Of course there are a great many men who are exploited, but generally it is by richer and more powerful men, and not by the few rich and powerful women. The evidence still shows that women do a huge proportion of the world’s work, in exchange for a tiny portion of it’s wealth.

I believe it has been in the interest of capitalism to set mena nd women againts each other, to keep our minds distracted from the great injustices that are perpetrated on all of us.

From what I gather the film is a thriller, and so many of them are biased in the other direction. Think of all the Chandler women, and the idea of women presented in the whole noir genre.

The suspicion and bleakness is just part of the genre, and complaining about it is akin to objecting to innuendo in Carry On films.

I’m reminded of the Michael Winner film. He was challenged about the sexism in his films on the Channel 4 discussion programme After Dark, and he said that if someone came to him with the gender roles reversed, he would still be inter5ested in making the film. What was it called? Dirty Weekend, I think. A female main character who was raped and abused went on a spree and killed lots of men who tried to take advanatage of her.

I don’t read a film like that as a commentary on the relationhsip between all men and all women – it’s justa story that chooses to look at the dark side of a few extreme situations.

Now that may illuminate and tell us something about the wider society we live in – but mostly I think it doesn’t. Mostly I think these are just stories where we can indulge our desire to split off all the nastiness that is in us all and project it safely out there, and then leave it behind afterwards. Just like some people do when playing violent computer games.

I think your understanding of feminism is deeply flawed and based on a very few extreme examples. Of course the radical separatists exist – but mostly feminism isn’t like that at all. The vast majority of feminists are living perfectly happily in harmony with the men in their lives – and just want justice and equality, and for women to live free of fear. Most of us think that would be better for men too.

This is a film of almost unparalleled bleakness of vision in which no man can even have a decent thought. This is what I have understood is the heart of feminism since I witnessed it’s birth on the campus of Sussex University straight after Germaine Greer’s obscene book, in 1968 – and the world was suddenly full of hatred.

However, to equate feminism with man hating is plain old fashioned lazy thinking – just as bad as the extreme radical feminist position that all men are potential rapists, or the view that all Muslims are potential terrorists.

Feminism covers a whole range of beliefs, but the basis of it is merely about equality. Feminists are girlfriends, wives, mothers, sisters, daughters – hell, some of them are even men. Let’s not get carried away with demonising a stereotype.

Something is terribly wrong with Hollywood – the way so many of its denizens have queued up to defend Roman Polanski is completely shocking.

However, when you analyse the entire output of Hollywood, and consider the way women have been depicted in every genre, I don’t think one or two films that shows that some men behave badly to women will do anything to redress the balance.

Let’s see – Glenn Close the bunny boiler, Sharon Stone in Basic Instinct, the way that sexual young women get punished in such films in the horror genre as Halloween, while the chaste ones survive.

Ann – still feminist.

If mind is trying to control everything then it doesn’t take much intelligence living in the guts to guess what the message is.

Strange, isn’t it, how easily people can destroy their friendships…

But is it really that easy, let’s presume there’s something underneath.
A friendship has been ended because one of both feels terribly hurt by the other, by a misjudgement, a misunderstanding, or another grief… To show how horrific this experience is the injured friend wants to make a big, serious gesture, the worst that he can think of, that is by ending the friendship. And suffering from ending it.

In the case of Diderot and Rousseau, after their break they both lived for another twenty five years. Both were well-known men and thus informed about each other’s activities in life. By their letters we know that they never stopped regretting the loss of their friendship, and yet, they never succeeded in repairing this loss.

So I think we do suffer from such deeds like ending a cherished friendship. It shows as well our incompetence, that it is hard to fill up each other’s gaps…

But… when one of my pupils should aim for a more amicable contact, I would be on my guard, always aware of the consequences of what I’m saying.
Therefore the friendship would not be between equals. Perhaps we need a new name for such contacts, not a friendship, but a ‘teacher/pupil’ something…

I am constantly amazed at how what appears to be the smallest of matters can breakdown and destroy friendships that have lasted for many years. I have been on the outside looking-in on a number of occasions where this has happened; but thankfully not yet experienced it myself.

It’s almost like a hardwired switch has been operated in the brain and no amount of talking or reasoning is going to make the slightest bit of difference. Why is this?

Stan