deaths are counted at time of charging/sentencing so that they are all captured.

This allows for incidents of murder that have been previously missed to accurately accounted for. ( as an example a murder that where the perpetrator has only just been identified).

As usual, links are attached for each incident and were active at time of publication,

Jan 03: Pania Lawrence 39 has been charged with murder after allegedly shooting her partner dead just meters from a young child this morning.
https://www.9news.com.au/…/woman-in-custody-after-man-shot-…
Jan 09: A 40-year-old NSW woman has been charged with the murder of a toddler she was caring for in Sydney’s South West.
http://www.abc.net.au/…/nsw-woman-charged-with-murd…/9314580
Jan 10: Kimberly Ruth Mitchell charged with the murder of her partner (Father of 7 – Kevin John Ryan) in Emu Plains
http://www.abc.net.au/…/woman-arrested-over-death-e…/9314402
Jan 24: Mother arrested for the Murder and torture of her two children by poison on the Gold Coast
https://www.9news.com.au/…/gold-coast-woman-accused-of-pois…
Jan 25: 33 year old woman stabs her mother to death in Sydney (south Granville)
http://www.news.com.au/…/n…/e6f0a439e84544b494d7af1d7cc017a5
Jan 25: Woman Charged over death of her partner by arsenic poisoning in Walcha (Michael Dunbar)
http://www.smh.com.au/…/woman-charged-over-death-of-nsw-far…
Feb 08: Perth woman organises for her new boyfriend and his mate to beat her husband and the father of her child to death.
https://www.perthnow.com.au/…/aryan-nations-perth-fifo-work…
Feb 12: Woman charged with stabbing her partner in Port Adelaide
http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/…/740280a5f537a9f7f964eb2d904…
Feb 12: Mother admits to helping her son who killed his partner in South Australia
https://www.9news.com.au/…/mother-admits-helping-son-kill-p…
Feb 14: ICE addicted mother in Glebe court over the death of her two daughters in 2014 and 2015 ( aged months and 19 days old)
https://au.news.yahoo.com/…/nsw-ice-addict-weeps-over-babi…/
Feb 20: Woman and 2 children killed in house fire in suspected murder suicide in North Canberra on the day of custody hearing
https://www.sbs.com.au/…/deliberately-lit-police-investigat…
https://the-riotact.com/child-custody-hearing-schedu…/237066
Feb 21: A Melbourne mother and her lover found guilty of murdering her husband with cyanide
https://www.9news.com.au/…/sofia-sam-guilty-over-cyanide-mu…
Feb 22: Perth woman jailed for 3.5 years after 33 incidents of extreme violence towards 4 year old girl, also leaves her female partner to die after suicide pact goes wrong.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/…/perth-woman-katherine-e…/9475928…
Feb 28: Lovers Trudi Lennon and Jemma Lilly sentenced to a minimum of 28 years after the “thrill murder” of Aaron Pajich in Western Australia.
http://www.watoday.com.au/…/aaron-pajich-murderers-thrill-k…
Mar 06: Woman jailed for life in Perth for killing her mother and burying her in the back yard.
https://www.9news.com.au/…/woman-jailed-for-life-over-mums-…
Mar 08: Woman in Mt Gambier arrested and charged with the murder of her mother in law Myrna Nillson at Mt Gambier

Mar 08: Woman arrested for the murder of 8 year old child in Morning Peninsula Victoria
http://www.cairnspost.com.au/…/d5eca0b8eebf0cc3826799cd546b…
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm…
Mar 09: Man stabbed to death by his female partner in Blackwater, 45 year old woman charged with murder.
https://mypolice.qld.gov.au/…/homicide-investigation-black…/
Mar 22: 17 year old woman stabs 22 year old man to death in Cairns home
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Cairns-teenager-charged-murder…
Mar 28: Perth woman Katherine Walker jailed for the torture and murder of a 4 year old girl in Perth.
http://mobile.abc.net.au/…/perth-woman-katherine-e…/9475928…
Mar 28: Melbourne woman Jessie Donker pleads guilty after the murder of her partner after running him down in her car.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/…/vic-woman-caused-partners-frea…/
Mar 28: woman jailed after stabbing her partner to death in Kangaroo flat on new years eve.
http://www.bendigoadvertiser.com.au/…/woman-jailed-for-fa…/…
Mar 21 Woman charged with the shooting murder of Ho Ledinh in Bankstown
https://www.smh.com.au/…/woman-charged-over-murder-of-banks…
Apr 06: 32 mother charged with the murder of her 9 month old baby after originally blaming the murder on her 22 month old child.
https://www.9news.com.au/…/woman-charged-over-nsw-baby-boy-…
Apr 23: Woman arrested after stabbing murder of her partner on Macleay Island.
https://mypolice.qld.gov.au/…/homicide-investigation-macle…/
Apr 21: Woman arrested after the shooting murder of her boyfriend in Petrie
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/…/alleged-shooter-in-petrie…
Apr 2: woman charged with hit and run murder of “man known to her” at lightning ridge
https://www.smh.com.au/…/woman-charged-with-murder-after-ma…
Apr 27: Australian woman Cara Lee attends court after stabbing her husband to death and trying to kill her children.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Mother-stabbed-husband-death-p…
Apr 27: Jennifer Kennison sentenced after killing her baby in South Australia 
https://www.maitlandmercury.com.au/…/sa-woman-in-home-det…/…
Apr 24: Adelaide woman Leanne Prak jailed for 20 years after stabbing her partner to death and licking the blade clean
https://www.9news.com.au/…/adelaide-woman-jailed-20-years-f…
Apr 24:Rachel Impson found guilty of murdering her partner Michael Insley by stabbing him to death in Lake Illawarra
https://www.smh.com.au/…/woman-who-accused-boyfriend-of-kil…
May 16: woman accused of murdering and dismembering her fiance in Cedar pocket stands trial on the sunshine coast
http://www.couriermail.com.au/…/4558e078e3cdb6fc76a8a59600d…
May 15: Infertile woman accused of murdering a mother of four with a hammer because she wanted her children.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/…/Infertile-woman-accused-murder…
May 04: Woman who murdered her partner with a fire poker after poisoning him faces court in Melbourne
https://www.tvnz.co.nz/…/woman-allegedly-murdered-partner-f…
May 20 Man stabbed to death by his female partner in Brighton Le sands (Sydney)
https://www.theleader.com.au/…/man-51-dead-after-domestic-…/
May 22 Katherine Abdallah Jailed over the brutal stabbing murder of her female cousin
https://www.msn.com/…/katherine-abdallah-jailed…/ar-AAxBZZy…
May 25:Alice Springs woman charged with the murder of her partner
http://www.ntnews.com.au/…/news-story/c19788b5d4fefb955593e…
May 26 Erica Barley Convicted of her toddlers death after she overdosed on Heroin
https://m.thechronicle.com.au/…/mother-convicted-…/3425341/…
May 26 : 22 year old mother charged with the murder and disposal of her newborn baby in Sydney
https://au.news.yahoo.com/young-mother-charged-newborn-baby…
May 30: Woman arrested after coaxing her two lovers to kill her partner by putting him in a wood chipper.
https://www.couriermail.com.au/…/0391a62ce84a6d06da4398dabb…
Jun 06: Coomealla mother Tracey Sneddon charged with the murder of her 9 month old baby boy Elijah.
http://www.sunraysiadaily.com.au/…/coomealla-woman-charged…/
June 14: Amanda Zukowski charged with the murder of her partner after burning him to death in a deliberately lit house fire in Sydney
https://www.smh.com.au/…/woman-charged-with-murder-over-fir…

Male Perpetrated DV Murders

Jan 01: Perth WOMAN murdered; MALE* charged (DV):http://www.watoday.com.au/…/perth-woman-critically-injured-…
Jan: Palm Island MAN murdered; MALE* charged (DV):http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/…/fa587364a4151730e5e0…
Jan 17: FEMICIDE: Newtown WOMAN murdered; MALE* killer dead (DV):http://www.smh.com.au/…/broken-my-heart-tributes-flow-for-b…
Jan 25: Perth WOMAN murdered; MALE* charged (DV):https://www.9news.com.au/…/elderly-wa-man-charged-with-wife…
Feb 27: Bendigo WOMAN murdered. MALE* charged (DV):http://www.news.com.au/…/n…/5bef546bea7e4529270052fc674fc680
Feb 03: Noble Park WOMAN murdered; MALE* charged (DV):http://www.heraldsun.com.au/…/8797163fdd0c7df70cab9f0f5963b…
Mar 28: Cairnlea (Vic) WOMAN murdered. MALE* charged (DV):http://www.heraldsun.com.au/…/8c9427a947954946cbac7ceed1739…
Mar 31: Trinity Beach (Qld) WOMAN murdered. MALE* charged (DV):https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/…/man-charged-after-cairns…
Apr 19: Everton Hills (QLD) MAN murdered (related to 62). MALE* suspect (DV): (M=F)https://www.9news.com.au/…/everton-hills-house-fire-double-…
Apr 26: Charles Creek (NT) WOMAN murdered. MALE* charged (DV):http://www.abc.net.au/…/woman-stabbed-to-death-in-a…/9698280
Apr 24: Clontarf (QLD) MAN murdered. MALE* charged (DV):http://www.couriermail.com.au/…/85dcec528cfeaa3926068061b3b…
Apr 27 : Kelmscott (WA) MAN murdered. MALE* charged (DV):http://www.watoday.com.au/…/man-dies-after-family-violence-…
May 14: Maryborough (VIC) WOMAN murdered. MALE* charged (DV): (6)http://www.abc.net.au/…/police-hunt-man-who-fled-sc…/9757928
May 14: grandfather in murder suicide Margaret river 2 women, 4 children
https://www.news.com.au/…/…/d089498f79d01072301d140b8dbf7119
May 19: Argents Hill (NSW) WOMAN murder. MALE* charged (DV):https://www.nambuccaguardian.com.au/…/body-found-at-argent…/
May 16: Kalgoorlie (WA) WOMAN murdered. MALE* charged (DV):https://thewest.com.au/…/probe-into-37-year-old-womans-deat…
May 19:Argents Hill (NSW) WOMAN murder. MALE* charged (DV):https://www.nambuccaguardian.com.au/…/body-found-at-argent…/
May 22: Queens Park (WA) MAN murdered. MALE* charged (DV):https://www.theage.com.au/…/queens-park-death-man-in-30s-in…
June 04: FEMICIDE Bega (NSW) WOMAN murdered ((DV). MALE* charged: http://www.abc.net.au/…/alleged-bega-attacker-faces…/9831014
June 10: Child murdered (Carlingford, NSW). MALE* charged (DV):https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/…/ad91d83f54cbbf80a9fb33c…


----------



## TikoMike (22 June 2018)

So many male deaths but let's just ignore them and focus on Eurydice Dixon right? It's the Duluth model scam.


----------



## Darc Knight (22 June 2018)

Macquack said:


> Geez, you forgot to add that you are modest as well.
> 
> "Who was the first in Oz to employ an all female team in a male dominated industry.....me." - Tisme
> Would you care to elaborate on this claim with some facts?




Why? These Feminists are some of the worst criminals types when it comes to harassment and bullying etc 
You don't wish ill will on @Tisme do you?


----------



## basilio (22 June 2018)

That's an impressive listing of deaths Tiko.  Could you please post the source ?
__________________________________________________________-
One source I did find in relation to the discussion of the role women can play as aggressors in relationships was One in Three.  I thought it was useful.

http://www.oneinthree.com.au/


----------



## cynic (22 June 2018)

Tisme said:


> John Archer study?
> 
> Perhaps we should resurrect the skimmington procession.



No need to resurrect that which was never buried.

Apart from one slight modification to its implementation, that process is still practised to this very day. The key difference is that it is now practised preemptively!


----------



## TikoMike (22 June 2018)

basilio said:


> That's an impressive listing of deaths Tiko.  Could you please post the source ?
> __________________________________________________________-
> One source I did find in relation to the discussion of the role women can play as aggressors in relationships was One in Three.  I thought it was useful.
> 
> http://www.oneinthree.com.au/



Denial is strong in this one.


----------



## trainspotter (22 June 2018)

Macquack said:


> Geez, you forgot to add that you are modest as well.
> 
> "Who was the first in Oz to employ an all female team in a male dominated industry.....me." - Tisme
> Would you care to elaborate on this claim with some facts?




Seems altruism has found it's docking station if you ask me !


----------



## cynic (22 June 2018)

basilio said:


> That's an impressive listing of deaths Tiko.  Could you please post the source ?
> __________________________________________________________-
> One source I did find in relation to the discussion of the role women can play as aggressors in relationships was One in Three.  I thought it was useful.
> 
> http://www.oneinthree.com.au/



The following news article makes mention of some research findings that are at some variance to such claims:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/women-are-more-violent-says-study-622388.html


----------



## wayneL (22 June 2018)

I know it's only a sample size of one,  but my best mate's ex wife used to beat him.  It was laughable,  because he's a big lad and never hit back, but she did try to hurt him.


----------



## Darc Knight (22 June 2018)

Dr Zimmermann also found that there is a massive bias both in our Hospitals and Police force when it comes to reporting domestic voilence against Men. Couple that with Men's strong reluctance to report DV against them and you have a very skewed perception of DV.
http://www.oneinthree.com.au/news/2...-domestic-violence-dr-augusto-zimmermann.html


----------



## SirRumpole (22 June 2018)

An example of a cold & calculating murderess.

https://www.news.com.au/national/vi...n/news-story/227ed8bd3195e8af6587f7964f8e7378


----------



## trainspotter (22 June 2018)

wayneL said:


> I know it's only a sample size of one,  but my best mate's ex wife used to beat him.  It was laughable,  because he's a big lad and never hit back, but she did try to hurt him.



A very good friend of mines ex wife stabbed him in the chest puncturing his lung. When he was on the ground she stabbed him through the shoulder blade and the knife came out his bicep. He tried to have her charged with murder but the judge said there was "NO INTENT" to cause death. Her "new" husband actually phoned my mate up saying she sits on the internet till all hours of the wee morning stalking and searching for any information about him. The reason she stabbed him? He came home drunk and had driven the car home.


----------



## TikoMike (22 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> An example of a cold & calculating murderess.
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/national/vi...n/news-story/227ed8bd3195e8af6587f7964f8e7378



So can we please have Lisa Wilkinson's crocodile tears virtue signalling speech where she blamed every man for the death of Eurydice Dixon but instead of having "man" in the speech replace it with "woman"? Because that is a tragic death in your article and by Lisa's logic we should blame all women because, really, they aren't telling each to be less violent.


----------



## Tisme (23 June 2018)

wayneL said:


> I know it's only a sample size of one,  but my best mate's ex wife used to beat him.  It was laughable,  because he's a big lad and never hit back, but she did try to hurt him.




John Wayne's wife used to beat him same with Bogart's wife


----------



## Tisme (23 June 2018)

Macquack said:


> Geez, you forgot to add that you are modest as well.
> 
> "Who was the first in Oz to employ an all female team in a male dominated industry.....me." - Tisme
> Would you care to elaborate on this claim with some facts?




No way would I ever feed a couple like you two nasty pieces, let alone trust you to engage in adult conversations..... both of you have demonstrated you incapacity when it comes to comprehension and huge capacity for adolescent taunts and tanties.


----------



## Darc Knight (23 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> This story indicates that women are more calculating and kill for different motives than men.
> 
> https://www.news.com.au/national/cr...s/news-story/e5e6a97cc432c0f79363917471b78791




Jeebus! All Women are potential killers when under financial strain. Sleep with one eye open.

_"WOMEN are at their most deadly when they are under financial strain — and even females who have no criminal history can be driven to murder, new research shows."_


----------



## Darc Knight (23 June 2018)

That reminds me. Yesterday arvo a Mate was telling how his ex Wife would punch him in the Face while he slept. Apparently she was bipolar, but still.


----------



## basilio (23 June 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Jeebus! All Women are potential killers when under financial strain. Sleep with one eye open.
> 
> _"WOMEN are at their most deadly when they are under financial strain — and even females who have no criminal history can be driven to murder, new research shows."_




Well we have progressed on this thread.  We started with  ( Cultural Marxist) Feminism threatening to bring down "Western Civilisation as we know it" and have reached the stage where* ALL* women are potential killers under financial strain.  I suggest some you anxious boys should  shack up with each other for mutual protecton. Can't be too careful ..

But back to a more relevant aspect of family violence and in particular men beating up on women. Perhaps the next port of  call should be investigating the role of Rugby League State of origin matches (and naturally a skinful of booze)  as a triggerfor wife bashing.

*State of Origin provokes family violence in NSW, says report*
Send via Email
There is a massive spike in the rate of family violence in NSW on rugby league State of Origin game days, according to a new report from the Centre for Alcohol Policy Research at La Trobe University in Melbourne.
It revealed an increase of nearly 40 per cent in domestic assaults in NSW on State of Origin nights compared with other Wednesdays.

There is no similar spike in Victoria.

The number of family violence assaults reported on the day of the first State of Origin game, from 6am on May 31 last year to 6am the next day, was 47 - it fell to 23 the following week.

Dr Michael Livingstone, of CAPR, says the research used non-Origin Wednesdays as a comparison and that showed a dramatic difference.

"There is an increase in non-domestic assaults as well, in pubs and on the streets in NSW, " he said.

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/


----------



## Darc Knight (23 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Well we have progressed on this thread.  We started with  ( Cultural Marxist) Feminism threatening to bring down "Western Civilisation as we know it" and have reached the stage where* ALL* women are potential killers under financial strain.  I suggest some you anxious boys should  shack up with each other for mutual protecton. Can't be too careful ..
> 
> But back to a more relevant aspect of family violence and in particular men beating up on women. Perhaps the next port of  call should be investigating the role of Rugby League State of origin matches (and naturally a skinful of booze)  as a triggerfor wife bashing.
> 
> ...




Good post Bas. I remember Wayne Bennett the Brisbane Broncos Coach saying its the Women who like to see the Players fighting. These same Women then get inspiration and go home and beat their Husbands you think???


----------



## TikoMike (23 June 2018)

The deflection/dodging and straw man tactics of this basilio person. Just as obvious as Bill Shorten's tactics.


----------



## SirRumpole (23 June 2018)

Basilio's  Canberra Times link did not bring up the DV story, but we can assume it's similar to this one.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-...e-during-state-of-origin,-study-finds/9895684

It doesn't distinguish between men on women assaults and the reverse. Maybe a lot of the assaults are by wives who want to be taken out to dinner rather than having to watch a footy match ?


----------



## basilio (23 June 2018)

I think I understand what you'll saying now.  Totally clear.

As I hear women it are far more violent than men and in fact are responsible for the majority of domestic violence acts. *However* because men are too bewildered and ashamed of reporting this abuse the official figures of male on female  /female on male abuse are wrong. Just plain wrong and completly unacceptable as evidence.

So of course when the Latrobe Uni study showed up a spike in domestic violence reports there had to be an even bigger number of non reported women on men assaults as Rumpy put it so well ?  (Nice line Rumpy)

Is this really what your saying or have I missed a deep subtle wink somewhere ?


----------



## SirRumpole (23 June 2018)

basilio said:


> I think I understand what you'll saying now.  Totally clear.
> 
> As I hear women it are far more violent than men and in fact are responsible for the majority of domestic violence acts. *However* because men are too bewildered and ashamed of reporting this abuse the official figures of male on female  /female on male abuse are wrong. Just plain wrong and completly unacceptable as evidence.
> 
> ...




No, you drew the inference that all the reported assaults on State of Origin night were by men on women.

Where was that stated ?

There was an increase in "referral to shelters", but that seemed to be the only basis for the story. There needs to be some more data before we conclude than men go crazy on S.O.O. night and start beating up their wives.



> *However* because men are too bewildered and ashamed of reporting this abuse the official figures of male on female /female on male abuse are wrong. Just plain wrong and completly unacceptable as evidence.




You don't accept that there are a large number of unreported cases of  males being assaulted by females ?

You wouldn't accept that there are a large number of unreported cases of gay bashings because of the shame attached (or once attached) to being gay ?

PS I also think that there are a large number of unreported assaults on women for various reasons, not wanting to further aggravate the man, not wanting to be thrown out etc. It's pretty difficult to get accurate statistics on a problem like DV because for a lot of reasons neither men or women want to talk about it.


----------



## Darc Knight (23 June 2018)

basilio said:


> I think I understand what you'll saying now.  Totally clear.
> 
> As I hear women it are far more violent than men and in fact are responsible for the majority of domestic violence acts. *However* because men are too bewildered and ashamed of reporting this abuse the official figures of male on female  /female on male abuse are wrong. Just plain wrong and completly unacceptable as evidence.




Good to know you're finally getting it right Bas. I'm beginning to appreciate you more. Have a great day


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Well we have progressed on this thread.  We started with  ( Cultural Marxist) Feminism threatening to bring down "Western Civilisation as we know it" and have reached the stage where* ALL* women are potential killers under financial strain.  I suggest some you anxious boys should  shack up with each other for mutual protecton. Can't be too careful ..
> 
> But back to a more relevant aspect of family violence and in particular men beating up on women. Perhaps the next port of  call should be investigating the role of Rugby League State of origin matches (and naturally a skinful of booze)  as a triggerfor wife bashing.
> 
> ...



I think this is fake news.

 Feminists tried the same sht back in 80s during the super bowl. 2014 with the soccer as well.


?


----------



## basilio (23 June 2018)

moXJO said:


> I think this is fake news.
> 
> Feminists tried the same sht back in 80s during the super bowl. 2014 with the soccer as well.
> 
> ...




Try again moxjo.  If you read the story it is very simple, very elegant piece of research.  Just check out the number of  assaults on the wednesday night of the State of Origin match and compare it to other wednesday nights before and after the event. 

And for good measure look at comparable  wednesday night figures in another state that doesn't host a State of origin match.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-...e-during-state-of-origin,-study-finds/9895684


----------



## basilio (23 June 2018)

This story is disturbing.

*When carers kill *
One person with disabilities is killed by their carer almost every three months in Australia, but these acts of domestic violence are often excused by the media and judiciary. The focus is too often on the killer. Here, we recognise the victims.

By Sarah Dingle for Background Briefing 
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-23/when-carers-kill/9894514


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Try again moxjo.  If you read the story it is very simple, very elegant piece of research.  Just check out the number of  assaults on the wednesday night of the State of Origin match and compare it to other wednesday nights before and after the event.
> 
> And for good measure look at comparable  wednesday night figures in another state that doesn't host a State of origin match.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-...e-during-state-of-origin,-study-finds/9895684



I don't trust it. Smells fishy.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/domestic-violence-super-bowl-sunday/


----------



## SirRumpole (23 June 2018)

basilio said:


> This story is disturbing.
> 
> *When carers kill *
> One person with disabilities is killed by their carer almost every three months in Australia, but these acts of domestic violence are often excused by the media and judiciary. The focus is too often on the killer. Here, we recognise the victims.
> ...




Hopefully wider recognition and support for people with disabilities via the NDIS  will reduce these incidences.


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2018)

moXJO said:


> I don't trust it. Smells fishy.
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/domestic-violence-super-bowl-sunday/



The claim that Super Bowl Sunday is “the biggest day of the year for violence against women” is a case study of how easily an idea congruous with what people want to believe can be implanted in the public consciousness and anointed as “fact” even when there is little or no supporting evidence behind it. Christina Hoff Sommers charted a timeline of how the apocryphal statistic about domestic violence on Super Bowl Sunday was widely (if erroneously) publicized over the course of a few days leading up to the Super Bowl in January 1993:

Thursday, January 28
A news conference was called in Pasadena, California, the site of the forthcoming Super Bowl game, by a coalition of women’s groups. At the news conference reporters were informed that significant anecdotal evidence suggested that Super Bowl Sunday is “the biggest day of the year for violence against women.” Prior to the conference, there had been reports of increases as high as 40 percent in calls for help from victims that day. At the conference, Sheila Kuehl of the California Women’s Law Center cited a study done at Virginia’s Old Dominion University three years before, saying that it found police reports of beatings and hospital admissions in northern Virginia rose 40 percent after games won by the Redskins during the 1988-89 season. The presence of Linda Mitchell at the conference, a representative of a media “watchdog” group called Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), lent credibility to the cause.At about this time a very large media mailing was sent by Dobisky Associates, warning at-risk women, “Don’t remain at home with him during the game.” The idea that sports fans are prone to attack wives or girlfriends on that climactic day persuaded many men as well: Robert Lipsyte of the _New York_ Times would soon be referring to the “Abuse Bowl.”

Friday, January 29
Lenore Walker, a Denver psychologist and author of _The Battered Woman_, appeared on “Good Morning America” claiming to have compiled a ten-year record showing a sharp increase in violent incidents against women on Super Bowl Sundays. Here, again, a representative from FAIR, Laura Flanders, was present to lend credibility to the cause.

Saturday, January 30
A story in the _Boston Globe_ written by Linda Gorov reported that women’s shelters and hotlines are “flooded with more calls from victims [on Super Bowl Sunday] than on any other day of the year.” Gorov cited “one study of women’s shelters out West” that “showed a 40 percent climb in calls, a pattern advocates said is repeated nationwide, including in Massachusetts.”

Commentators were quick to offers reasons why this “fact” was so obviously true: Men are mostly loutish brutes, and football is the epitome of mindless, aggressive, violent, testosterone-driven macho posturing, so certainly during the culmination of the football season and its final, spectacular, massively-hyped “super” game, more men than ever were going to express their excitement or disappointment by smacking their wives and girlfriends around. So much attention did the “Super Bowl abuse” stories garner that NBC aired a public service announcement before the 1993 game to remind men that domestic violence is a crime.

Ken Ringle, a reporter for the _Washington Post_, was one of the few journalists to bother to check the sources behind the stories. When he contacted Janet Katz, a professor of sociology and criminal justice at Old Dominion University, and one of the authors of the study cited during the January 28 news conference, he found:

Janet Katz, professor of sociology and criminal justice at Old Dominion and one of the authors of that study, said “that’s not what we found at all. “One of the most notable findings, she said, was that an increase of emergency room admissions “was not associated with the occurrence of football games in general, nor with watching a team lose.” When they looked at win days alone, however, they found that the number of women admitted for gunshot wounds, stabbings, assaults, falls, lacerations and wounds from being hit by objects was slightly higher than average. But certainly not 40 percent.

“These are interesting but very tentative findings, suggesting what violence there is from males after football may spring not from a feeling of defensive insecurity, which you’d associate with a loss, but from the sense of empowerment following a win. We found that significant. But it certainly doesn’t support what those women are saying in Pasadena,” Katz said.

Likewise, Ringle checked the claim made by Dobisky Associates (the organization that had mailed warnings to women advising them not to stay at home with their husbands on Super Bowl Sunday) that “Super Bowl Sunday is the one day in the year when hot lines, shelters, and other agencies that work with battered women get the most reports and complaints of domestic violence.” Dobisky’s source for this quote was Charles Patrick Ewing, a professor at the University at Buffalo, but Professor Ewing told Ringle he’d never said it:

“I don’t think anybody has any systematic data on any of this,” said Charles Patrick Ewing, a forensic psychologist and author of “Battered Women Who Kill.”Yet Ewing is quoted in the release from Dobisky Associates declaring “Super Bowl Sunday is one day in the year when hot lines, shelters and other agencies that work with battered women get the most reports and complaints of domestic violence.”

“I never said that,” Ewing said. “I don’t know that to be true.”

Told of Ewing’s response, Frank Dobisky acknowledged that the quote should have read “one of the days of the year.” That could mean one of many days in the year.

In addition, Ringle learned that Linda Gorov, the _Boston Globe_ reporter who’d written that women’s shelters and hotlines are “flooded with more calls from victims [on Super Bowl Sunday] than on any other day of the year” hadn’t even seen the study she’d cited in support of that statement but had merely been told about it by Linda

Mitchell, the FAIR representative who was present at the January 28 news conference that had kicked off the whole issue.

Did any evidence back up the assertion that Super Bowl Sunday was the leading day for domestic violence? When the _Washington Post_‘s Ringle attempted to follow the chain by contacting Linda Mitchell of FAIR, Mitchell said her source had been Lenore Walker, the Denver psychologist who’d appeared on “Good Morning America” the day after the news conference. Ms. Walker’s office referred Ringle to Michael Lindsey, another Denver psychologist who was also an authority on battered women. Mr. Lindsey told Ringle that “I haven’t been any more successful than you in tracking down any of this” and asked, “You think maybe we have one of these myth things here?”

The upshot? It turned out that Super Bowl Sunday in 1993 (as in other years) was not a significantly different day for those who monitor domestic abuse hotlines and staff battered women’s shelters:

Those who work with the victims of domestic violence in Connecticut reported no increase in cases [on the day after the Super Bowl], after a barrage of publicity on the potential link between Super Bowl gatherings and family violence.An increase in domestic violence predicted for Super Bowl Sunday did not happen in Columbus, authorities said, and others nationwide said women’s rights activists were spreading the wrong message.

Despite some pregame hype about the “day of dread” for some women, Columbus-area domestic violence counselors said that [Super Bowl] Sunday, although certainly violent for some women, was relatively routine.

So, on what day of the year is domestic violence against women most prevalent, if not Super Bowl Sunday? It appears there isn’t one particular day on which domestic violence peaks, but rather there are particular times of year when the rates shoot up. For example, a 2006 study published in the _Handbook of Sports and Media_ that examined over 1.3 million domestic violence police reports from every day of the year in 15 NFL cities found only a very small rise in domestic violence dispatches on (or just after) Super Bowl Sunday but nearly a quintupling of domestic violence police dispatch reports around major holidays such as Christmas. A 2007 study that analyzed patterns of women fleeing domestic abuse found that the highest intake rates of women with children at shelters coincided not with Super Bowl Sunday, but with breaks in the school calendar such as Christmas vacation, spring break, and summer vacation (although that study surveyed when women most often fled from their abusers rather than when they actually experienced the abuse that prompted them to flee).

The weeks and months after the 1993 Super Bowl saw a fair amount of backpedalling by those who had propagated the Super Bowl Sunday violence myth, but as usual the retractions and corrections received far less attention than the sensational-but-false stories everyone wanted to believe, and the bogus Super Bowl statistic remains a widely-cited and believed piece of misinformation. As Sommers concluded, “How a belief in that misandrist canard can make the world a better place for women is not explained.”

Variations:   A similar item, circulated during the 2014 World Cup football (i.e., soccer) tournament and based on a study by researchers at Lancaster University, held that “Every time England loses the World Cup, domestic violence against women raises 38%.”


----------



## moXJO (23 June 2018)

Someone wanna call the abc and clarify the data just for shts and giggles?


----------



## Tisme (24 June 2018)

moXJO said:


> Someone wanna call the abc and clarify the data just for shts and giggles?




Chances are you won't get past the impenetrable wall of women to a masculine journo.


----------



## Tisme (24 June 2018)

"John Davis (1953 - ) was born in Cleveland, Ohio. He was educated at Case Western Reserve University (BA) (one of the top ten universities in the United States), Seattle University School of Law (JD), and, New York University School of Law (LL.M post-doctoral) (one of the top ten law schools in the United States). John is fluent in seven languages (including ancient Latin and Greek). He has travelled the world over, many times, and has represented clients, in his thirty five year career, such as the United States Government and the Federation of Russia. 

He has been a prosecutor three times in his 35 year career. He has held positions such as Assistant Attorney General, United States Speaker, and Assistant District Attorney, Chief Wing JAG, U. S. Air Force Auxilliary, and Supreme Court Law Clerk.

For most of his career in civil law, John was a successful international lawyer, practicing in many nations around the world.

John is now retired and lives in the South of France."

https://www.amazon.com/default/e/B00O2JS3HW/ref=dp_byline_cont_book_1?redirectedFromKindleDbs=true



> “First, toxic masculinity is not real. The concept of ‘toxic masculinity’ is simply a political slogan used to manipulate people. For example, there is a myth that men commit violence against women, but that women committing violence against men are not a problem. The propaganda slogan ‘toxic masculinity’ is used to manipulate people into thinking that violence is only a problem that men need to address.
> He continues, “Second, the term toxic masculinity is a form of ‘hate speech’ used to promote hatred or fear of men. Those who use the term ‘toxic masculinity’ are employing a political strategy to manipulate others into believing that our culture, laws and customs should place all responsibilities on men, but relieve women of all responsibilities.”


----------



## SirRumpole (25 June 2018)

Some interesting thoughts on rape and #MeToo from Germaine Greer.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-...entences-metoo-and-non-consensual-sex/9899704


----------



## Tisme (25 June 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Some interesting thoughts on rape and #MeToo from Germaine Greer.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-...entences-metoo-and-non-consensual-sex/9899704




Go out bush and you'll see men in self imposed exile by distancing themselves from wives that have switched off. If it was me I'd be looking for a mistress, but some men have a deep connection with the idea that exclusivity via marriage is for life.


----------



## Darc Knight (25 June 2018)

Marilyn Monroe admitted to sleeping with Producers etc to get parts. She said if she didn't there were a hundred other girls who would. Apparently its very common.
Feminists want to be able to use sex and sexual attraction to manipulate and get their own way. Feminism is just another tool a lot of Women use to get their own way. Look at Lisa Wilkinson, the youngest Editor of a magazine. She is one of the most ambitious people you'd ever meet. Tracey Spicer used to wear the shortest skirts I'd ever seen a Reporter wear. Now she's a miliant Feminist claiming sexual harassment this sexual harassment that.


----------



## basilio (25 June 2018)

Observations on "toxic masculinity .  First anyone who tries to paint this as a statement that the *essence  and totality *of maleness being somehow toxic is just lying. It is a straw man statement being used to dismiss any conversation about some elements of masculine culture that are destructive to men, society in general and women in particular.

Elements of toxic mascultinity are things like sexual dominance, misogyny and homophobia. Men who decide who they will xuck, when they want to xxxx and how they want to do it aren't cool. Men who don't particularly like women but see them as a necessary evil and *despise* gays also don't add to good social interaction.

On the other hand if you consider ideals like committment to ones work,  trying to be best at a sport and taking care of ones family you have other other elements of a masculine culture that are constructive. 

There is a good analysis of this idea on Wiki that draws from many sources.  Even Jordan Peterson gets a mention.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toxic_masculinity

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2...oxic-masculinity-is-shackling-men-to-misogyny
Tim Winton is also good value


*
*


----------



## Darc Knight (25 June 2018)

So if you stand up to the female dominance movement you're a Misogynist? I'd say you're just a well balanced individual, probably fighting for true equality.


----------



## Tisme (25 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Observations on "toxic masculinity .  First anyone who tries to paint this as a statement that the *essence  and totality *of maleness being somehow toxic is just lying. It is a straw man statement being used to dismiss any conversation about some elements of masculine culture that are destructive to men, society in general and women in particular.
> 
> Elements of toxic mascultinity are things like sexual dominance, misogyny and homophobia. Men who decide who they will xuck, when they want to xxxx and how they want to do it aren't cool. Men who don't particularly like women but see them as a necessary evil and *despise* gays also don't add to good social interaction.
> 
> ...



You're a women aren't you Bas, a misandrist at that.


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2018)

I don't agree with most of aussie feminists version of "toxic masculinity". 
But I  do think it is a thing.
A lot of men in Thailand enjoy women literally on demand,  get drunk when they feel like it (every day), bash their women without having to worry, lie, steal and cheat. Its a national problem affecting men.
But the interesting thing is that thai women are amazingly strong. They will move countries work their arses of (yes sometimes scam) and send money back to their families. The ones from the country have pretty strong values. They open businesses, have strong social networks. It really is strange to witness.

Men on the other hand have become weak, Selfish,  usless,  no ambition, plenty of depression/mental issues and lost all values.

There is a line where men can slide when there is too much of a good thing. 

Thailand has a legitimate problem. Australia has a bunch of whinging idiots.


----------



## basilio (26 June 2018)

Tisme said:


> You're a women aren't you Bas, a misandrist at that.




So you won't/can't discuss my comments and go straight to weird abuse ? Classy... not.


----------



## Tisme (26 June 2018)

basilio said:


> So you won't/can't discuss my comments and go straight to weird abuse ?




Well I'm just asking. It would certainly explain a lot of things.


----------



## Tisme (26 June 2018)

moXJO said:


> Thailand has a legitimate problem. Australia has a bunch of whinging idiots.




Oz has become a nation of people looking for a reason to be offended so they can complain about it. Reminds me of the whinging poms.


----------



## basilio (26 June 2018)

moXJO said:


> A lot of men in Thailand enjoy women literally on demand, get drunk when they feel like it (every day), bash their women without having to worry, lie, steal and cheat. Its a national problem affecting men.
> But the interesting thing is that thai women are amazingly strong. They will move countries work their arses of (yes sometimes scam) and send money back to their families. The ones from the country have pretty strong values. They open businesses, have strong social networks. It really is strange to witness.
> 
> Men on the other hand have become weak, Selfish, usless, no ambition, plenty of depression/mental issues and lost all values.




Wasn't really aware of that situation in Thailand. Maybe some of the Aussies going to Tailand to find amenable wives believe they can behave in a similar way and get away with it ?

I wouldn't say every man in Australia follows the (alleged ) behaviour in Thailand.  But if you think it doesn't exist at all - not true.

What is more likely is that women are not as prepared to be doormats as they were  20-30-40 years ago. They expect a more equal and respectful relationship. That's why it was called Womens Liberation.
_____________________________________________________

There is an excellent series on the ABC called "Going back in time for dinner". An Australian family lives for a week at a time in a house, in the clothes, with the role models of the 50's, 60's, 70's and so on.

It's been a great show on many levels. A part of it has also been exploring the expected family norms of the time.

https://iview.abc.net.au/show/back-in-time-for-dinner


----------



## basilio (26 June 2018)

Tisme said:


> Well I'm just asking. It would certainly explain a lot of things.




Given the way you and some of your mates behave on ASF I'm pretty sure most women have fled in disgust. They have enough problems arguing with the idiots in their own lives without taking on the rich blend of toxicity being bred on some of these threads.

Again, what prevents you from questioning the content of my argument about looking at some elements of male behaviour as toxic rather than suggesting the phrase refers to all men?


----------



## Tisme (26 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Wasn't really aware of that situation in Thailand. Maybe some of the Aussies going to Tailand to find amenable wives believe they can behave in a similar way and get away with it ?
> 
> I wouldn't say every man in Australia follows the (alleged ) behaviour in Thailand.  But if you think it doesn't exist at all - not true.
> 
> ...




I don't know what family norm they predicated that series on, but I do know the women in my household were more than equal, worked and we all pitched in. Of course in those days a house was a place to eat and sleep between earning a quid and going out.

Woman back through my Oz generations have never been doormats and the men have never been ringmasters. Which is probably why I respect and like women as opposed to the simpering imposters who get joy out of painting men as monsters.


----------



## Darc Knight (26 June 2018)

I'd say the majority of Males on this Forum grew up like myself, with the philosophy of treat Women like Ladies, be their defenders, don't hit or abuse Women etc etc. Then reality set in somewhere in my/their mid-twenties, that Feminism has turned some Women into almost sociopaths. That Feminism isn't about equality but rather self interest and dominance for a lot.


----------



## basilio (26 June 2018)

The conversations about family roles in "Back in time for dinner" were as realistic as you could expect as a 3-4 minute observation in a 60 minute program.

On the topic of Toxic Masculinity Tim Winton has  been on a series of speaking tours on the issue.  It comes out of his latest book which explores some of these themes.

* Tim Winton: 'Being called a misogynist stings a bit' *
By  Gay Alcorn
 Tim Winton 



The novelist, who has faced criticism for his male focus, is braving the #MeToo moment with a new book and by speaking out about toxic masculinity


Support our independent journalism with a one-off or monthly contribution
 @Gay_Alcorn 
Tue 26 Jun 2018 01.13 BST   Last modified on Tue 26 Jun 2018 01.57 BST

*Shares*
7
 
* Comments*
 11 



‘Any fence I can’t jump I’m just going to run through’ … Tim Winton. Photograph: Penguin/Jono Van Hest
It’s the end of the road for Tim Winton. This is his last interview, after two months in Australia promoting his 29th book, The Shepherd’s Hut, and flying around the country for a sold-out speaking tour about toxic masculinity. The night before our meeting in Melbourne, he was in Sydney for the premiere of Breath, a movie version of his coming-of-age surfing novel directed by the actor Simon Baker. Tomorrow he’s going home at last, to a tiny town he prefers not to name in interviews, two hours north of Perth.

Winton is gracious with his time, given his exhaustion and that he really doesn’t like the publicity circuit. He is protective of his life away from being Tim Winton, four-time winner of Australia’s most prominent literary award, the Miles Franklin. By literary standards, he is astonishingly popular, a writer of dark fiction who gets asked for autographs on the street.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/jun/26/tim-winton-most-of-the-men-in-my-books-are-doing-badly


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Wasn't really aware of that situation in Thailand. Maybe some of the Aussies going to Tailand to find amenable wives believe they can behave in a similar way and get away with it ?
> 
> I wouldn't say every man in Australia follows the (alleged ) behaviour in Thailand.  But if you think it doesn't exist at all - not true.
> 
> ...



I think its a bit like racism. I haven't had anything extreme since early 90s. Its still around but not to the level it was. There are still pockets of abusers. Same as "misogynists". I'd put the rate of true offenders very low. But hatred of current feminists would rate pretty high.
"Pointing and accusing" politics will make things go backwards. 
The trend in Australia is whinge about false facts and push a narrative that isn't widespread.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 June 2018)

basilio said:


> Given the way you and some of your mates behave on ASF I'm pretty sure most women have fled in disgust. They have enough problems arguing with the idiots in their own lives without taking on the rich blend of toxicity being bred on some of these threads.
> 
> Again, what prevents you from questioning the content of my argument about looking at some elements of male behaviour as toxic rather than suggesting the phrase refers to all men?




I'm sure we all want the real abusers punished appropriately. I just don't think that a proper standard of proof is a woman saying "he did it". Women have been known to lie for revenge or whatever.

There still needs to be evidence tp produce a verdict "beyond reasonable doubt".


----------



## cynic (26 June 2018)

...


basilio said:


> Given the way you and some of your mates behave on ASF I'm pretty sure most women have fled in disgust. They have enough problems arguing with the idiots in their own lives without taking on the rich blend of toxicity being bred on some of these threads.
> 
> Again, what prevents you from questioning the content of my argument about looking at some elements of male behaviour as toxic rather than suggesting the phrase refers to all men?



Which particular elements, of male specific behaviour, are you declaring to be toxic?


----------



## moXJO (26 June 2018)

cynic said:


> ...
> 
> Which particular elements, of male specific behaviour, are you declaring to be toxic?



This is exactly right. 
Anything "masculine" seems to be lumped in as toxic. The moderates tend to get drowned out.


----------



## cynic (26 June 2018)

moXJO said:


> This is exactly right.
> Anything "masculine" seems to be lumped in as toxic. The moderates tend to get drowned out.



I think it might be even worse than that!

Anything toxic seems to somehow be automatically presumed to be of masculine origin (e.g. domestic violence)!!


----------



## wayneL (26 June 2018)

I find myself nodding in agreement with those above,  except bas.

I think there can be toxic elements of masculinity. In my profession you see rather a lot of it in those struggling to succeed,   but it might be the demographic it generally draws from (as opposed to where it should draw from). 

Its about as masculine as it gets... Tools,  utes,  red hot steel,  animal big enough to kill you in a heart beat,  perpetually carrying injuries, lots of scars, etc. 

Yet, our clients are mostly female, and guess what?  They love the masculinity, they love that we have the the skills,  strength and courage to get under a 600kg ball of fight or flight and are able to keep emotionally  level while risking our 4ss and sometimes getting smashed,  only to come back for more to get the job done. 

This is no statement of FIGJAM,  it's common in lots of male dominated professions. 

But hear this; for every toxic male,  for every incident of toxic masculinity,  there is a toxic female and and incident if toxic femininity. 

Yes indeed,  the girls can be just as poisonous as the guys,  ask any woman...  or man,  that has been on the receiving end of it. 

So if we must make toxic masculinity a fecking big issue,  as the post modernists insist we do,  then so must also make a big issue about toxic femininity, misandry,  agendized political feminism. 

Clementine Ford anyone? 

So unless these toxic women are prepared to take a blow torch to the belly,  like they expect men to,  then I for one am not listening.

They can go and get well and truly stuffed  (not reasonable women,  beautiful in heart and soul, you understand) 

And you know what,  our wives will right beside us in the condemnation.


----------



## TikoMike (29 June 2018)

*It’s official: Australia is not dangerous for women*

https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/06/its-official-australia-is-not-dangerous-for-women/

But feminists here in Australia will still try to push the Duluth model scam.


----------



## Darc Knight (29 June 2018)

All Men are Rapists!

Still can't understand that one.


----------



## Tisme (29 June 2018)

TikoMike said:


> *It’s official: Australia is not dangerous for women*
> 
> https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/06/its-official-australia-is-not-dangerous-for-women/
> 
> But feminists here in Australia will still try to push the Duluth model scam.




I think the attitude goes that if it wasn't for women there'd be no population, plus they don't exist, at any level for the pleasure of men. 

Many of those feminists look a bit crusty to me and perhaps its a good thing they have something else to do, like placard waving,  if only for male ocular health!


----------



## Miss Hale (1 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> I don't know what family norm they predicated that series on, but I do know the women in my household were more than equal, worked and we all pitched in. Of course in those days a house was a place to eat and sleep between earning a quid and going out.
> 
> Woman back through my Oz generations have never been doormats and the men have never been ringmasters. Which is probably why I respect and like women as opposed to the simpering imposters who get joy out of painting men as monsters.




Same in my family.  I get sick and tired of feminists saying how terrible life was for women in previous times, guess what, it was crap for men too, bet it wasn't much fun going down a mine for your entire life starting from age 10!  From what I know of my grandmothers' lives and stories from even further back the women in my family had enjoyable and fulfilling lives same as the men, albeit with plenty of hardships thrown in. 

I called myself a feminist once upon a time but do not identify anymore with what feminism is these days.  Yes, some men are horrible, smart women know to give these ones a wide berth and seek out the good ones.


----------



## moXJO (2 July 2018)

Barry Halls comment.
Wittiest line ever,  or most disgusting thing ever heard?

He must have had a brain fade saying that on tv.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2018)

moXJO said:


> Barry Halls comment.
> Wittiest line ever,  or most disgusting thing ever heard?
> 
> He must have had a brain fade saying that on tv.




What did he say ?

It was on radio I believe.


----------



## Junior (2 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> What did he say ?
> 
> It was on radio I believe.




Live on Triple M on Friday night.  Montagna started it, Barry tried to be funny in response, and in the end they are both moronic and gross.  Audio of it is here.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2018)

Junior said:


> Live on Triple M on Friday night.  Montagna started it, Barry tried to be funny in response, and in the end they are both moronic and gross.  Audio of it is here.




I got the impression by all the fuss that it was some insult to Montagna, but apparently he was in on it.


----------



## Humid (2 July 2018)

You have to understand what these blokes did for a living prior to radio
Are you really surprised?


----------



## SirRumpole (2 July 2018)

Humid said:


> You have to understand what these blokes did for a living prior to radio
> Are you really surprised?




Not by Hall, he was always a bogan, but I don't know about what sort of a person Montagna is.


----------



## moXJO (2 July 2018)

That was a shared effort of shooting themselves in the foot. The outrage machine went into over drive.
Threats to halls wife and kid a bit far. But that seems to be the price these days.


----------



## sptrawler (3 July 2018)

It will be a glorious day, when men no longer feel lust for a woman, then there will be true equality.
Just imagine the harmony, if we can remove the sexual act, the child incubation and birth, from humans to a laboratory.
Then we could breed humans, that didn't have an underlying need for the other. Women wouldn't need a man to provide for them, and men wouldn't have the underlying urge for a woman.
Then we could just get on with fighting each other, for jobs. lol


----------



## Tisme (4 July 2018)

sptrawler said:


> It will be a glorious day, when men no longer feel lust for a woman, then there will be true equality.
> Just imagine the harmony, if we can remove the sexual act, the child incubation and birth, from humans to a laboratory.
> Then we could breed humans, that didn't have an underlying need for the other. Women wouldn't need a man to provide for them, and men wouldn't have the underlying urge for a woman.
> Then we could just get on with fighting each other, for jobs. lol




That would open the door for real subjugation of the female form........ especially given the traditions of the two major emerging nations India and China, plus Islam.


----------



## wayneL (4 July 2018)

sptrawler said:


> It will be a glorious day, when men no longer feel lust for a woman, then there will be true equality.
> Just imagine the harmony, if we can remove the sexual act, the child incubation and birth, from humans to a laboratory.
> Then we could breed humans, that didn't have an underlying need for the other. Women wouldn't need a man to provide for them, and men wouldn't have the underlying urge for a woman.
> 
> Then we could just get on with fighting each other, for jobs. lol




I reckon that would be the saddest day in the history of the planet (which I suspect  might be your point)


----------



## Tisme (5 July 2018)

or farcebook version:


----------



## Tisme (5 July 2018)

farcebook media linkage not working admin


----------



## Joe Blow (5 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> farcebook media linkage not working admin



What's the URL of the video you're trying to post?


----------



## SirRumpole (5 July 2018)

This is the guy that deface the Eurydice Dixon memorial.

Sounds like a nutter, but one would have to be to do that sort of thing.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...eurydice-dixon-memorial-over-vaccines/9942784


----------



## Tisme (5 July 2018)

Joe Blow said:


> What's the URL of the video you're trying to post?




Didn't work for another farcebook vid yesterday either. I'll alert next attempt by PM, Joe


----------



## SirRumpole (7 July 2018)

Being friends with the opposite sex without sex.

http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/programs/hack/platonic-friendships/9944412


----------



## basilio (12 July 2018)

I heard a very powerful poem on violence against women on talk back radio yesterday morning. It was exceptionally moving live and worth hearing.

*Talkback caller's heartfelt poem about violence against women resonates with listeners*

*When I say I'm afraid of men who mean me harm,*
_You tell me not to make a fuss, there's no need for alarm._
_That not all men are like that, not to stress my pretty head, _
_Or talk about those other men just look at you instead._
_But what of women suffering, a slap, a punch, a shove,_
_A life of menacing oppression from a man they love._

*Not all men are sexist, not all men disrespect,*
_Not all men are the man who harms what he should protect._
_Not all men are vicious, not all men are brutes, _
_Not all men are the man who punches, rapes and shoots._
_Not all men use violence, most are courteous and kind,_
_But when I talk of toxic men, others feel maligned._

*So I ask you to consider, when you jump in to defend,*
_How did speaking up for women become slandering of men?_
_Why is it when I voice my fears you first defend your brothers,_
_Instead of listening to your sisters, mothers or your lovers._
_I need you to hear my voice and listen to my fears,_
_But you just keep on shouting louder and my voice just disappears._

*Not all men will listen, not all men understand,*
_You tell me you are not all men, a verbal sleight of hand._
_I can look at you and love you and yet still be afraid,_
_While so much deadly violence still seems to be man-made._
_Do not usurp my story, don't tell me what to do,_
_This is not about all men, don't make it about you._

_http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-...omestic-violence-resonates-with-women/9980640_


----------



## Tisme (12 July 2018)

basilio said:


> I heard a very powerful poem on violence against women on talk back radio yesterday morning. It was exceptionally moving live and worth hearing.
> 
> *Talkback caller's heartfelt poem about violence against women resonates with listeners*
> 
> ...




I don't agree with the premise of that poem. Men look on abusive men as aresholes and their victims with empathy and sympathy; they don't make it about men ubiquitously like feminists do.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 July 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Being friends with the opposite sex without sex.



I've never found a problem with that concept and it has always amazed me that some do.


----------



## ghotib (13 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> I don't agree with the premise of that poem. Men look on abusive men as aresholes and their victims with empathy and sympathy; they don't make it about men ubiquitously like feminists do.



Apologies that I can only make occasional drive-by posts these days and probably won't see any response to this one. But I hope I can offer a useful point of view anyway.

First, that poem isn't the premise of an argument. It comes from the writer's experience as a domestic violence worker who is "fascinated by how "good, decent men often jump in to defend men, rather than listen to what women are saying". Read back through this thread and the posts about Sarah Hanson-Young on the Greens thread; the same thing has happened there.

Second, both women and men know that some of the men we encounter during normal business and social activities, and maybe even some of the men we count as friends, use violence towards women. I imagine that for men that's uncomfortable knowledge, but for women it's a constant, though mostly quiet, threat. We know that most men "look on abusive men as arseholes". But abusive men don't wear ******** T-shirts so that women can identify them at sight. Self-protection means that a woman has to be constantly aware that any man she encounters might be one of the ******** minority. And if the circumstances are sufficiently wrong, a minority of one could be the last thing she ever knows.


----------



## Tisme (13 July 2018)

ghotib said:


> Apologies that I can only make occasional drive-by posts these days and probably won't see any response to this one. But I hope I can offer a useful point of view anyway.
> 
> First, that poem isn't the premise of an argument. It comes from the writer's experience as a domestic violence worker who is* "fascinated by how "good, decent men often jump in to defend men, rather than listen to what women are saying".* Read back through this thread and the posts about Sarah Hanson-Young on the Greens thread; the same thing has happened there.
> 
> Second, both women and men know that some of the men we encounter during normal business and social activities, and maybe even some of the men we count as friends, use violence towards women. I imagine that for men that's uncomfortable knowledge, but for women it's a constant, though mostly quiet, threat. We know that most men "look on abusive men as arseholes". But abusive men don't wear ******** T-shirts so that women can identify them at sight. Self-protection means that a woman has to be constantly aware that any man she encounters might be one of the ******** minority. And if the circumstances are sufficiently wrong, a minority of one could be the last thing she ever knows.





That's not something I have observed in my world, but then again I'm not constantly exposed to the dregs of society  (sans those "good, decent men") like a violence worker would be; which is probably why that ode is invalid in terms of the wider community. 

 I've never seen "good, decent men" be anything but that and certainly not defending others for abusive behaviour, let alone aligning themselves along gender lines.

Sarah Hanson is an eggshell politician who is carries a nasty stick. Just look on youtube to see her performances e.g. the Sam Dastyari chaired inquiry into naval vessels entering Indonesian waters ... a female bully in full flight.


----------



## Darc Knight (13 July 2018)

Why is an article on violence against Women posted in the Feminism thread when there is a violence against Women thread?
It seems to be that aggressive domineering Women are always using this sort of thing to beat Men into submission to gain further dominance. 
I grew up in an environment where if a Male raised his hand to a Woman he'd be the one in danger. Feminists are their own worst enemies, destroying a lot of the chivalry that is naturally embedded in the Male psyche.
Feminists create this "us versus them" mentality. Shame on you Lisa Wilkinson, Clementine Ford etc for the harm you cause with your self serving industry.


----------



## Tink (13 July 2018)

Exactly, darc knight.

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/domestic-violence-royal-commission-in-victoria.30031/

One example in Melbourne is Margaret Court.

Is she not female to these women?


----------



## basilio (13 July 2018)

Thanks Ghotlib for your insights. It is interesting that the poem itself and the perspective it offered had an exceptionally powerful impact on many,many people.

Yet on ASF it seems to be viewed as another feminist attack on all good men _who-would-never-ever-abuse-a-woman-and-it-is-clearly-unspeakable-to-even-suggest-such-a-possibility._

_How did speaking up for women become slandering of men?_
_Why is it when I voice my fears you first defend your brothers,_
_Instead of listening to your sisters, mothers or your lovers._
_I need you to hear my voice and listen to my fears,_
_But you just keep on shouting louder and my voice just disappears._


----------



## moXJO (13 July 2018)

basilio said:


> Thanks Ghotlib for your insights. It is interesting that the poem itself and the perspective it offered had an exceptionally powerful impact on many,many people.
> 
> Yet on ASF it seems to be viewed as another feminist attack on all good men _who-would-never-ever-abuse-a-woman-and-it-is-clearly-unspeakable-to-even-suggest-such-a-possibility._
> 
> ...



You shouldn't hit women. Everyone knows it. But its going going to happen. Same as general assault, murder etc.
But the vast majority are against it.

I don't know any man that has hit their wife. But north of 80% of women I know have hit, or assaulted their husband. A portion have made false claims to police and others have used their children as weapons. 
I know plenty of deadbeat fathers. 

Not saying they ain't out there. But imo there was an attitude shift that started in the 90s.
But sexual assault is a different matter. I think that was largely out of control up till recently.


----------



## wayneL (13 July 2018)

moXJO said:


> You shouldn't hit women. Everyone knows it. But its going going to happen. Same as general assault, murder etc.
> But the vast majority are against it.
> 
> I don't know any man that has hit their wife. But north of 80% of women I know have hit, or assaulted their husband. A portion have made false claims to police and others have used their children as weapons.
> ...



That's a grotesque binary transmogrification of the points made here,  but typical of your style, Sarah. 

I am offended,  I demand an apology.


----------



## moXJO (14 July 2018)

Came across this:

IPV is domestic violence.
It shows that the rates between men and women are comparable.
Also that studies are skewed as we only provide services for women.
That women instigate violence at a higher rate.

Video starts off slow but worth viewing.
This is not to dismiss violence against women. Its to acknowledge that violence against anyone is wrong.

Question everything the collective left pushes. Don't just swallow the half truths, or latest emotional outrages that get pushed in the media.


----------



## moXJO (14 July 2018)

Male that experienced dv. Good story and follows the pattern of what happens to many men. Also the threat of jail even when you are the victim.


----------



## moXJO (19 July 2018)

When did we become America? 

*Woman loses bid to have real estate agent’s handshake considered a violent crime.*


----------



## Tink (20 July 2018)

Can conservatives have meetings in Melbourne?

Remember Andrew Bolt.

---
_https://www.news.com.au/sport/tenni...y/news-story/d44141e86f396b85388d6216f9eba0c5

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/threads/i-dislike-daniel-andrews-intensely.32824/page-7_


----------



## Tisme (20 July 2018)

moXJO said:


> When did we become America?
> 
> *Woman loses bid to have real estate agent’s handshake considered a violent crime.*




I think it time to revisit he traditional roles of men and women : men go down the local, women do whatever they do


----------



## Miss Hale (20 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> I think it time to revisit he traditional roles of men and women : men go down the local, women do whatever they do




Sewing circles?  Funnily enough I know a lot of women who would call themselves feminists and they are in a quilting group. They get together and sew their quilts and exchange quilting knowledge and more besides I would presume.  Nothing wrong with men doing men's things and women doing women's things and both doing combined things. People get so worked up over nothing these days.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 August 2018)

No need to take care of yourselves girls, the feminists will protect you.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...once-inspired-sexual-assault-warning/10067670


----------



## Value Collector (2 August 2018)

Miss Hale said:


> Sewing circles?  Funnily enough I know a lot of women who would call themselves feminists and they are in a quilting group. They get together and sew their quilts and exchange quilting knowledge and more besides I would presume.  Nothing wrong with men doing men's things and women doing women's things and both doing combined things. People get so worked up over nothing these days.




Who said sewing is women’s work? Operating a sewing machine has long been a core skill of the para riggers, those are the guys that pack and repair the parachutes.

Make friends with a rigger and they will whip you up all sorts of customized belts, webbing etc etc heavy duty sewing machines come in handy.

Check out this old video at the 1.10 mark.


----------



## Tisme (3 August 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> No need to take care of yourselves girls, the feminists will protect you.
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-...once-inspired-sexual-assault-warning/10067670




"Should" rarely equates what "will" be. Most men wouldn't walk the streets alone at the witching hours, but apparently women should to protest against low lifes who would do anyone harm.


----------



## basilio (3 August 2018)

Value Collector said:


> Who said sewing is women’s work? Operating a sewing machine has long been a core skill of the para riggers, those are the guys that pack and repair the parachutes.
> 
> Make friends with a rigger and they will whip you up all sorts of customized belts, webbing etc etc heavy duty sewing machines come in handy.
> 
> Check out this old video at the 1.10 mark.





Very clever when you think about it.  Who else is going to take  absolute care to make sure* their *parachute is in tip top condition. Well done.


----------



## Value Collector (3 August 2018)

basilio said:


> Very clever when you think about it.  Who else is going to take  absolute care to make sure* their *parachute is in tip top condition. Well done.




In the Australian army the "Para riggers" are a specialist group that Pack and repair chutes as their main job, However about once a month they get assigned a random chute from the ones they packed that month and have to jump, Its a good quality control program haha.


----------



## Tisme (13 August 2018)

75% of the homeless are males, but that doesn't stop privileged females writing this kind of stuff:

https://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle...tralia-is-not-an-old-man-20180810-p4zwpw.html


----------



## SirRumpole (13 August 2018)

Tisme said:


> 75% of the homeless are males, but that doesn't stop privileged females writing this kind of stuff:
> 
> https://www.theage.com.au/lifestyle...tralia-is-not-an-old-man-20180810-p4zwpw.html




In the majority of marriage breakdowns, the wife and kids get the house and the husband gets thrown out on the street.

But the fems don't want to acknowledge that.


----------



## Lantern (14 August 2018)

I feel so lucky that I have totally lost interest in females. Just too much drama.


----------



## wayneL (21 August 2018)

Just leaving this right here.


----------



## cynic (21 August 2018)

wayneL said:


> Just leaving this right here.




Unholy cow!!!

I am still trying to work out, whether or not, this Hailey creature is actually serious, or saying such things fascetiously, in the expectation of making some sort of counterpoint to such extreme views.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 August 2018)

cynic said:


> Unholy cow!!!
> 
> I am still trying to work out, whether or not, this Hailey creature is actually serious, or saying such things fascetiously, in the expectation of making some sort of counterpoint to such extreme views.




I seem to recall Clementine Ford saying similar things.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-school-s-guest-speaker-Clementine-Ford.html


----------



## Tisme (23 September 2018)

There you go...50% of women think higher education is over rated


----------



## basilio (29 September 2018)

* Boys Will Be Boys: Clementine Ford on how men are harmed by toxic masculinity *

Thursday 27 September 2018 6:00am

About a month ago there was a popular thread on Reddit: 'Straight guys ... what's the most intimate moment you had with another guy?'

The question attracted over 12,000 comments, and the the answers ranged from stories of looking after a drunk flatmate by feeding him crackers in the bath, to lying in bed with a dying friend and saying you love them.

When self-described "angry feminist" and "notorious boner killer" Clementine Ford found this thread, she was both moved and saddened, she told_ Hack_.

"One of the things I thought was very sad about it was ... some men are so held back by this idea of how men are supposed to behave with each other it takes a friend dying for them to lay in bed hold them and tell them how much they love them," she said.

Those are things women can do all the time because we're not subject to the same vigorous sort of policing of our heterosexual masculinity.

...*  'Not all masculinity is toxic'*
Whether or not it does lead to convictions, Clementine says the revelations of #MeToo have already helped reveal the way the patriarchy can distort men.

It has forced men to consider the effects of toxic masculinity on themselves.

*"One of the things that people make the mistake of when they hear a phrase like toxic masculinity is thinking that all masculinity is toxic, which isn't true," she said.*

"What they're saying is it's certain aspects of prescribed masculinity and the excuses made for masculinity that become toxic.

"The idea that boys can't help themselves when they're presented with a drunk woman is an excuse that's made to mitigate sexual assault. That's a form of toxic masculinity - taking aspects of masculinity and applying toxic ideals to it.

"I think it's toxic the idea that somehow men should reserve their platonic intimacy from each other in this country.

"I think removing toxic ideas around that and enabling men to actually connect with each other in really intimate platonic ways is a huge step forward."
http://www.abc.net.au/triplej/progr...-men-are-harmed-by-toxic-masculinity/10309046


----------



## Darc Knight (29 September 2018)

You're not helping the cause Bas ...... shhhhh!


----------



## basilio (29 September 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> You're not helping the cause Bas ...... shhhhh!




Why ? Did you read the story ? Or is simply that any combination of the ABC and Clementine Ford creates a runaway nuclear reaction on ASF ?

That would be sad.


----------



## Darc Knight (29 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Why ? Did you read the story ? Or is simply that any combination of the ABC and Clementine Ford creates a runaway nuclear reaction on ASF ?
> 
> That would be sad.




Joe has been discussing the level of general forum chat drowning out stock chat. Secondly, you make a post by a generally accepted misandrist and possibly Sociopath Clementine "have you killed any Men today" Ford which is going to inflame a reaction.


----------



## Tisme (29 September 2018)

basilio said:


> Why ? Did you read the story ? Or is simply that any combination of the ABC and Clementine Ford creates a runaway nuclear reaction on ASF ?
> 
> That would be sad.




I did...and once again Clementine hijacked someone else's social media experiment to parade herself as the megaphone and oracle of virtue. How could a women ever understand the complexity of a male brain.


----------



## moXJO (15 October 2018)

How to get a 9yr old black kid lynched.





Thank god for video surveillance.

Emmett anyone.


----------



## Tisme (15 October 2018)

moXJO said:


> How to get a 9yr old black kid lynched.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Yeah that got a lot of airplay. There have always been women (and men) who strategically position themselves to be the victims of some breach in protocol so they can peacock. The woman in this instance pantomimed a call to some authority, but conveniently forgot to push the call button, preferring to have an indignant conversation with her delusional self.


----------



## basilio (19 October 2018)

*University of Melbourne college publishes student's account of rape*

A University of Melbourne residential college has taken the unprecedented step of publishing a student’s account of being raped within its grounds.

It’s believed to be the first time the 137-year-old Ormond College – which was the scene of the 1992 sexual harassment scandal documented in Melbourne writer Helen Garner’s _The First Stone_ – has published a first-hand account of sexual assault.

The piece was included in an annual publication of student work and written by 20-year-old University of Melbourne student and Ormond resident Ellie, who does not want her last name published.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...tudent-s-account-of-rape-20181018-p50ajz.html


----------



## Darc Knight (20 October 2018)

Anyone else hear about this trend of Universities using the balance of probabilities to determine sexual assault allegations made on Campus.

So our Justice system uses beyond reasonable doubt. But now you can be cleared of allegations by the Law but still found guilty by a kangaroo court at a University.

Plenty of ambitious and aggressive Feminists who'll exploit that. Remember that University survey that concluded some 90% of female students had been sexually assaulted.

Geepers, this is just wrong. Even the Law Society is speaking out against it.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 October 2018)

Darc Knight said:


> Anyone else hear about this trend of Universities using the balance of probabilities to determine sexual assault allegations made on Campus.
> 
> So our Justice system uses beyond reasonable doubt. But now you can be cleared of allegations by the Law but still found guilty by a kangaroo court at a University.
> 
> ...




I would assume that if a student was thrown out of a course they should be able to sue the University or the accusers like Geoffry Rush is now doing to newspapers.

If it gets down to he ,she said without other evidence, that's a sad state for the justice system.


----------



## moXJO (20 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> I would assume that if a student was thrown out of a course they should be able to sue the University or the accusers like Geoffry Rush is now doing to newspapers.
> 
> If it gets down to he ,she said without other evidence, that's a sad state for the justice system.



Cost and time wasted. Fighting defamation costs a lot, for little benefit.


----------



## Darc Knight (20 October 2018)

I only caught the story on the Radio, but the Australian is covering it for Subscribers, but sounded like they also do away with the presumption of innocence!!!

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...s/news-story/84a01dc7b68695487d4c4570660ab2af


----------



## SirRumpole (24 October 2018)

Meanwhile, another woman is murdered going about her normal life...

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-24/cairns-death-toyah-cordingley-dna-tests/10422622


----------



## sptrawler (24 October 2018)

SirRumpole said:


> Meanwhile, another woman is murdered going about her normal life...
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-24/cairns-death-toyah-cordingley-dna-tests/10422622



It really is appalling ATM, the lack of human decency in Australia, it appears all regard for human life and feeling has been forgotten.
The amount of violent attacks on the elderly, on women, on anyone that appears as an easy target is increasing exponentially.
I wonder why?


----------



## Logique (2 December 2018)

How is Yumi Stynes an appropriate person to host an SBS tv documentary examining sexism?


> 2 Nov 2018 - SBS and Yumi Stynes tackle the question, 'Is Australia Sexist?'
> https://www.sbs.com.au/programs/is-...-yumi-stynes-tackle-question-australia-sexist





> 1 March 2012 - TV pair *Yumi Stynes* and George Negus *apologise to Ben Roberts-Smith*
> https://www.news.com.au/entertainme...h/news-story/ecf5ae85ae3677841217b54c850aceb3
> By Colin Vickery and Ian McPhedran, HeraldSun
> ....*Co-host Yumi Stynes said: "He's *[VC hero Ben Roberts-Smith]* going to dive down to the bottom of the pool to see if his brain is there*." ...



And where is the Sisterhood fighting for Asia Bibi?







> 11 November 2018 - *Asia Bibi 'not offered UK asylum* amid concerns of unrest and attacks'
> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/20...fered-uk-asylum-amid-concerns-unrest-attacks/
> ...Britain has not offered asylum to a* Pakistani Christian woman freed after eight years on death row for blasphemy*...


----------



## Knobby22 (2 December 2018)

Yea, big deal, typical of News Corp, not allowed to take the piss anymore. 
The dating app stuff that happens in the doco is just shocking. 

Should get News Corp hack Peta Credlin to host it instead. She ensured no women in Cabinet and now she is out of power she  is still attacking Liberal women regularly. If she had her way the Libs would only have Conchetta left. 

She should watch this doco but won't as she is tribalism at its worst.

10 years ago the Libs had a party membership 49% women 51% men. It now is officially 43% women 57% men. In Melbourne it is 41% women 59% men. 

The Liberals have got to stop being influenced by News Corp and modernise quickly.

Way to win elections.


----------



## Logique (3 December 2018)

"not allowed to take the piss anymore" 

You mean like ".._Don't shag them [men]  then_". Sen Leyonhjelm found the hilarity disappeared when 'taking the piss' went in the opposite direction


----------



## Knobby22 (4 December 2018)

Logique said:


> "not allowed to take the piss anymore"
> 
> You mean like ".._Don't shag them [men]  then_". Sen Leyonhjelm found the hilarity disappeared when 'taking the piss' went in the opposite direction



Does that make my response wrong? No.

You just pushed the partisan response. Newscorp and others are just encouraging the natural tribal nature of humans in order to make money and gain power.

 Stuffing the USA at present. Not working quite as well in Australia.

That is the genius of Murdoch. The power of hate.


----------



## SirRumpole (2 January 2019)

If this was the other way around, it would be discrimination, but to the ABC it's obviously right.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-02/women-celebrate-100-years-of-law-practise-in-nsw/10679376


----------



## basilio (3 January 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> If this was the other way around, it would be discrimination, but to the ABC it's obviously right.
> 
> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-01-02/women-celebrate-100-years-of-law-practise-in-nsw/10679376




Perhaps the "right" way of doing things is like the 1980's as per the last paragraphs of that article? Or maybe 100 years ago when women simply couldn't be lawyers?

_Justice McColl said when she started her career in the Crown Solicitor's Office in 1972, there were only one or two other female solicitors and when she went to the bar in 1980 there were only 20 female barristers._


----------



## SirRumpole (3 January 2019)

basilio said:


> Perhaps the "right" way of doing things is like the 1980's as per the last paragraphs of that article? Or maybe 100 years ago when women simply couldn't be lawyers?




The right way is equal opportunity not closed shops in favour of one gender.


----------



## Darc Knight (3 January 2019)

Past generations of our society may have experienced misogyny, but generally there is a reverve misogyny in our society nowadays. Men are the soccer balls from my experience.
Yes I know we can post isolated cases against this, but in the grand scheme of things on a daily basis, there is more reverse misogyny nowadays.


----------



## SirRumpole (8 February 2019)

Anyone noticed how many tv ads these days are totally devoid of men ?

Hotel bookings, Carlton beer, lots of them.

Seems like men are advertising poison these days.


----------



## Sdajii (8 February 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Anyone noticed how many tv ads these days are totally devoid of men ?
> 
> Hotel bookings, Carlton beer, lots of them.
> 
> Seems like men are advertising poison these days.




It will be interesting to see how far the culture can go in the direction of misandry before the majority of people see it. Most people still can't and it seems it'll have to get a lot more blatant yet.


----------



## Knobby22 (8 February 2019)

It's complex. It's not uniform. 
Plenty of misandry still out there. Even in Canberra. I think in 20 years time though it will be interesting. Matriachal society?


----------



## qldfrog (9 February 2019)

Men usually have better things to do than bitching on FB or the ASF about discrimination . The silent majority effet.  But as we are below 50%, not a majority so we have lost from the start...what a different hell this will become especially in politics:  Dutton knifing will  be described as kids play


----------



## Darc Knight (9 February 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> Anyone noticed how many tv ads these days are totally devoid of men ?
> 
> Hotel bookings, Carlton beer, lots of them.
> 
> Seems like men are advertising poison these days.




The old advertising principle used to be that a female was more trustworthy, I guess due to everyone having a Mother.
Now I'm immediately suspicious of a female in advertising - trust is gone due to Feminists attempts to dominate using any means whether flirting, manipulating, bullying etc.


----------



## wayneL (9 February 2019)

Old school feminists hate the modern iteration


----------



## Darc Knight (21 February 2019)

Currently at Sporting Complex. All ages training including teenage girls Footy team. Girls are different alright. Inbetween plays Girls are jumping up on Goalpost using it like a pole dancing pole. Should make it compulsory for adult girls teams right @wayneL


----------



## Ann (25 February 2019)

I wonder if they see women as being more ethical? Perhaps it is the Gaia (earth mother) feel good syndrome.
Whatever, it is an interesting new direction, I wonder if it was an advertising bloke who thought it up as a new promotional angle? 

*What happened when these female-led companies labeled their products ‘women-owned’ *

*A growing number of companies are getting officially certified as woman-owned*

_Pints of Coolhaus ice cream are labelled with bold logos declaring that the sweet treat is made from cage-free eggs, organic cane sugar and “real” California milk. But one logo gets a bigger reaction than the others: A dark pink W surrounded by the words “certified women-owned.”


“It’s been a huge success,” said Coolhaus co-founder Natasha Case. “Once we put that seal on there, the way it’s connected and resonated on social media, with buyers, with shoppers, with clients — it’s been massive.” More....._


----------



## SirRumpole (25 February 2019)

Ann said:


> A growing number of companies are getting officially certified as woman-owned




I would probably try to avoid products from that company. I find such statements as offensive and sexist as a company saying it's "man owned". Businesses have to sell to both sexes unless they are exclusive to men's or women's markets so there is no sense in sticking it up half the population.


----------



## qldfrog (25 February 2019)

There is the sense if the money is there.all about money....ironic isn't it coming from Sanders fan club...
Would obviously boycott any such thing here.my money my power


----------



## Ann (25 February 2019)

SirRumpole said:


> I would probably try to avoid products from that company. I find such statements as offensive and sexist as a company saying it's "man owned". Businesses have to sell to both sexes unless they are exclusive to men's or women's markets so there is no sense in sticking it up half the population.




I agree I also find it offensive and sexist but that is how I felt about the whole feminist movement when it all began back in the day.



qldfrog said:


> Would obviously boycott any such thing here.my money my power




This is my temptation as well.

If you are a woman and do something well, just get on with it and do it, gender doesn't matter. A mindset of gender neutral is a good place to be.  It is almost as if these young women feel inferior in some way and are saying "See I am a woman but I am still doing something". Grow up girlies!


----------



## Darc Knight (28 February 2019)

On the subject of Jordan Peterson


----------



## Ann (25 April 2019)

*Vegan cafe that boasted about charging male customers an 18% 'man tax' and seating women first is now closing down*

_A vegan cafe that charged male customers an 18 per cent 'man tax' to highlight the gender wage gap is closing down.

Handsome Her, in Melbourne's trendy Brunswick, made headlines in 2017 when it announced it would tackle gender inequalities by charging men more and seating women first.

But the cafe, run by green activist Alex O'Brien, announced it would shut up shop on April 28, after just two years of trading.

It was not immediately clear why the cafe, billed as a safe space for women and lesbians, is closing, but it has faced widespread backlash for it's perceived reverse sexism. More.._


----------



## SirRumpole (25 April 2019)

Ann said:


> *Vegan cafe that boasted about charging male customers an 18% 'man tax' and seating women first is now closing down*
> 
> _A vegan cafe that charged male customers an 18 per cent 'man tax' to highlight the gender wage gap is closing down.
> 
> ...




How sad.


----------



## dutchie (9 July 2020)

Left Vows To Topple Patriarchy By Allowing Biological Males To Dominate Women's Sports
June 3rd, 2019







"The Patriarchy needs to be smashed, women need to be empowered, and men who identify as women need to be active in women's contact sports!" one Portland LGBT activist told reporters. *"Once every single female sport in America is utterly dominated by biological males who identify as women, the criminal hierarchy of men utterly dominating all aspects of life will be broken---this is not hard!"
*

https://babylonbee.com/news


----------

