Public comments on feminism

Feminist ideology and the effect it has had upon society
About this forum
This is an example of one thread - Feminism - which has recently been turned into its own subforum. Thus we are currently breaking that very interesting, but very long, thread into sub-discussions where appropriate. This will leave the original thread with a lot of views while the new threads will apparently have fewer. They'll begin to catch up though.

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Nathan » 31 Dec 2012, 14:50

Paul wrote:Much of this is down to the internet. Where would be be without it, by now? Imagine how much more the state ideologies could have been promoted and how lonesome one would likely feel in one's views, except maybe a limited circle.

Even fifteen years ago (maybe only ten) it was very difficult to gauge mass public opinion on all kinds of these creeping issues that are the problem. You were told what the opinion was (meaning what the newspaper's opinion was) in a section called .....'Opinion'! You may get a smallish (or very small) space allocated to readers' letters, which in any case often alluded to an entirely different story from a previous edition of the publication in question. So you never really got to know how 'the people' actually thought about things, or it was relatively miniscule.

The only other time I ever got to hear the public talk about topical issues (ten or more years ago) was via the phenomenom of radio 'phone-ins'. It's never something I was a big fan of, but I have spent some time, here and there, listening to odd ones. The first one I became aware of (it may still be running somewhere) was the James Whale radio show, broadcast on weekday evenings and which was at first (I think ) a North-Western (UK) radio station broadcast. Red Rose Radio (Lancashire) if I'm not mistaken. This was back in the late 1980s or early '90s at the latest.

They may have been around longer than this, and maybe more in other countries (America?) but not in my experience. Back in the 1980s, as feminism was gathering even more pace (and becoming vicious at times, for the first time), along with racism and general multi-culti stuff, every man truly was an island. Where could you go to find some common ground and argue your corner? Newspapers were no good. They told you what to think, no matter how disturbing that was. It was a lonesome time really, under siege with nowhere to run.

A revelation were these radio shows and described at the time as 'radical', by which was meant - normal, common-sensical, plainly spoken, often blunt, but decent and informed, etc. Of course there were fools and trolls but it was a suprising relief to realise that there were lots of 'normal people' actually out there after all. It's since come to my attention that other radio phone-in programmes are also often refreshing in the same way, not that I have experience of more than two or three. Remember this was 20 years ago. Things weren't as bad in many ways, though one could see what was coming, and it was difficult to air ones views at all or find mass common ground. The very fact that speaking out against the creeping ideologies was suddenly 'radical' is a sign of how mindsets were changing - or had already changed enough.

One of the last times I was actually listening to a radio show, with phone-in (I was at work), I ended up listening live to two (or at least the 2nd) aircraft flying into skyscrapers in America. It was September 11th, 2001 of course, at about ten minutes before 2pm, UK time. I may not have ever listened to a radio phone-in since, which is cause for thought!

Phone-ins though are extremely limited in air-time per comment, obviously. Still you get (or got) a general feeling that a lot of people were angry at the various changes underway.

So all praise the internet. We would never know or connect and that now seems so vital that without it, we could be doomed ever the swifter. Even now it's a knife-edge. It is imperative that a 'free' internet continue. I'm wary and fearful of attempts to curtail this. It's already been mooted from on high and conveniently tagged along with calls for press control, as if the general public are anything like as reprehensible as the press. In fact, as we have noted in 'comments v article' content, it's the comments of the public that are the more truthful and correct.

Well thank goodness for this forum, others like it and the free comment one can read all over the web. I do note it has been asked how far can or should this forum go in the intensity of comment - what are we allowed or not allowed to say? I still say one should be allowed (are allowed) to say anything as long as whatever is said does not encourage, aid and abet or conspire to commit a separate crime. In the case of slander, what is said should be truthful - in which case there is no slander. Merely saying things that express an opinion that some people may dislike (hate) and those sayings then being criminal in themselves I find incomprehensible.

An excellent and interesting comment, Paul. I've always felt old before my time in my conservative and quite reactionary views - "seven going on 45" is one comment I remember from my Dad. I couldn't put my finger on what exactly, but through my teenage years (around the time of the millennium) I definitely felt the bonds that held society together were starting to break down and that the values of the counter-culture generation, which my parents belonged to, were aiding and abetting it. It was around this time that I got into TD's writing through the Daily Telegraph.

Saying this though, I've only really felt a sense of impending doom such as I feel now in the past two years or so at a time when I know because of the internet that others feel exactly the same way if not even more so - if I may take this opportunity to praise this excellent forum - and at a time when I'm better able to get an understanding of what the root causes are. I can only imagine how much harder life must have been for somebody who's properly seen the writing on the wall since the 80s and yet who felt isolated in his or her views all that time. At least now there is some sign that things may be about to change.

I'm a fan of radio phone-ins too, but I've found that the BBC ones are just too biased and some of the commercial ones just too inane, though I did used to enjoy George Galloway, somebody whom I largely don't see eye to eye with, maverick though he is, demolish some of his PC callers on TalkSport. Can anybody recommend a phone-in which might be more preferable?

Talking about where we were on 9/11: I was 17 and in my last year of sixth form. During my last lesson of the day, which must have been about 3pm, our teacher went to the staff room to collect something he'd forgotten and never came back - the reason why seemed obvious in hindsight but before the days of iPhones none of us had any idea what was going on. It wasn't until about 4.30pm when I got off the school bus and got home that I saw the TV. I had heard of the World Trade Center but didn't have any concrete image in my mind as to what it looked like.

I don't have a diary entry from that day to call upon but I certainly remember my Dad saying it could well be the start of World War Three, and I remember receiving an e-mail from some 'Joke of the Day' thing I'd signed up to saying there wouldn't be a joke that day out of respect for what had happened and that that company called for 'the complete and utter annihilation of any country found responsable'.

Watching BBC that day gave no idea as to who might be behind it, but in FHM of all publications, which regularly ran little stories about Taliban extremism, the month before there had been an article about this terrorist group I'd never heard of called al-Qaeda which had vowed to destroy America. When I first read the article I didn't think too much of it, presuming that it was a publicity stunt and there must be so many of these factions with such delusions of self-importance saying the same thing but watching it on TV immediately reminded me of that article which I then re-read.

Interestingly, not so long ago I was talking to a friend of mine who was doing training manoeuvres with the Army on 9/11 who had read the same article and who immediately thought al-Qaeda when he heard the news, and who correctly guessed that within a few months he'd be deployed to fight them.
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Gavin » 31 Dec 2012, 15:12

Nathan, there is indeed a tabloid-like feel to the commercial stations and the commercials themselves I find so inane as to be completely intolerable. I'd recommend Whale's drive-time phone-in if you don't mind regularly muting adverts, otherwise I've faced the same problem as you. I love the remaining RP voices on Radio 4 but became sick to the back teeth of hearing something about Africa or Islam or women's rights every time I turned it on so I don't listen to that at all any more. It doesn't leave us with much, really. I'm thinking of trying to find some some more obscure stations in the US or something, as we can really listen to almost any station anywhere now!

Thanks for the comments on the forum, by the way. As is mentioned in another topic, we are a little uncertain as to how to proceed with it, mainly with it being in TD's name, but we'll just carry on for now.

I remember growing up with Mrs T in power and it felt like people could rebel a bit now and then but at least what was "officially sanctioned" was decency, law and order, standards, spelling etc. The problem now is the rebels are running the show, and that is frightening. What is counter-cultural has become official policy and I think all on here can see that that is a very scary thing for civilisation itself. It really needs to be taken in hand. There needs to be a return to standards and common sense. Maybe it's starting with UKIP. We can hope.
Site Admin
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Caleb » 02 Jan 2013, 07:05

I was doing my final teaching round during my Dip. Ed. It happened at about 1am or so Australian time, so I hadn't heard anything about it. I arrived at school and my supervisor asked me what I thought. I had no idea what he was talking about. He always brought two newspapers to morning form assembly and he handed me one with that iconic picture and a headline such as "America Under Attack!" I remember thinking to myself, "It's on now." Two kids arrived, took the newspaper, flipped it over and started looking at the stats and report of a football match on the weekend. I remember thinking how odd that was, given that for all we knew, there was going to be a nuclear apocalypse, but kids are kids.

Later that day, just before 5pm, I went to the uni sports centre to do kendo training. I was sitting in the lobby where they had a TV and that's when I saw footage of it for the first time. A random young lady I didn't know saw the look on my face and said, "First time you've seen it, hey? Pretty crazy!" I replied, "Yeah, there's going to be war." Everyone there acknowledged that pretty soon, after Americans got over the initial shock, it would get pretty crazy.
Posts: 865
Joined: 20 Oct 2011, 04:44

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Elliott » 09 Jan 2013, 12:26

Now comments from an article by writer/journalist Kate Figes, the thrust of which is that girls and women face more challenges today (thanks to male-dominated society and consumerist media) than ever before. It's a typically stupid article and the comments were so good that it was hard to choose a selection.

Figes comes across as a stereotypical middle-class parent, obsessing about her children, worrying about nothing, and spoiling them rotten. For example, apparently she regularly tells her daughters that they are "utterly stunning". (It's amazing that the whole female empowerment thing has never shaken off the (wrong) idea that a woman's looks are her primary asset in life. Indeed, the cruel irony seems to be that, as women take over male roles in society and adopt male characteristics, their looks have become their only way of attracting men, since in no other way are they feminine.)

The comments are more mixed than my previous selections, because this is an issue that provokes a varied response from even the readership of the Daily Telegraph.

KATE FIGES: It has never been harder to bring up a daughter

Cat Queen 27 wrote:I believe this article is about raising young girls. As a parent of both, I can categorically state that it is almost impossible to protect them from the media influences that permeate our lives. They are seen as sex objects from an early age and it takes every ounce of strength as a parent to resist this message and to allow them to develop naturally.

For us, home-educating them gave them a break from the overwhelming peer pressure and media images that exist everywhere, and to date I am happy that my girls (aged 13 and 17) have largely avoided the expectations placed on them to act in a certain way. It is a shame that removing them from the school was the only way to achieve this, although the educational benefits have also been a wonderful revelation. A win-win situation.

itzman wrote:Feminists don't want or need truly emancipated women. They need (by creating, if necessary) a limitless supply of victims, in order to justify their existence. As indeed does the left in general.

Stonewood wrote:I have seldom read such endless self-exculpatory drivel.

"They are encouraged by the boys to reveal body parts that can be instantly messaged from phone to phone"
No, they voluntarily do this and this has been shown in the most recent studies (including last year).

"rumours almost always trash another girl’s reputation"
No, it is not rumours that trash another girl's reputation. It is other girls, and they absolutely live and love to do it.

But of course the author knows all this stuff and can't face up to accepting it. Dreaming up excuses to account for the often poor behaviour and lack of character of her fellow women and girls must be a full-time job.

Labour Activist wrote:When will feminists realise that it's their own muddle-headed philosophies and angst which puts pressure on women. For example, the "sexual liberation" aspect of feminism has made it easier for a chap to have a guilt and responsibility-free sh*g than ever before. All the Lad's Mags in the world couldn't have come up with a more effective scheme to get women into bed.

When raising daughters, teach them to be scornful of frustrated wimmin preaching psychobabble.

Tickled Pink wrote:Feminism isn't just about saying yes to sex, it's about saying no to sex as well, saying yes I'm not anorexically thin but that's ok, I don't think with my waistline, and saying yes, I do have breasts as part of my anatomy and I shouldn't have to lob them off to stop you ogling them so stop being so rude.

All the comments here, bar mine (have to point that out for the cerebrally challenged) are about hating women. Your mothers, wives and daughters are women. Perhaps you're all abandoned and do not have wives/girlfriends/female friends, perhaps you have nobody in your lives at all. But we are all human beings, male or female, and it's a terrible shame we cannot respect each other.

Nick in France wrote:I find it bizarre that someone supposedly "feminist" clearly remains obsessed with girls' looks.

Rather than needing to reassure our daughters that they are "stunning" - would it not be better to try and explain that that they don't need to be?

Not everyone will be "stunning". Most young women will be - by definition - averagely attractive. Some will be less than averagely attractive or with unconventional bodies. This will not prevent them being successful and happy, or finding a partner who loves them for who they are, especially if they are confident in themselves.

That surely is the message they need.

Percy Porcelain wrote:I was instinctively sympathetic to this piece until I realised that at no stage has Figes sat down her daughters and taught them any morals. Instead she wants them to "explore their sexuality". To that extent she is the classic post-1960s mother who refuses to acknowledge that modesty is a key weapon of self-preservation for girls, and the more they are taught it, the safer they will be.

Westender wrote:As a father of daughters I understand well the concern here but Kate Figes does the issue no favours by showing her middle-class anxiety and the need to tell us all that her daughters "are, in fact, utterly stunning". Grow up. You are making looks an issue. Not all girls will be so stunning. The educated middle-class have enough advantages.

Stonewood wrote:The great Fred Reed said that "young women have to work really hard to be unattractive to young men". This is true. The vast majority of young women (who are not grotesquely overweight) are stunning and they know it. This allows them to get away with often very poor behaviour. The problem arises when they continue to display poor behaviour after those stunning looks have gone. And this happens much more quickly than most realise.

M Hill 4 wrote:What a pile of drivel!

I am certain there are many parents who very simply rear their sons and daughters in a loving and caring environment, and one which does not over-analyse and complicate every single aspect of their children's existence. Confidence, not arrogance; common sense; working hard towards what you want; kindness and a goal of happiness. It is not brain science.

Why does the sex of your child even matter? Surely it is not difficult to prioritise the fact that they are, more importantly, human beings?

Your offspring should be taught to follow their own path without worrying what other people are thinking or doing. There is far too much onus given to the irrelevant views of others.

Charles By wrote:"The distress of young girls is clearly visible in the rising rates of mental health problems, binge drinking, eating disorders and the rampant growth of bullying in our schools."

Such is the bitter fruit of the amoral feminist society.

Timbazo wrote:Open your eyes, Kate, and put the current position of women in the Western world in a geographical and historical context. Would you prefer your daughters to be growing up in parts of the world where they are forced to get married before puberty to a stranger of their parents' choosing? Would you prefer they were denied the chance of a working life that allowed them to make independent decisions for themselves? It's only 30 years ago that private girls' schools showed so little interest in girls' intellectual abilities, preferring instead to prepare girls for married life, that girls were clamouring to be let into boys' schools. (Respect must go to those teachers mainly in girls’ grammars who defied the conventions of the day).

There can hardly ever have been a better time to be a girl than here in the Western world and now. Girls are outperforming boys at school and university. Career opportunities will grow as the numbers of talented women in organisations reach critical mass. It is now accepted that women can do any type of work except that requiring extreme physical strength - work which most men are unable to undertake. Women can choose whom they marry and when - or not to. Same sex relationships are increasingly accepted. Labour-saving devices and the variety of prepared foods available make balancing a career and motherhood a possibility for many more women.

This is not to say that life does not have its problems. However, these problems either apply equally to boys or they should be put in a historical context. There is sexual hypocrisy - but less than there ever was. Over-sexualisation is a concern, but boys also suffer from expectations that they be sexually active before they are ready. It is also the flip side of past attitudes that blighted women's lives - the pressure to remain a virgin till marriage and then to remain faithful, however brutal or inconsiderate or impotent or gay your husband might be; the suspicion that only "bad" women enjoyed sex; the right of a husband to rape his wife. Bullying has always been with us – it used to be seen as character-building. If stereotyping did not exist in its current form, it was only because women’s opportunities were so narrow that there were far fewer "types" of women into which girls could be pigeon-holed. Comparing rates of suicide suggests that boys have greater mental problems than girls. Eating disorders such as anorexia have been with us for a long time, reflecting girls’ resistance to the iron grip that parents exerted over their lives. The growth of the number of people with eating disorders also affects men and reflects the abundance of food that we enjoy and the option of eating food that we didn’t prepare.

The secrets to bringing girls up are the same as for boys and the same as it ever was. Give the child attention and love and security. Keep the child busy. Make sure some sport is included in those activities. Home-cooking and not too many sweets. Give the child time and encourage relationships with other family members. Listen to the child and discuss his or her concerns. Answer questions honestly and relate your own experience. Encourage the child to make the most of his or her abilities and not to worry about others. Explain why you have your values and why you maintain them in the face of people who have different values. All this will not prevent times when your child feels inadequate – feelings of inadequacy are part of life and we all have to face them. However, the foundations given to your child, in terms of having an ability to work hard and the determination to defy others’ expectations, will give your child the best chance to overcome those feelings of inadequacy.

Splotchy wrote:"But I also see how they cannot help but internalise the message that they are not attractive, thin or sexy enough, and need regular, repeated reassurances that they are, in fact, utterly stunning."

The worst thing you could do is give those reassurances - it just reinforces the idea that being "stunning" is a worthy aspiration.

As to the fashion industry - it is primarily made by women, modelled by women, fawned over by women and paid for (in every way) by women. Men largely don't care. The only way for things to change is for women not to care about such nonsenses either.

General Murat wrote:You say that your daughters "need regular, repeated reassurances that they are, in fact, utterly stunning".

So if they were not extremely attractive (taking your word that they are) - what would you say to them? "You are doomed to a life of failure and misery?"

Horrible article expressing horrible sentiments.

Wanderlust AJ wrote:One of the great ironies of the feminist movement is that it treats females as completely passive and incapable of agency.

IML wrote:I expect there have been times more difficult to bring up a daughter, possibly during the Napoleonic Wars, perhaps during the Black Death? No, it's now, when the penis-wielding oppressors of womankind have it all their own way. What a crock.

Great God Pan wrote:My wife is a real woman, not some petty whining feminist chancer. She is beautiful and feminine but can still (and does) climb on the back of lorries and can out-work and out-load many of the spoilt little men. Now that is a real woman who knows who she is and what she is capable of. I love you my girl.

Dr London wrote:As a mere man it does make me laugh how women are continually looking for external reasons why girls / women have such difficult lives. As many have pointed out here, why is it always external factors that are to blame?

Women have always been more prone to self-doubt and lack of self-confidence while men used to be more confident, but that has slowly been eroded and characterised as arrogance and misguided male ego. Tell us why we should care that women are finding it difficult in the world when you are getting exactly what you asked for? Stop whingeing and man up.

Eirik 1985 wrote:"Women have always been more prone to self-doubt and lack of self-confidence"

Actually, in matriarchal cultures, the opposite is true. This strongly suggests there is nothing inherent in women that means they MUST be self-doubting, they are taught to be by the society in which they grow up. Western societies have consistently held women in lower regard than men, so the fact that women have "always" been self-doubting could be because they have consistently been told they are worth less, less capable, less intelligent, less free than their brothers.

"Tell us why we should care that women are finding it difficult in the world when you are getting exactly what you asked for?"

Well, the sensible answer is that women make up 50% of the world, so to dismiss the unhappiness of vast sections of the population as "whingeing" is likely to result in problems. Not to mention the fact that current gender roles and relations are as damaging to boys as they are to girls. Unequal societies are unhealthy societies, whether it's divisions according to wealth, religion, ethnicity, caste, sexuality or gender. This is why feminism is for everyone, not just women (as many sensible men have realised).

Instead of throwing your toys out of the pram because men can no longer assume automatic entitlement to all the perks of society and cannot be assured of unearned privilege, perhaps your energies would be better spent on the difference between confidence and "arrogance and misguided male ego".

Brian wrote:I have two girls (2 and 4) and I sure as hell won't be telling them that if they don't succeed then it's someone else's fault. I can think of no better way to turn someone into a little whinging victim than telling them that.

IML wrote:This is the basic message of feminism which has publicly-funded university departments devoted to spreading it and a ministry devoted to caring for the human rights of everybody in the country except indigenous males.

It is going to be a long fight to re-establish manhood as something to respect in the West and it will not take place in my lifetime.

Eirik 1985 wrote:To deny that boys and girls have a different experience of life due to the double standard society holds them to is absurd. Your daughter will suffer street harassment on at least a monthly basis, irrespective of what she is wearing, how late at night it is, or where she is going. She will lose count of the number of times it happens. Your sons will be able to count on the fingers of one hand if and when it happens to them.

Your daughter will ask a question of a client in a meeting, and the client will answer to her male colleague. Your son will ask and be answered directly.

Your daughter will be asked when she is getting married and how many children she wants. Your son won't.

Your daughter will be told she needs protecting and looking after, and that she needs a man to stand up for her. Your son won't.

Your daughter will be talked over in meetings by her male colleagues, and will make some good points which no one listens to until one of the men repeats them. Your son will be listened to as a matter of course.

Male colleagues will ask your daughter, apropos of nothing, when she is going to do a topless calendar. Your son won't.

This isn't an exaggeration. Every one of these incidents has happened to me, more times than I can count. Head over to the Everyday Sexism Project to see what is really happening - it's an eye-opener for anyone who thinks sexism is dead.

Rantin Dave wrote:Oh dear, how much did this chap pay for this advert for his book? Of course he would see all these issues as problems, as otherwise there's no reason for us to buy his book.

I see modern Western civilisation as being incredibly enabling for the current generation of girls. They walk into university places that boys can only dream of, they have access to the kind of social networking and freedoms, physical and by Internet, that previous generations simply never imagined, and they have lifestyle choices that few other sections of society enjoy.

Looking at the future of opportunity that is ahead of my daughter I get excited and wish it were me!

Sure, there are all the peer group and exploitative media pressures that are mentioned, but let's have some context. They're not getting shot for wanting an education, they're not forced into female castration or the sex trade or an arranged marriage. They're not automatically expected to leave school at 16 and start a family.

Chris KH wrote:Sorry, I'm just not buying it. The general discussion round the dinner table has been from two friends with girls that it's much harder to bring up girls than it is boys. Admittedly I don't have girls but it's the usual nonsense I hear and they seem more intent on "protection" and future marriage prospects than developing their daughters to have ambition, careers and an equal lifestyle to men. The truth remains that women have choices that men will never have and, sexist though it is, a woman can always marry a millionaire. Let them get on with it like the boys.

Mountain Mum wrote:I am the mother of two daughters aged 20 and 17. My view is that young women need what they have always needed: love, support and a moral sounding post.

I do not deny that mothering young women is difficult. The world expects a great deal from girls these days. Luckily they are in a position to choose from many options. The difficulty is choosing correctly and wisely.

As a parent I must choose my battles carefully. There are those which must be fought (no smoking, no drugs, no drink driving, no unprotected sex) and those which can be discussed, in the hope of a sensible compromise (not too many late nights, not too many snacks, more studying). At the end of the day it is about consistency and reliability; someone they can trust absolutely, but who also demands to be given respect.

Girls know their own minds. I think part of my job is to help them stick to their ideas and set their own goals. Coaching them through the fear of rejection is a life-skill that they will need, as we all need it.

XXYYZZ123 wrote:Girls consistently out-perform boys academically and are usually more emotionally mature at the same age.

As a father of two I think one of the biggest problems they face is an unwillingness or inability to let fists do the talking every now and then. Nowhere else in the biological world do animals suppress their rage and anger as much as girls / women do, whereas most men are able to express their rage physically and, importantly, instantly. My girls dwell on the slightest of issues so that they assume great importance in their worlds, often because they couldn't or wouldn't say what they felt there and then.

The other battle is that of self-confidence. They are truly beautiful people - intellectually, emotionally and physically - but they simply do not accept this fact and, if their mother is anything to go by, they probably never will. Modesty is a virtue, true, but not at the expense of self-belief and our blessed media and marketing industries do nothing to help in this regard.

All that being said I am absolutely delighted I had girls and have never yearned for anything different. Boys would have been a nightmare if I was anything to go by...

Mr Ed the Talking Horse wrote:I rather suspect that it was harder [to bring up girls] before antibiotics, when infant mortality was considerably higher than it has been before the end of WW2.

What appears to be hard is dealing with the degenerating culture of the late 20th Century onwards.

RTJ1211 wrote:Here are a few observations based on the expressions of women of various ages over the years to a man not competing for their affection at the time:

1. Women under the age of 30 are often far more interested in what other women think of their looks and their clothes, than what men think.

The conclusion of that one is that, in order to be worthy of a man's attention and admiration, they have to pass the girlie mafia's bitchy tests first. Is this something that women think makes sense??

2. Women blame men for the hang-ups they have about what other women think about them, not what men think about them.

The conclusion to be drawn from that one is that they consider men to be second-class citizens, since if they didn't, they'd realise that, if men are not responsible for their hang-ups, they shouldn't bring their hang ups into relationships. After all, how many women want to hear about men's neuroses?? Almost none is the answer to that one. Do women think this does either men or women much good?

3. What men find sexually attractive is hugely more variable than what women's fashion editors deem to be so.

The number of men whose dream woman in 6ft tall, has a 22 inch waist and smaller than average sized breasts is less than 10% of the male population in my experience. Some men prefer women with smaller frames, others with bigger ones. Some prefer more curvy ones, others, more petite. Some prefer blondes, other prefer brunettes. Women would do very, very well to look at the actual shapes of women who get married to decent men. After all, the shapes of the men they marry aren't very similar either, are they??

4. A woman's body gets a man's initial attention, but it isn't enough to sustain attention for longer than about 2 weeks, in the absence of other attributes.

A woman with a reasonable body who enjoys the presence and romance of real men is far more attractive to most men over the age of 21 than a Milan model who's semi-anorexic diet makes them constantly irritable, nitpicking and bitchy. Conclusion: learning how to flirt healthily and respectfully is far more important than obsessing about creating the perfect body.

5. Women, like men, fail to realise that you don't have to be the best at one night stands to be really, really good at long-term relationships.

This is rather like saying that you don't have to be a genius at maths to be a great doctor.

Hardly revolutionary stuff, is it??

Note that I haven't considered one thing about female-female interactions. That's the domain of women to sort out. But if they don't sort it out, and, as a result, the effects of that spill out into the male-female domain, expect ructions...

Men's emancipation involves telling prize female bitchery to go back to the jungle where it came from.

Ayrshire Lass wrote:It used to be that it was only parents, aunts and teachers who used to tell young girls what to do. And the girls' magazines of the day offered useful advice. Even if you resented and disagreed with the advice, looking back it was always intended for your own good.

That's not the case now. There is a huge abdication of responsibility by women in bringing up girls. Too many mothers are self-obsessed and are interested in reliving their own teenage years as they think they missed out. Otherwise sensible women buying their 9 year-old daughters thongs for Gods sake.

You can see the same thing in the majority of media and girls' magazines which you would think would be run by women in their forties who might add a sprinkling of common sense having lived through the tumultuous decades of the 1970s and 1980s.

But no unfortunately too many of that generation of women are more interested in being hip and cool than wise and mature.

As for men, well they seem to me to be either brow-beaten by women into keeping quiet about their concerns or they are more than happy with the current situation to take advantage of young confused girls for their own ends . Unfortunately I think the latter is becoming more common.

It's all very well for mothers to try to stand firm against the tide of stupid and immoral "advice" that assaults girls daily but we really need men to realise that their role is crucial at this time by just reminding their daughters why they are loved and reassuring them.

Al Harris wrote:It's all the fault of men and there's no mention of a father's role here. Yawn.

Hagar wrote:Popular female "role models" like Cheryl Cole don't help - singing and dancing to audiences of 10-15 year-olds, clutching her crotch. Don't blame the youngsters when they do the same in the schoolyard.

Jiggery Pokery wrote:I work with young women a lot and have the most tremendous respect for them even though I sometimes joke around like a prat. They're a very stabilising influence on many aspects of today's frenetic society and great fun to be with - such energy and warmth and enthusiasm.

It's not surprising though that many of them leave to have children and find this much more rewarding than a career in management or whatever. That's the natural way for most of them and much more rewarding and important. We need young women to form stable and loving environments so they can give their own daughters the proper start in life.

Insidious cultural Marxism has put women in an impossible position where they are expected to be sex objects and society's leaders at the same time. They should follow their hearts, but daughters should always be taught to put self-respect first and in this way they'll avoid many of the emotional and psychological pitfalls.

Michael C Feltham wrote:Quite amazing how younger parent commentators and journalists are starting to realise precisely what those of us who think have maintained for more years than I care to remember.

However, this seems to be the way of media and the endless "experts" and gurus it trots out: they reach startling conclusions that we normal lesser mortals already knew.

Wow! Great post-event forecasting.

As marketeers and the heinous grip of mass media and the so-called "music" industry has increasingly sexualised its product, on TV, promo videos and the rest, most female "singers" (I use the word loosely!) simply under-dress, and writhe in synthetic copulation, rather than sing: they are on stage to shamelessly strut their stuff.

Young girls have been sold a wholly false bill of goods: which has led to increasing incidence of such illnesses as Anorexia Nervosa and Bulimia.

Simultaneously, marketeers of a range of crap like make up and hair treatment promote unrealistic results. Instead of perfume and fragrance companies trying to, as before, promote an image of femininity, they promote raw sex and lust.

Accordingly, every young girl has become mummy and daddy's little princess: and Britain and America have created generations of narcissists, more obsessively concerned with self-image than mental acuity and personal ability.

Where does it start?

Parents constantly giving in to children: for a quiet life.

Today when shopping, mummy invariably asks of a young child, "What would you like for dinner this evening, darling?"


The idiot left-wing with its insane and proven (in the 1930s) crazy concept of children's "rights" and treating them as "people and individuals in their own right", is mainly to blame, since young children are not: they are people and individuals in the process of development.

And if that developmental process be flawed, then the resultant person is flawed.

Increasingly, today, a majority are simply cases of arrested development.

Water Willows wrote:Good grief! Lord give me the strength to deal with the blathering fools of militant feminazi ideas.

There actually is within the world and role of females all the competition and achievements any female could desire. Plenty of opportunities and much strength required to develop the character to be effective in their natural roles.

If a mother has problems recognizing this, it may well be because she has kept her eye too much on what every penis in the land is doing, and not looking at her own greener pastures.

Imitation men are not where any female needs to go. She is good enough without having to act like what she is not.

Percy Porcelain wrote:I've realised recently that I am unlikely now to find a woman who is not mentally ill in one way or another. The phenomenon has now become inter-generational, with women born in the 1960s (when the madness came) now mothers or even grandmothers, with their daughters sending their daughters even further into the realms of self-harm and self-abuse. That monastery I used to visit as a young man has never looked more appealing.

Auric wrote:"Girls are now expected to be all things – attractive, thin, good, successful, happy, kind, loving, self-sufficient; perfect"

In these expectations, you`ve missed out "lying drunk in the street, unconscious and wearing a mini-skirt and high heels".

I would certainly expect to see that on a Friday or Saturday night.

Wot Me Finks wrote:Just a little observation from my local park a few months ago.

There were about 30 teenagers there one afternoon, in about 5 or 6 seperate groups. Most of them were boys, just 3 girls. All the boys, in different age groups, were engaged in either cricket, football, basketball or tennis games.

The three girls were wandering around bored, looking for, and causing trouble - embarrassing boys they knew, and trying to get the attention of boys they didn't.

Castilian wrote:The problem with the majority of ordinary girls is that they aren't interested in anything apart from The X-Factor (like, OMG!) and bitching about other girls.

Next time you go in WH Smith's check out the women's magazine section: the majority of it is vacuous celebrity 'OMG!' mags. Then check out the men's section: it covers a multitude of different interests, hobbies and subjects.

Charles Chickens wrote:Go to any playground, and you will see that the girls are bossing the boys, who usually meekly fall into line.

Problems begin when the boys are on their own and start fighting, and the girls are left alone to try to boss each other.

And that is before "sex" gets involved.

Earl of Brigand wrote:I think one answer might be to ridicule the entire notion of this consumerist, Americanised fembot culture that is taking over our shores.

These faux-individual tribes are nothing more than the extension of the international marketing industry and the Taylor Swift inspired girls pawns in a money making exercise.

Ariel 2 wrote:[This] is indeed a ghastly article, riddled with the dreary sociological crap that's at the root of most of our intersexual problems so far.

The causes of female emotional/social problems are many and various, and not to be ascribed solely to the role/s that society (ie. males) imposes upon them.

How does this woman reconcile her puerile lament about how down-trodden, manipulated and helpless girls are being made to feel with the facts out there in the world beyond sociology?

True, there are only now two (I think) female CEOs of FTSE100 companies, but females in extremely high positions in business, banking, commerce local and national government abound.

Not to mention the monstrous regiment of Quango queens, who parade across our pages and screens with depressing regularity with every new scandal about the NHS or Social Services, etc.

And as for Medicine and the Law, well, they will very soon be female monopolies.

I'm afraid it seems that while you've been immured in your little feminist bubble, Ms Figes, the gals have got up and gone, and are taking over the world.

And damned good luck to 'em, too!

Jonesy wrote:I agree in some sense that the media is to blame for sexualizing not just women but society in general, however it is the generation who came of age in the 1960s to blame for the "sexual revolution". Your ideals brought about this culture; the culture just ran with it.

Other than that your ideals are totally misguided and are bound to result in more confusion. Males and females both wish to be attractive to the other. That's just human nature. But without moral values it runs amok and becomes the main focus.

As a female I blame the feminists for creating this awful society that has done hardly more than make things worse for the rest of us.

Percy Porcelain wrote:Sadly Jonesy, toothpaste doesn't go back into tubes and genies don't go back into bottles. Nevertheless I believe it's time to start the "put it all back in" movement in belated response to the hippie mantra, "let it all hang out".

There's a hell of a lot to be said for sexual repression. It served to protect women far better than rampant feminism, and didn't empower creeps and womanisers.

Jane London wrote:If you want to see sexism and misogyny the Telegraph comments section is a great place to go. Amazing how they all troll away about feminists and "wimmin" - yet take the time to seek out out all the pieces concerning women and girls.

I feel sorry for these people because most of them clearly hate women but they have to live in a society where women no doubt do better than them every day. Luckily I believe them to be a minority. The Telegraph comments section seems to be one place where they can congregate with like-minded unpleasant troll types to spout their vitriol.

Ex-Rock Chick wrote:I think the some of the worst influences on teenage girls have been "the WAGs". I had no end of trouble getting my teenage daughter to stay in and do her homework. She and her friends got the idea into their heads that it wasn't necessary to work hard and get some qualifications to get into an interesting and well-paid career. They just had to do their hair, put on some designer clothes and to go to clubs where the Premier League footballers hang out, and seduce them with a view to eventually marrying them. It was an uphill struggle, I can tell you.

I'm not sure I was the best role model; I had my qualifications and a very good, well-paid job but I worked hard and certainly didn't look glamorous - I was worn out with all the commuting and the business travel (it is not exciting or glamorous to be constantly travelling on business, however exotic the location!). I tried the approach of "If you get good grades, you will go to a good university and and get a good job. That way you will meet a better class of boyfriend." Or "You're an intelligent girl. Won't you find his conversation a bit tedious after a while?" I just got pitying looks.

Eventually, I bit the bullet and packed her off to a good boarding school miles from the shops and the night clubs and her previous friends with their unhelpful attitudes. With a strong culture of sport - she needed some outlet for all that excess energy! And it worked (apart from getting fit enough to jog several miles to the nearest train into town!). It cost me an arm and a leg (this is where my very good job came in handy!) but at least I knew where she was and that some more useful values were being instilled in her.

Anyway, she ended up with a law degree and accountancy qualifications and eventually washed up in an investment bank. When the crunch came, she took her money and ran. Then she got married to a wealthy man (but not a footballer - a captain of industry). She now lives in a beautiful, unheatable country house with her husband and two children and a walk-in wardrobe full of designer clothes. So I suppose she has achieved her aims after all. And got better conversation into the bargain.
Posts: 1800
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 22:32
Location: Edinburgh

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Nathan » 26 Jun 2013, 21:22

An article in the Guardian complaining about how men are overrepresented at Glastonbury and other music festivals. Some of the best comments that made me laugh:

You know what the worst stat is:

99% of gender inequality articles in the Guardian are written by women.

Bunch of sexist so & so's

After all, no one likes a sausage fest.

Well apart from all the people that rush to buy the tickets.

She [the writer] also fails to mention that outside of the festival and band music scene or whatever you want to call it, some of, if not most of the world stars right now in music are female e.g. Adele, Rihanna, Beyonce, Miley Cyrus, Taylor Swift etc.

The author of this article is clearly desperately clutching at the tiniest straw she can find on a day in which she clearly couldn't think of anything worthy to write about

I was just looking at the Guardian's list of columnists for sport.

4 out of 67 are women.

That's 6%.

I approve of all these articles, but let's have a full discussion on the Guardian's female representation on these pages

That female festival fan being held aloft has little to cheer about

I know the author typically does not write the subheading; but the implication here (that female fans would only cheer female performers) is pretty outrageous.

I really am trying my hardest not to be dismissive of Guardian feminism. No, really.

Stop supplying the ammo.

I blame the paucity of female acts on the Tories and a slavish devotion to neoliberal economic policies. Once Labour are back in I am sure all the bands will be female.

I'd rather go to a festival where I liked the bands performing, rather than concerning myself with their gender.

Then again, I am a man and therefore automatically wrong.

I think it's terrible that women are woefully underrepresented in deaths in police custody. Between 1998 and 2009 92% of the deceased were male.

What a sausage fest.

Top Selling Groups (not solo artists or duets) in History:

The Beatles
Led Zeppelin
Pink Floyd
Rolling Stones
Bee Gees
Dire Straits
Fleetwood Mac
Backstreet Boys
Bon Jovi
Guns and Roses
Def Leppard

Only two have female members and none are all female. So thats ten percent that have any female representation at all. And 34% of acts have female representation at Glasto. Why so many?

Oh the humanity!

Meanwhile in Syria....
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Gavin » 26 Jun 2013, 21:29

Great replies!

I would like these feminists to name more then three sound engineers who actually record and master these albums, too. Never mind the programmers who create the synthesizers or the people who create all the other musical instruments. "Sexism" again, I suppose. It's getting beyond a joke now and embarrassing for the women themselves to point to the supposed unfairnesses.
Site Admin
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Gavin » 01 Dec 2013, 14:11

Paul Weston takes a young feminist to task here. The other comments make for entertaining reading too.
Site Admin
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Gavin » 29 Dec 2013, 01:33

In relation to this story:

sadedezerah wrote:Now that many people have finally started to openly voice their displeasure and anger about politicians, hopefully now some women will have the strength to openly speak out against extreme feminism.

I'm a woman and I am sick and tired of feminists harping on about non issues. I quite like Thomas the Tank engine just the way it is, and I also quite like having cartoons catered to boys free from meddling by feminists. Feminists in my opinion have trashed the concept of manhood and have left many women unhappy. We were told that we could have it all but reality is very different.

They want girls to be involved in the scouts but no boys are welcomed into the girl guides. The national scandal is the fact that society has allowed feminists to walk all over men whilst simultaneously being hypocrites. Politicians come from too narrow a pool of people and sadly it appears that in order to be a successful female in the Labour party you must hold Pro EU and Feminists views.

sosraboc wrote:Careful girl, you'll have a queue of suitors at your door!
Site Admin
Posts: 3432
Joined: 27 Jul 2011, 18:13
Location: Once Great Britain

Re: Public comments on feminism

Postby Nathan » 29 Dec 2013, 13:18

This one made me chuckle, from an article in the Guardian calling for feminism to have more of an intellectual voice (itself a pretty chucklesome idea!):

How many feminists does it take to screw in a light bulb?

One to screw it in;
one to excoriate men for creating the need for illumination;
one to blame men for inventing such a faulty means of illumination;
one to suggest the whole "screwing" bit to be too "rape-like";
one to deconstruct the lightbulb itself as being phallic;
one to blame men for not changing the bulb;
one to blame men for trying to change the bulb instead of letting a woman do it;
one to blame men for creating a society that discourages women from changing light bulbs;
one to blame men for creating a society where women change too many light bulbs;
one to advocate that lightbulb changers should have wage parity with electricians;
one to alert the media that women are now "out-lightbulbing" men;
one to just sit there taking pictures for her blog for photo-evidence that men are unnecessary.
Posts: 880
Joined: 08 Dec 2012, 17:58


Return to Feminism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


Login Form

Who is online

In total there are 2 users online :: 0 registered, 0 hidden and 2 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Most users ever online was 175 on 12 Jan 2015, 18:23

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests
Copyright © Western Defence. All Rights Reserved.