You can go read the article for the arguments 'for' at My sexual revolution, I'm going to stick with the reasons 'against':
The feminist writer Bea Campbell was one of LYE's many detractors, arguing that it was far more important to challenge men's behaviour in heterosexual relationships than to insist that women abandon hope altogether. "The notion of political lesbianism is crazy," she says. "It erased desire. It was founded, therefore, not on love of women but fear of men." Another feminist critic was the academic Lynne Segal, who has written in celebration of heterosexuality. "For me, coming into feminism at the beginning of the 70s, 'political lesbianism' was the main position advanced by a tiny band of vanguardist women," she says. "Its stance was tragic, because no, all men were not the enemy." She adds that the media used LYE to "trash" feminism in general. "That inevitably added to the bitterness we felt, both then, and ever since."...
Opponents of political lesbianism argue that "genuine" lesbians are motivated purely by lust towards women, rather than a decision to reject men and heterosexuality.
Well, der. Why base your choices on a negative instead of a positive? What kind of feminism tells women they have no choice? If Julie Bindel sees being a lesbian as such a wonderful, positive thing, why can't she see that straight women might feel the same way about heterosexuality?
One of the comments put it well:
I think of myself as very lucky that I don't have to negotiate with and through and round gender constructs in my own personal life with my same sex partner. At the same time, I think the woman who shares a bed with a (particular, individual!) man in the evening might have something very valuable to tell us about feminism and about how men and women might live together better, at home and in society (that old private/public thing again).
The worst of it is that this is exactly the kind of view that means women are reluctant to call themselves feminists, and leads to lesbians being tarred as 'man-haters'. Pah.
I've realised I can't imagine ever being able to think of January 26 as something to celebrate, but I like the idea of celebrating the good things about Australia so I'd like Australia Day to be on a different date. Kevin Rudd said 'sorry' on behalf of all Australians, but January 26 is still 'invasion day' to me.
After all, it's not like January 26 just marks the date I borrowed your lawnmower that I subsequently forgot to return. It marks the day Aboriginal people had their land nicked from them; the start of everything from genocide to appalling infant death rates.
I was going to suggest May 27, the date of the 1967 referendum about Aboriginal Australians. It's a pretty symbolic date because 90% voted for it, though its meaning isn't straightforward according to Wikipedia:
The overwhelming support for the 'Yes' vote gave the Federal Government a clear mandate to implement policies to benefit Aborigines. A number of misconceptions have arisen as to the outcomes of the referendum some as a result of it taking on a symbolic meaning during a period of increasing Aboriginal self-confidence. It was some five years before any real change occurred as a result of the referendum but federal legislation has since been enacted covering land rights, discriminatory practices, financial assistance and preservation of cultural heritage. The other aspect of the constitutional change, enabling of Aborigines to be counted in population statistics, has led to clearer comparisons of the desperate state of Aboriginal health.
I like the idea that not only is it a day off work, a day for catching up with friends and family or just lazing around, it's also a day where the nation can examine its conscience and test its actions and statements against the spirit of May 27, 1967.
By the chief executive of World Vision, in The Age, in response to the fawning response to Paris Hilton appearing to do a spot of shopping in Melbourne, Hilton stunt leaves society limping:
First, it is clear the media need and feed off Hilton as much as she needs them. Her story and picture dominated the front page of Melbourne's tabloid newspaper on a day when 370 Palestinians died in Gaza and Australia was poised to lose the MCG Test to South Africa....
Whether these admiring hordes following Hilton are victims of celebrity syndrome or not, the mass adulation of her as someone famous for being famous leads to a slippery seduction by serious social institutions such as the media and Government.
It reveals our cultural susceptibility to thin stories of glamour and gratification as opposed to thick stories of courage, self-discipline and hope. We have no right to shake our heads in disapproval if our young idealise shopping and fame as the meaning of life when we, from our leaders down, treat it as newsworthy and commendable.
From the Age, in response to Fred Nile whinging about women going topless on beaches:
The should-be-obvious truth is that straight women love men's bodies. That it sometimes seems otherwise is only because pervy men are more acceptable in our culture than pervy women.Think of that classic teen rite of passage - getting busted with a porn mag stashed under the bed. Now imagine the pictures are of naked men and the bed belongs to a teenage girl. Guffaws and mumbles about healthy curiosity are replaced by disgust and dismay.
Girls get the message early on that it is not acceptable for them to want to boff a bloke just because he's buff. They learn that yearning for male bodies can be expressed only if those bodies belong to smart, funny boys who are kind to puppies and old people.
...
Meanwhile, boys are not taught, as girls are, that their bodies could have a disruptive effect on people around them, that they should wear looser clothing so as not to distract their classmates. They're not told that how they look could incite nasty rumours or prevent them advancing at work or cause them to get raped. They aren't told that the sight of their flesh may cause grown women to turn into mindless brutes.
But the fact is male bodies can have the same effect on women as female bodies can have on men. That far fewer men than women are harassed or attacked by people claiming sexual provocation is not because women aren't visually aroused, but because women have learnt that their biological responses to beauty are not an excuse to commit acts of violence or discrimination.
Just as teenage girls learn to express their desire in culturally acceptable terms, most women learn to not impose their desire on the unwitting (or not) person who triggered it. They know, for example, that no matter how gorgeous a passing man is, it's not OK to scream out an invitation for sex from across the street (although a polite, situation-appropriate compliment is almost always appreciated).
This is a fabulous story to start the new year:
Tony Benn is particularly proud of a certain plaque. It's in a cupboard, and he put it up himself - highly illegally - with a screwdriver. It celebrates the suffragette Emily Wilding Davison, who hid in the cupboard on the night of the 1911 census count so that, when she was asked where she stayed on that date, she could honestly reply: The House of Commons.
Quoted in Grandfather of the revolution; Tony Benn is leaving parliament, but.