Liked When 'great men' abuse artistic licence to act on grubby impulses by Jacqueline Maley (The Sydney Morning Herald)
We don’t accept the “those were the times” excuse for the churches, or for the defence forces, so why accept it for the literati, or the so-called Bohemian circles of the '70s, where free love was so often used by men as a tool of exploitation? Creativity and sex have long been linked, as has art with the contravention of bourgeois values. Long may it be so
I think that Greg Thompson captures this best:

Pig indeed!

Bookmarked
I have written about gender equity in the past. It is such an interesting issue with no clear solutions.
Liked AFLW is at risk of being run by men for men. Where are the female coaches? | Kate O'Halloran by Kate O’Halloran (the Guardian)
With the introduction of two new teams in 2018, the AFLW will also gain two more male coaches: Paul Hood at Geelong and Scott Gowans at North Melbourne. One can only hope that the AFL, and each club with an existing male AFLW coach, is also cognisant of providing equitable and sustainable opportunities for women to progress their careers in AFL leadership. Otherwise, the AFLW is at risk of being a women’s competition run by men, for men.
Bookmarked About the boys: Tim Winton on how toxic masculinity is shackling men to misogyny by Tim Winton (the Guardian)
What I’ve come to notice is that all these kids are rehearsing and projecting. Trying it on. Rehearsing their masculinity. Projecting their experimental versions of it. And wordlessly looking for cues the whole time. Not just from each other, but from older people around them, especially the men. Which can be heartbreaking to witness, to tell you the truth. Because the feedback they get is so damn unhelpful. If it’s well-meant it’s often feeble and half-hearted. Because good men don’t always stick their necks out and make an effort.
In a speech about a new book The Shepherd’s Hut, Tim Winton says that it is men who need to step up and liberate boys from the culture of toxic masculinity that has come to mark Australian society.

In the absence of explicit, widely-shared and enriching rites of passage, young men in particular are forced to make themselves up as they go along. Which usually means they put themselves together from spare parts, and the stuff closest to hand tends to be cheap and defective. And that’s dangerous.

Toxic masculinity is a burden to men. I’m not for a moment suggesting men and women suffer equally from misogyny, because that’s clearly and fundamentally not true. And nobody needs to hear me mansplaining on the subject of the patriarchy. But I think we forget or simply don’t notice the ways in which men, too, are shackled by misogyny. It narrows their lives. Distorts them. And that sort of damage radiates; it travels, just as trauma is embedded and travels and metastasizes in families. Slavery should have taught us that. The Stolen Generations are still teaching us. Misogyny, like racism, is one of the great engines of intergenerational trauma.

Along with Molly Ringwald’s reflections on the problematic art of John Hughes and Phil Cleary’s post on the misogynistic subculture of football, they represent a challenge for equity.

It is also interesting reading these pieces alongside Kate O’Halloran’s article on the fear associated with women exercise.

One of the biggest issues for women was the difference between theirs and men’s “entitlement” to space. At 53, [Lisa Schuppe] is a keen surfer, but has only recently taken up the sport again after her experience as a girl who wanted to surf just like her friends who were boys – but was instead treated inequitably.

Here is a longer version of the speech

Liked What About “The Breakfast Club”? by Molly Ringwald (The New Yorker)
If attitudes toward female subjugation are systemic, and I believe that they are, it stands to reason that the art we consume and sanction plays some part in reinforcing those same attitudes. I made three movies with John Hughes; when they were released, they made enough of a cultural impact to land me on the cover of Time magazine and to get Hughes hailed as a genius. His critical reputation has only grown since he died, in 2009, at the age of fifty-nine. Hughes’s films play constantly on television and are even taught in schools. There is still so much that I love in them, but lately I have felt the need to examine the role that these movies have played in our cultural life: where they came from, and what they might mean now.
Listened The male glance: how we fail to take women’s stories seriously – podcast by Lili Loofbourow from the Guardian
Consider this a rational corrective to centuries of dismissive shrugs, then: look for the gorilla. Do what we already automatically do with male art: assume there is something worthy and interesting hiding there. If you find it, admire it. And outline it, so that others will see it too. Once you point it out, we’ll never miss it again. And we will be better for seeing as obvious and inevitable something that previously – absent the instructions – we simply couldn’t perceive.
Lili Loofbourow tries to rewrite the wrong that has male art is epic, universal, and profoundly meaningful, while Women’s creations as domestic, emotional and trivial. This critique of gender has ramifications far beyond fiction. When I think of music and the world of producers, it is another field dominated by males.

One interesting quote to come out of the piece was from Susan Sontag:

A famous Susan Sontag meditation on this aesthetic paradigm bears repeating: “The great advantage men have is that our culture allows two standards of male beauty: the boy and the man. The beauty of a boy resembles the beauty of a girl. In both sexes, it is a fragile kind of beauty and flourishes naturally only in the early part of the life cycle. Happily, men are able to accept themselves under another standard of good looks – heavier, rougher, more thickly built … There is no equivalent of this second standard for women. The single standard of beauty for women dictates that they must go on having clear skin. Every wrinkle, every line, every grey hair, is a defeat.”

Liked Voice and action on International Women’s Day by Dr Deborah M. Netolicky (the édu flâneuse)
Flipping the system is about subverting power hierarchies in the education system, and elevating the voice, agency and influence of those often ignored or marginalised by the system. This involves sharing teacher perspectives and Indigenous perspectives, for instance, alongside the academic voices of scholars. What we have found, however, is that elevating the voices of those at the nadir of the system is full of challenges. Often there are vulnerabilities or ethical tensions that deter individuals and groups from sharing their stories. Like those voices who have brought prominent social campaigns to the fore, it is those who have the most power, stability and security that often feel most free to speak. Those who have the most to lose, or who are in the most precarious circumstances, can be wary about speaking up or speaking out.
Liked ‘Diversity of Thought’ is not the problem by Benjamin Doxtdator (Long View on Education)
The point isn’t to have an Indigenous woman’s voice on the panel so we can get ‘the Indigenous women’s perspective’ and hit a check box as if an obligation has been fulfilled. This approach essentializes the diverse experiences of Indigenous women. Instead, the reality is that the selection of which voices are permitted to participate has long been a rigged game to systematically – and often violently – exclude groups of people who the right-wing (and sometimes the socialist left) now accuse of playing “identity politics.”