I get the impression form you that the article is a waste of time, so I won’t go check it out for the slant you say it displays, just take your word for it..

That show where the dad is a minister would be a good example. The younger, precocious kid is obviously gay but I think that might be a bit of a no go zone for the script writers.

Part of the problem is that often there is not much daylight between the positions of a certain kind of man-hating AWA and the backward thugs of “Christian US family drama” (what is that, by the way?). Rape-hysteric lynch mobs were a KKK specialty.

If About.com posts something outrageous, then I feel that it’s perfectly fine for me to disagree with the stated opinion. About.com is not “any old feminist”. Since I quoted and linked to the article, I was also being very specific (answering the question: Who said what when?).

If any old feminist saying anything slightly outrageous will do, it would seem that you are more interested in having a good rant than actually changing how we think about gender. There is nothing new about macho posturing over the evils of feminism, and it’s helping no one.

Unfortunately I am unable to find any information on what exactly has happened in New South Wales, Australia.

“I only meant that gearing erotic media to become more “healthy” feels like a moral opinion. I dont belive in legislation or other artifical limitation based on subjective moral. As for instance the swedish prostitutionlaw.”

I agree that we should legislate about pornography, or erotic literature for women. However, I believe that it’s still perfectly possible to talk about high quality and low quality literature, and pornography. Obviously such judgments have a strong subjective component, but they’re not completely subjective. If they were, people wouln’t read book reviews and movie reviews, and no movies or books would be considered to be ‘classics’.

Does that make sense?

Pelle

In NSW, Australia we’re dealing with a real law, not only speculation about a coming law.

And more importantly: if feminists are lobbying heavily for changing the law in many countries (and they are), then why should we not be allowed to lobby against this crazy suggestion? You seem to operate from the perspective that we should let feminists show the way, and then only react if something becomes too crazy. But that’s not how I operate at all; I believe that the opinions I put forth (and others who go beyond feminism) are much more constructive than feminism, hence I will put them forth without waiting for persmission from feminism and without needing crazy feminist proposals to turn into actual legislation or legal precedents.

Pelle

Yes it is true that one should not react upon media reports only.

But speaking theoretically, IF the consequence of the law is as feared and men and women will be treated diffrently under the law, this is wrong. Can we agree on that?