egafd.com

There's always going to be some people who are anti-porn, regardless of their motives. But it's just not true that all feminists are against porn, nor are they the only ones supporting this extreme porn bill.
I don't see you blaming the church for your move, when several religious groups also support this bill.

I don't know if I'm mistaken but I was under the impression that it was not feminists pushing through this extreme pornography legislation - wasn't it in fact bought about by the mother of a murdered girl?
And really, can we hold anyone other than our [male dominated] increasingly Big Brother-esque government responsible for this legislation?
They've gone looking for a link between porn and violence and then only listened to opinion that supports their view, whilst also admiting there is no evidence of a link, despite years of study.

and yeh, some feminists may support it, but others are against it. Myself for example, and Feminists Against Censorship, who are are part of the Backlash campaign [http://www.backlash-uk.org.uk/]

I just think it'd be more useful if you targetted your anger/blame at the real problem here, instead of just picking a scapegoat which enforces stereotypes of people that are sometimes on your side.

I never said that I thought women made better politicians, I just pointed out that
A) There are no feminists in control of this country and
B) It's our government pushing through this 'war on porn'


The male dominated comment was just to back up the statement that there are no feminists in positions of power here, because we struggle to get any women at all in power here.

Eliza Manningham-Buller?
Stella Rimington?
Nola Ishmael?
Anne Lonsdale?
Alison Richard?
Anne McLaren?

There is a small sample from National Security, University Education (Cambridge no less) and the NHS. You just have to look.

Nothing like a bit of friction to keep everyone on their toes.

WZR wrote:

>>>

To which AIB replied:

>>>



Have to say that I'm with Alice on this.

Much hulaballoo always ensues when it's pointed out that women are "under-represented" in such-and-such an area and there are always urgent demands to tackle the "problem".

Yet nobody seems bothered that equally, there are areas in which MEN are underrepresented and / or disadvantaged.

It also seems to me that there's an obsession with quotas and numbers here, and that it's all about proportionality - like "women make up 52% of the population, therefore really 52% of MPs (or company directors or whoever) should be women". Otherwise it isn't "fair".

Why, FFS?!!! Complete bolney!!!

Isn't it all about finding the best PERSON to do the job in question, be they man, woman or anything else in between? There are jobs that men are better suited for. There are other jobs that women are better suited for. This is a widely accepted fact, and no amount of wishful thinking or even legislation will ever change that.

Much is also made of women being "disadvantaged" in the workplace. Yet to me that's down largely to the fact that (like it or not!) there are biological differences beween men and women which mean that - inevitably - women are going to have their careers interrupted to a greater or lesser degree if and when they choose to have children. That's nothing to do with "unfairness" - especially these days when there's so much legislation in place to eliminate or at least minimise this "disadvantage". Strikes me that the feminist's quarrel here should be with God, rather than blame the so-called "male-dominated" society in which we live.

Alice IB also correctly points out in his post immediately above that most feminists aren't content merely with gaining equality for women. They also seem to want to gain advantages for women over men or - where such advantages already exist for women - maintain them at the expense of men. So really, their claim that feminism is all about "equality" is largely bogus.

I've a lot of sympathy with feminism, but don't understand its radical porno-phobic minority at all. Their followers are mainly the sort of socially conservative women who look back with nostalgia to the 1950s.

Thus the Daily Mail which is often hostile to successful women is always ready to give space to the likes of the rabidly pro-censorship ' feminist' Bel Mooney. Both porn and independent women are perceived as a threat to their conservative agenda.

The most consistent and articulate opponent of censorship in this country over the last few years has been Feminists against Censorship and the Sexual Freedom Coalition, under the guidance of the wonderful Tuppy Owens.