Having seen some episodes of “Sex in the City” I wouldn’t be particularly interested in reading a book by one of the writers of the series.

However a study can ask a woman about her relationships with other men that she knows, and if she has no permanent relationship with a male at present then she may report that men won’t “commit” to a relationship with her. Include the men in the study and they might say that they simply don’t like her, which gives the matter a fuller perspective. However many of these studies normally leave out men and so the distorted results.

There is little time for “getting to know” someone, particularly for a male. For a male, forming a relationship with a female has now become very high risk, and if it was a financial investment then no worthwhile financial advisor would recommend it. Some countries still retain a system of alimony, but there is also palimony as well. If there is a marriage and a divorce then the husband will loose most assets. If there are children involved then there will be child support payments which is almost universally paid by the father, although he may not be able to see the children that often, or have any say in how the child support money will be spent.

For a male, the risks are now too great to spend time “getting to know” a woman they do not like at first. Those are the new rules.

Bad news girls! Just because a guy asks you out, rings you up or chases you everywhere doesn't necessarily mean he likes you as a person either. He might just think you're easy!

Timithy, you're the last of the true Romantics.

Yes I agree Cranky.

I probably am a romantic, and also a realist in these "changing times".

It is iromic that the article mentions Germaine Greer as being an expert in beauty. She has been travelling countries for years collecting pictures and drawings of near naked young boys and has now included them into a book for other like minded people.

You are of course right, Timithy.

But this book is a real worry especially in light of comments made (including this article). It implies that women really don’t know these very simple common sense things. Although I haven’t read the book (and don’t plan to of course), I assume the advice is written from a male perspective that I can relate to (i.e. agree).

If so, then one wanders how decisions about a marriage partner are made. If we assume it is a joint decision at least (i.e. the woman didn’t jump for the fist guy that “was into her”, and vice versa), then the fact that at least 70% of marriages are dissolved by women (less then 30%, by men), does NOT make any sense. After all this advice, how is it that they get it sooo wrong, sooo often!

Is it precisely because men don’t read such advice, that they remain more committed to their family, or is it that because they don’t, they somehow become less desirable over time? “Official” statistics don’t help – we are led to believe it is because of unequal housework, violence, and other such “excuses” that, from all our personal experience, media exposure, all anecdotal evidence published in qualitative studies, just doesn’t add up.

If marriage and divorce decisions are made on the basis of advice received from these types of books, girly magazines, Sex & The City and Oprah, then perhaps some serious reassessment is required. It is clearly not working in the best interests of families and children. These decisions carry serous social implications and huge consequences for the children and their fathers. The criteria must be wrong, and following someone else’s criteria is no excuse!

What justification can we give to divorced fathers for not allowing them time with their own children? “They’re just not that into you”? What romance do people expect from men who know their children can be told “he’s just not that into you”?

Seeker, the following might help. It comes from an article on a book by Susan Sharpiro Barash. She wrote the book after interviewing 500 wives across America and the book is titled “The New Wife: The Evolving Role of the American Wife”. (NB this is a book about Americans, but Australians seem to copy Americans so I guess Australian wives will become like American wives eventually).

-The new wife is usually a member of Generation Y and takes the best bits from the past: the romance of the 1950s plus the hard work her mother did in the 1960s.
-She is happy to return to the workforce after a five-year child-minding gap “They believe they can return to their careers at any time” says Barash
-The New Wife has a husband who supports her. “These men prefer to make more money so their wives can stay at home”.
-“Potentially a good provider” is on her shopping list when looking for a husband. “It is a very calculated conscious decision on the part of these women” says Brash.

Now Social Science has had a long history of being a highly relevant science that is highly non-sexist and regards both sexes equally, which is the reason why this study is on wives only, and not husbands and wives combined. But if husbands were asked what they wanted from a marriage and a wife, it could very well be like this:-

-The new husband is usually a member of Generation Y and takes the best bits from the past: the romance of the 1950s plus the hard work his father did in the 1960s.
-He is happy to return to the workforce after a five-year child-minding gap “They believe they can return to their careers at any time” says Barash
-The New Husband has a wife who supports him. “These wives prefer to make more money so their husbands can stay at home”.
-“Potentially a good provider” is on his shopping list when looking for a wife. “It is a very calculated conscious decision on the part of these men” says Brash.

So a male cannot afford to waste too much time trying to determine if a woman would be a potential wife. During this initial stage, (which was once called courting), he can be charged with sexual harassment, stalking, date-rape, or emotional violence.

So he has to make some quick decisions about this potential wife, and if he sees that she will not meet his requirements or expectations, he should be quickly moving along to the next woman at the bar.

As far as non-custodial fathers being allowed to have more contact with their natural children without killing them etc, then I think that there is ample evidence that they can.

Certain people in certain organisations must have made an oversight, but divorced fathers often get remarried and they have step-children. They see these step-children daily, so this means that they should be able to see their natural children more often than once a fortnight, (and have to pay money to the mother for that privilege).

Timithy, seems to be a slight misunderstanding.

I’m asking why is it that out of those marriages that fail, the women made mistakes about choice of partner, more than 70% of the time. With all this advice available to them, why do women get it so wrong so often?

If we agree with your argument that men spend less time in choosing and courting, than that means women spend more time in such activities. This would then be another reason for them not to get it wrong as often as they do. Would it not?

Are we then saying that for women, it is all about marrying-up, having good children, and when family assets sufficiently accumulate, make the break (taking the 70% in assets, 90% of children, and 36% in child support) in readiness to attempt correction of her initial error in choice of partner?

Is it simply that women have different tastes in men, in their 20’s 30’s 40’s and beyond?

Seeker, I guess it depends on what is meant by the “ wrong decision”. Perhaps it has more to do with a stimulus-rich, experience-poor environment that we definitely do live in.

If it is believed by society that it is acceptable for a man or a woman to have several different partners in their life so as to provide lots of stimulus (ie the novelty of meeting someone new, having a whole new set of relations etc) then there is nothing “wrong” with that because society is agreeable to it.

The main problem would come with any children involved, (although there are problems regarding more mundane matters such as division of assets etc to be agreed upon). How many parents should children be expected to have? A new set every few years or every few months? It would get a bit much for children trying to remember the birthdays of all their different parents or deciding who to contact first on fathers day or mothers day.

Finding a “reason” for a divorce is not that necessary anyway within a No Fault divorce system. If asked, someone can just put their reasons for wanting a divorce to “communication problems” or something similar. This was the most common reason given for divorce in the study carried out by the AIFS. See http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/WP20.html

Of course “communication problems” is a very wide area, but it was not broken down any further in that study or any other study carried out since to my knowledge. This is why I regard Social Science as being highly relevant, and any tax-payer money being spent on it is money well spent.

Seeker I don't think that women are making mistakes in picking partners as such. Men tend to compartmentalise their lives alot more than women. Men have one life at home, another different life at work, another one with their mates, etc. and the less they have to do with each other the better. Women tend to have one life with all different aspects blended together. When they're unhappy in one aspect of their life it effects all others. With men as long as most of their lives are travelling OK they tend to ignore others that aren't. This means that by the time a man is forced to pay attention to the relationship compartment of his life, the woman has struggled, argued, begged,grieved and finally moved on. All this even before the man acknowledges a problem. (You SNAG's out there please pay this no heed) The main reason women leave men is because they have been unhappy for a long time with no signs of improvement. Men leave women for other women, always. Very, very few exceptions. We're much too chicken to be on our own.

Timithy, no wonder you're having troubles with girls if you think stalking, date rape, harassement and emotional violence is akin with courting! Stay away from my sister!!

Hi Bozzie,
I don’t even know your sister.

The point I was trying to make was that there are now considerable risks involved for males if they approach a female or attempt a relationship with her, and yes, accusations of sexual harassment, date rape, stalking etc can most definitely occur. These accusations can also be backdated, like the accusations made about a US university professor last year regards something he did / didn’t do with a student many years earlier.

The risks involved for a male can also increase the longer the relationship continues and there can be palimony, alimony, child support, and even pet support (which is the latest legal craze in the US). In the vast majority of cases, these payments have to be made by the male.

Maybe society is beginning to litigate itself to a standstill.

It's a real insight to relationships reading some of these comments. I had no idea that men were wandering around out there thinking of all woman as these man-hating, malicious, calculating, litigious beasts that were just waiting for the right moment to deprive men of their family and livelihoods and continue on as single mothers. Sounds a bit time consuming. Thankfully I don't know any women that think like this. Surely the majority of literature, art and music throughout history would be horrified by the joy-killing anti-relationship attitude of a lot of these comments. There are no 'Rules' as these books would have you believe. Navigating the whole deal used to be its major attraction. Otherwise life would be a little dull.

Audrey,
I believe that your thinking would have been the thinking of a lot of men also, or at least initially. That is before they had anything to do with the Family Court, or been on the receiving end of a DVO, or sexual harassment notice.

I personally have not had anything to do with such things, but I have heard from many men who have, and I have heard how they have had to navigate through that process.

With the low rates of marriage, it could said that there is a “marriage” strike occurring. However there are definite signs that a “dating” strike between couples is also beginning to occur in the US, where this story originates.

Audrey, for once I agree with you 100%.

Bozie,

If you have a look at the list of the principal "wants" of the New Wife as mentioned earlier

-The new wife is usually a member of Generation Y and takes the best bits from the past: the romance of the 1950s plus the hard work her mother did in the 1960s.
-She is happy to return to the workforce after a five-year child-minding gap “They believe they can return to their careers at any time” says Barash
-The New Wife has a husband who supports her. “These men prefer to make more money so their wives can stay at home”.
-“Potentially a good provider” is on her shopping list when looking for a husband. “It is a very calculated conscious decision on the part of these women” says Brash.

What is missing? The word "love"
What is talked about the most? Money

Australians usually follow Americans by a few years, and I think a lot of men in Australia are now very concerned about the growing number of women who can very easily change into the human equivalent of the female scorpion. If you don't think there are such women, then you haven't been around.

I am a woman -- So I am a victim -- So you have to give me lots and lots of Money.

Seems to be the catch-cry of many women now in certain societies.

So if a male instinctively doesn't like her at first -- It is best for him to stay well away.

Timithy, I understand where you're coming from, but I think you're being a little bit too cynical.

Sure there are women around as you describe. I think the traditional word is "gold digger" & it was around long before the feminist movement really took off. There are also men around who look to become romantically involved with women so as to fleece them of everything they own. They too are in the minority. I think these people are a result in a defect of character rather than anything caused by the feminist movement. I know that the feminist movement is not without its defects, but like every other movement, philosophy and the like the extreme and dangerous elements are usually scrutinised, analysed and then discarded by the majority.

If you look at it, women have only had the luxury of marrying purely for love since the feminist movement took off. Prior to that their options were pretty limited and a financially secure future for them and any children would surely have been top of the list in looking for a spouse. If they happened to love them as well that must have been a bonus. My wife wouldn't have touched me with a stick under those conditions!

Now whilst not exactly a feminist, my wife is no shrinking violet when it comes to womens rights. Some of her friends could easily be cast as feminists and both they and my wife seem alright to me! All bar a couple are married, seemingly happily, most have children whom they seemingly adore, most (not all) also work. They all exhibit pretty good family values to me, even if some of them do vote labor!

I do agree with the last comment you make. If you don't instinctively like someone at first why WOULD you want to hang around?

Oh, I think your underestimating certain things a little Bozzie.

Depending on how you want to calculate the statistics, then divorce is occurring between 30% to 50% of marriages. The rate of separation in de-facto relationships is estimated to be higher. Almost 1 in 3 children will not be living with both parents by the age of eighteen, and in nearly 90% of the time, the custodial parent is the mother and the contact the children have with their natural father is greatly reduced.

This is the current reality.

No other group or movement in society, has called for divorce or the splitting of the nuclear family as much as the feminist movement. If you thoroughly research it, you will learn that this is a fact, and calls by feminists for more divorce are still occurring even in very recent times.

“Time consuming” Audrey? I would like to think not many women set out this way from their first “he’s into me” date.

If both men and women actually knew where they stand from the very start, and stood as equals, things could be a little different. If no fault divorce (as one example), means neither party is at fault, then why is all the punishment meted out to fathers, while mothers are rewarded? “No fault” seems more of a presumption of guilt, than guilt free, as was apparently intended.

If men were only given the respect they deserve (no more, no less), I doubt this discussion would be taking place.

Timithy, you are right. Keep up the good work in building awareness.

It is sad state for Romance. In my humble opinion many women these days are bigget hypocrates in looking for a partner. One minute they are after "Brad Pitt" look alike, but also want a SNAG guy. Lot of women use buzz words like spirutal, honest man a great communicator blah, blah, while they do not have or exhibit any of these traits themselves. Many do not under the meaning of love and what makes a partnership work. As the saying goes - what is good for the goose is good for gander or what ever!.

Rachel Hills statement that:
"Hard as it may be to believe, some men do get intimidated, are burnt from past relationships, and even have normal human doubts and emotions." sounds condescending on men in general. In my opinion it is kind a statement one makes when someone got a problem with men!or consider them to be lesser mortal than oneself.Is there something I am missing here? Finally, girls there are lot of good availble men out there, find one and ask them out for a change. Remember looks change or goes with age other things like love, friendship is what will remain to the end.

I would agree Blackman that Rachel Hills is very condescending of men. She begins her article by mentioning the innumerable number of books, magazines and TV programs for women, then ends the article by saying that a book written by a man is “just "The Rules", marginally updated and packaged from a man's perspective.”

She seems to be suggesting that one book written by a male (amongst the plethora of such books and magazines written by women) is one too many. Hardly very egalitarian. However lets look at a web-site about male/female relationships that was developed by males and receives nearly 5,000,000 visitors per month. It would probably be the male equivalent of magazines such as Cleo or Cosmopolitan, which many women seem to find indispensable.

This web-site contains articles such as “12 Women to Avoid at All Costs” at http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_100/114_dating_advice.html

It starts with “Miss Feminist”, includes “Miss Take” (out for money), “Miss Romance” (lives too much in a fantasy world), “Miss Elusive” (likes to frustrate) etc.

But what happens if the male does unfortunately become involved with one of these non-recommended types of women, and there is actually marriage on the horizon. This is where the article on “prenups” becomes a must read for men at http://www.askmen.com/dating/curtsmith_100/133_dating_advice.html

It seems that for males, “prenups” are now as necessary as having a will developed, but for some reason “prenups” are rarely mentioned in women’s magazines. However “prenups” do not cover de-facto relationships, so maybe there needs to be a “predef” as well. But having a “predef” would mean that a de-facto relationship becomes formalised, which means that it is like a type of marriage anyway.

Has the whole system now become totally absurd, overly pre-occupied with money and highly unromantic. Seems to be that way, but who started it.

Timothy, pre-nups are not all that they are made out to be. I looked into them only to find that the Family law courts can over-ride them if they see fit.

My wife's solicitor even advised her not to accept my pre-nup as it was not in her interests. Considering that my asset contribution was far greater than hers it obvious why he suggested this.

Not only is the system 'overly preoccupied with money', but many women are too. My wife turned out to be one of these, even using the tactic of making false domestic violence allegations. And such deceitful tactics could just work as the judiciary has the mindset that most men are guilty of DV anyway so they often therefore err on the side of women.

But, I'd still like to think that for every example of selfish, man-hating women there are good ones also.

On Wednesday the 27 December 2000 pre-nuptial agreements became law throughout Australia. Before Wednesday the Family Court generally would not waste its time even looking at a pre-nuptial agreement. They were not binding at law.

Binding Financial Arrangements (BFA s), are contract that set out the division of assets should the relationship breakdown – they can be prenup, postnup, same sex or defactos.

They do not seem to provide the protection people are led to believe and it is claimed they only encourage further litigation. They need to comply with family law in the first place, and they can be set aside easily if they become outdated by substantial change in circumstances etc.

Here’s a link to a letter sent to WA lawyers warning of their pitfalls (especially risks to lawyers themselves). http://www.taxlawyers.com.au/Publications/New/bfaalert1.pdf

Here’s a new service offering professional wing women to men.
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/01/22/1106334260671.html

Not sure if this approach is a further sign that “He's Just Not That Into You”, or exactly the opposite, because it overcomes his rejection aversion and allows him to make the first move even if he otherwise would not.

It appears that the whole system is directed towards “temporary” or “throw-away” type relationships. Trying to establish permeance, assurance or stability in the relationship is not considered an important factor.

A pre-determined plan of beginning, then ending the relationship is also being followed by many people.

Hi Timithy, firstly let me congratulate you for being true to your beliefs in the face of those who will not see or listen. There are those who hear and understand your message. If only more did. I joined up specifically to congratulate you and to add this article quote into the mix for discussion:

The diabolical episode of the 30-second rapist

In 1985 the Western Australian parliament dramatically amended the law relating to rape, first by changing the term rape to sexual assault and then greatly widening the definition of what could be classed as sexual assault. Many acts not previously constituting rape were included in the new Act and the criteria for sexual assault was any type of penetration where consent was not present and ongoing. It did not matter that force or threats were not used. The penalty for any type of sexual assault was increased to fifteen years imprisonment.

Where any type of force was used, the charge was aggravated sexual assault, carrying a penalty of twenty years imprisonment.

The draconian Act soon snared its first victim. Perth resident Kevin Ibbs was having consensual sex with Christine Watson on the night of 29 November 1986. Watson, a close friend of Ibbs's wife, Katrina Carter, was living in the same house with Ibbs and Carter. The sex act was taking place with the full knowledge of Carter who was in the house at the time.

As Ibbs was nearing ejaculation, Watson suddenly withdrew her consent to sex (so she later claimed) and tried to push Ibbs away. He continued for a short time. Too late, he was trapped. He was charged with sexual assault and found guilty under the new law. The judge found that Ibbs had continued sexual intercourse for about thirty seconds without consent (for which he was later dubbed the 30-second rapist). The judge sentenced him to four years imprisonment. [Details of the case]

Some years later Watson admitted to police that the whole incident was a set-up orchestrated by Carter to have Ibbs charged with sexual assault to get him out of the house they were sharing.

Christine Elizabeth Watson a.k.a. Christine Elizabeth Wardle and Katrina Ann Carter were subsequently convicted of conspiring to pervert the course of justice. They served seven months in jail.

Mr Ibbs was acquitted in 2001 but the damage was done. He says that his health has been affected, his career as a tradesman has been ruined and the whole affair has cost him over one million dollars.

http://www.australian-news.net/anti_male.htm

I would like to add some quotes from mainstream feminist leaders for you chew on, taken from the article linked below (apologies in advance for the long post, but I can't understand or condone the wanton dismissal, personal attacks and belittling or the denial that I see regarding these issues by those who think it is all roses):

http://www.nosafetynet.com/Forums/index.ph...&st=0&#entry350

"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it "Her". Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination."
Pornography: Men Possessing Women - Andrea Dworkin

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist"
Amazon Odyssey (p. 86) - Ti-Grace Atkinson

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression..."
- Sheila Jeffrys

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies."
- Andrea Dworkin

"All men are rapists and that's all they are."
Author; (later, advisor to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.) - Marilyn French

"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE."
(Her emphasis) - Marilyn French

"The nuclear family must be destroyed, and people must find better ways of living together.... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the breakup of families now is an objectively revolutionary process.... No woman should have to deny herself any opportunities because of her special responsibilities to her children...."
"Functions of the Family," WOMEN: A Journal of Liberation, Fall, 1969 - Linda Gordon

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage."
From Sisterhood Is Powerful, (ed), 1970, p. 537 - Robin Morgan

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman."
- Catherine MacKinnon

" How will the family unit be destroyed? ...[T]he demand alone will throw the whole ideology of the family into question, so that women can begin establishing a community of work with each other and we can fight collectively. Women will feel freer to leave their husbands and become economically independent, either through a job or welfare."
In "Female Liberation" - Roxanne Dunbarr

---Or how about: SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) Manifesto
by Valerie Solanas

---Or perhaps these:

"The nuclear family must be destroyed... Whatever its ultimate meaning, the break-up of families now is an objectively revolutionary process." -- Linda Gordon

"I feel that 'man-hating' is an honorable and viable political act, that the oppressed have a right to class-hatred against the class that is oppressing them." -- Robin Morgan, Ms. Magazine Editor.

"I haven't the faintest notion what possible revolutionary role white hetero- sexual men could fulfill, since they are the very embodiment of reactionary- vested-interest-power. But then, I have great difficulty examining what men in general could possibly do about all this. In addition to doing the shitwork that women have been doing for generations, possibly not exist? No, I really don't mean that. Yes, I really do." -- Robin Morgan

"We can't destroy the inequities between men and women until we destroy marriage." -- Robin Morgan

"I claim that rape exists any time sexual intercourse occurs when it has not been initiated by the woman, out of her own genuine affection and desire."
-- Robin Morgan

From her "The Demon Lover" (NY: Norton & Co., 1989 Morgan doesn't hide her bigotry):

* p. 138-9: The phallic malady is epidemic and systemic... each individual male in the patriarchy is aware of his relative power in the scheme of things.... He knows that his actions are supported by the twin pillars of the State of man - the brotherhood ritual of political exigency and the brotherhood ritual of a sexual thrill in dominance. As a devotee of Thanatos, he is one with the practitioner of sado-masochistic "play" between "consenting adults," as he is one with the rapist.
* p. 224: My white skin disgusts me. My passport disgusts me. They are the marks of an insufferable privilege bought at the price of others' agony.
* p. 229: Sex to this point in my life has been trivial, at best a gesture of tenderness, at worst a chore. I couldn't understand the furor about it.
* p. 316: Did she die of the disease called "family" or the disease called "rehabilitation", of poverty or drugs or pornography, of economics or sexual slavery or a broken body?

"And let's put one lie to rest for all time: the lie that men are oppressed, too, by sexism--the lie that there can be such a thing as 'men's liberation groups.' Oppression is something that one group of people commits against another group, specifically because of a 'threatening' characteristic shared by the latter group--skin, color, sex or age, etc. The oppressors are indeed FUCKED UP by being masters, but those masters are not OPPRESSED. Any master has the alternative of divesting himself of sexism or racism--the oppressed have no alternative--for they have no power but to fight. In the long run, Women's Liberation will of course free men--but in the short run it's going to cost men a lot of privilege, which no one gives up willingly or easily. Sexism is NOT the fault of women--kill your fathers, not your mothers".
-- Robin Morgan

"To call a man an animal is to flatter him; he's a machine, a walking dildo."
-- Valerie Solanas, Authoress of the SCUM Manifesto

"Life in this society being, at best, an utter bore and no aspect of society being at all relevant to women, there remains to civic-minded, responsible, thrill-seeking females only to overthrow the government, eliminate the money system, institute complete automation, and destroy the male sex."
-- Valerie Solana, SCUM founder (Society for Cutting Up Men.)

"The male is a domestic animal which, if treated with firmness...can be trained to do most things."
-- Jilly Cooper, SCUM (Society For Cutting Up Men, started by Valerie Solanas)

"Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage." -- Sheila Cronin, the leader of the feminist organization NOW

"I want to see a man beaten to a bloody pulp with a high-heel shoved in his mouth, like an apple in the mouth of a pig." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Marriage as an institution developed from rape as a practice." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Heterosexual intercourse is the pure, formalized expression of contempt for women's bodies." -- Andrea Dworkin

"In my own life, I don't have intercourse. That is my choice." -- Andrea Dworkin

Under patriarchy, every woman's son is her potential betrayer and also the inevitable rapist or exploiter of another woman." -- Andrea Dworkin

"To be rapeable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Q: People think you are very hostile to men.
A: I am." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Men use the night to erase us." -- Andrea Dworkin

"The annihilation of a woman's personality, individuality, will, character, is prerequisite to male sexuality." -- Andrea Dworkin

"Men love death. In everything they make, they hollow out a central place for death, let its rancid smell contaminate every dimension of whatever still survives. Men especially love murder. In art they celebrate it, and in life they commit it. They embrace murder as if life without it would be devoid of passion, meaning, and action, as if murder were solace, stilling their sobs as they mourn the emptiness and alienation of their lives."
-- Andrea Dworkin

"Men are rapists, batterers, plunderers, killers; these same men are religious prophets, poets, heroes, figures of romance, adventure, accomplishment, figures ennobled by tragedy and defeat. Men have claimed the earth, called it 'Her'. Men ruin Her. Men have airplanes, guns, bombs, poisonous gases, weapons so perverse and deadly that they defy any authentically human imagination."
-- Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women

"On the Left, on the Right, in the Middle; Authors, statesmen, thieves; so-called humanists and self-declared fascists; the adventurous and the contemplative, in every realm of male expression and action, violence is experienced and articulated as love and freedom."
-- Andrea Dworkin, Pornography: Men Possessing Women.

"The institution of sexual intercourse is anti-feminist" -- Ti-Grace Atkinson

"Feminism is the theory, lesbianism is the practice." -- Ti-Grace Atkinson

"Rape is nothing more or less than a conscious process of intimidation by which all men keep all women in a state of fear" -- Susan Brownmiller; Authoress of Against Our Will p.6

"When a woman reaches orgasm with a man she is only collaborating with the patriarchal system, eroticizing her own oppression." -- Sheila Jeffrys

"Politically, I call it rape whenever a woman has sex and feels violated." -- Catherine MacKinnon

"All sex, even consensual sex between a married couple, is an act of violence perpetrated against a woman." -- Catherine MacKinnon

"You grow up with your father holding you down and covering your mouth so another man can make a horrible searing pain between your legs."
-- Catherine MacKinnon (Prominent legal feminist scholar; University of Michigan, & Yale.)

"In a patriarchal society, all heterosexual intercourse is rape because women, as a group, are not strong enough to give meaningful consent."
-- Catharine MacKinnon, quoted in Professing Feminism: Cautionary Tales from the Strange World of Women's Studies.

"The more famous and powerful I get the more power I have to hurt men." -- Sharon Stone; Actress

"Ninety-five percent of women's experiences are about being a victim. Or about being an underdog, or having to survive... women didn't go to Vietnam and blow things up. They are not Rambo."
-- Jodie Foster; Actress - as quoted in The New York Times Magazine.

"The proportion of men must be reduced to and maintained at approximately 10% of the human race." -- Sally Miller Gearhart, in The Future - If There Is One - Is Female.

"And if the professional rapist is to be separated from the average dominant heterosexual (male), it may be mainly a quantitative difference."
-- Susan Griffin, Rape: The All-American Crime.

"If life is to survive on this planet, there must be a decontamination of the Earth. I think this will be accompanied by an evolutionary process that will result in a drastic reduction of the population of males." --Mary Daly, former Professor at Boston College, 2001.

"If anyone is prosecuted for filing a false report, then victims of real attacks will be less likely to report them." - David Angier

"Men who are unjustly accused of rape can sometimes gain from the experience." - Catherine Comins

"As long as some men use physical force to subjugate females, all men need not. The knowledge that some men do suffices to threaten all women. He can beat or kill the woman he claims to love; he can rape women...he can sexually molest his daughters... THE VAST MAJORITY OF MEN IN THE WORLD DO ONE OR MORE OF THE ABOVE."
-- Marilyn French (her emphasis)

My feelings about men are the result of my experience. I have little sympathy for them. Like a Jew just released from Dachau, I watch the handsome young Nazi soldier fall writhing to the ground with a bullet in his stomach and I look briefly and walk on. I don't even need to shrug. I simply don't care. What he was, as a person, I mean, what his shames and yearnings were, simply don't matter."
-- Marilyn French; The Woman's Room.

"All patriarchists exalt the home and family as sacred, demanding it remain inviolate from prying eyes. Men want privacy for their violations of women... All women learn in childhood that women as a sex are men's prey."
-- Marilyn French

"All men are rapists and that's all they are"
-- Marilyn French, Authoress; (later, advisoress to Al Gore's Presidential Campaign.)

"The media treat male assaults on women like rape, beating, and murder of wives and female lovers, or male incest with children, as individual aberrations...obscuring the fact that all male violence toward women is part of a concerted campaign."
-- Marilyn French

"I believe that women have a capacity for understanding and compassion which man structurally does not have, does not have it because he cannot have it. He's just incapable of it."
-- Barbara Jordan; Former Congresswoman.

"Probably the only place where a man can feel really secure is in a maximum security prison, except for the imminent threat of release."
-- Germaine Greer.

"Man-hating is everywhere, but everywhere it is twisted and transformed, disguised, tranquilized, and qualified. It coexists, never peacefully, with the love, desire, respect, and need women also feel for men. Always man-hating is shadowed by its milder, more diplomatic and doubtful twin, ambivalence."
-- Judith Levine; Authoress

"Men's sexuality is mean and violent, and men so powerful that they can 'reach WITHIN women to fuck/construct us from the inside out.' Satan-like, men possess women, making their wicked fantasies and desires women's own. A woman who has sex with a man, therefore, does so against her will, 'even if she does not feel forced.'
-- Judith Levine, (explicating comment profiling prevailing misandry.)

"I feel what they feel: man-hating, that volatile admixture of pity, contempt, disgust, envy, alienation, fear, and rage at men. It is hatred not only for the anonymous man who makes sucking noises on the street, not only for the rapist or the judge who acquits him, but for what the Greeks called philo-aphilos, 'hate in love,' for the men women share their lives with--husbands, lovers, friends, fathers, brothers, sons, coworkers."
-- Judith Levine, Authoress of My Enemy, My love

"There are no boundaries between affectionate sex and slavery in (the male) world. Distinctions between pleasure and danger are academic; the dirty-laundrylist of 'sex acts'...includes rape, foot binding, fellatio, intercourse, auto eroticism, incest, anal intercourse, use and production of pornography, cunnilingus, sexual harassment, and murder."
-- Judith Levine; summarizing comment on the WAS document, (A southern Women's Writing Collective: Women Against Sex.)

"All men are good for is fucking, and running over with a truck".
Statement made by A University of Maine Feminist Administrator, quoted by Richard Dinsmore, who brought a successful civil suit against the University in the amount of $600,000. Richard had protested the quote; was dismissed thereafter on the grounds of harassment; and responded by bringing suit against the University. 1995 settlement.

((Delaney Nickerson, of the American Coalition for ABUSE AWARENESS, refers to the False Memory Syndrome Foundation as "The Fucking Molesters Society". (Miami Herald, April 3, 1995) The ACAA is a lobbying group, which includes Ellen Bass (co-author of THE COURAGE TO HEAL), and Rene Frederickson, leading feminist psychotherapist and strong proponent of repressed memory theory.))

((At the STONE ANGELS satanic ritual abuse conference in Thunder Bay in February, 1995, the following was contained in the handouts at a conference supported financially by the Ontario Government: FMS stands for: FULL OF MOSTLY SHIT; FOR MORE SADISM; FELONS, MURDERERS, SCUMBALLS; FREQUENT MOLESTERS SOCIETY.))

"Women have their faults / men have only two: / everything they say / everything they do."
-- Popular Feminist Graffiti

"I was, in reality, bred by my parents as my father's concubine... What we take for granted as the stability of family life may well depend on the sexual slavery of our children. What's more, this is a cynical arrangement our institutions have colluded to conceal.".
-- Sylvia Fraser; Journalist

"We are taught, encouraged, moulded by and lulled into accepting a range of false notions about the family. As a source of some of our most profound experiences, it continues to be such an integral part of our emotional lives that it appears beyond criticism. Yet hiding from the truth of family life leaves women and children vulnerable."
-- Canadian Panel on Violence Against Women.

Catharine MacKinnon ( ) maintains that "the private is a sphere of battery, marital rape and women's exploited labor." In this way, privacy and family are reduced to nothing more than aspects of the master plan, which is male domination. Democratic freedoms and the need to keep the state's nose out of our personal affairs are rendered meaningless. The real reason our society cherishes privacy is because men have invented it as an excuse to conceal their criminality. If people still insist that the traditional family is about love and mutual aid--ideals which, admittedly, are sometimes betrayed--they're "hiding from the truth." The family isn't a place where battery and marital rape sometimes happen but where little else apparently does. Sick men don't simply molest their daughters, they operate in league with their wives to "breed" them for that purpose.
-- Donna Laframboise; The Princess at the Window; (in a critical explication of the Catharine MacKinnon, Gloria Steinhem et al tenets of misandric belief.)

"If the classroom situation is very heteropatriarchal--a large beginning class of 50 to 60 students, say, with few feminist students--I am likely to define my task as largely one of recruitment...of persuading students that women are oppressed"
-- Professor Joyce Trebilcot of Washington University, as quoted in Who Stole Feminism: How Women Have Betrayed Women.

"Men, as a group, tend to be abusive, either verbally, sexually or emotionally. There are always the exceptions, but they are few and far between (I am married to one of them). There are different levels of violence and abuse and individual men buy into this system by varying degrees. But the male power structure always remains intact."
Message on FEMISA, responding to a request for arguments that men are unnecessary for a child to grow into mature adulthood.

Another posting on FEMISA: "Considering the nature and pervasiveness of men's violence, I would say that without question, children are better off being raised without the presence of men. Assaults on women and children are mostly perpetrated by men whom they are supposed to love and trust: fathers, brothers, uncles, grandfathers, step-fathers."
Both quotes taken from Daphne Patai's excellent critical work, Heterophobia

"At Brandies I discovered Feminism. And I instantly became a convert... writing brilliant papers in my Myths of Patriarchy class, in which I likened my fate as a woman to other victims throughout the ages."
-- Heather Hart 7

Here are 10 reasons why we are concerned about feminism and the National Organization for Women.

1. "The simple fact is that every woman must be willing to be identified as a lesbian to be fully feminist" (National NOW Times, January, 1988).

2. "Since marriage constitutes slavery for women, it is clear that the women's movement must concentrate on attacking this institution. Freedom for women cannot be won without the abolition of marriage" (feminist leader Sheila Cronan).

3. In response to a question concerning China's policy of compulsory abortion after the first child, Molly Yard responded, "I consider the Chinese government's policy among the most intelligent in the world" (Gary Bauer, "Abetting Coercion in China," The Washington Times, Oct. 10, 1989).

4. "Overthrowing capitalism is too small for us. We must overthrow the whole...patriarch!" (Gloria Steinem, radical feminist leader, editor of MS magazine).

5. "Marriage has existed for the benefit of men; and has been a legally sanctioned method of control over women.... We must work to destroy it. The end of the institution of marriage is a necessary condition for the liberation of women. Therefore it is important for us to encourage women to leave their husbands and not to live individually with men.... All of history must be re-written in terms of oppression of women. We must go back to ancient female religions like witchcraft" (from "The Declaration of Feminism," November, 1971).

6. "By the year 2000 we will, I hope, raise our children to believe in human potential, not God." (Gloria Steinem, editor of MS magazine).

7. "Let's forget about the mythical Jesus and look for encouragement, solace, and inspiration from real women.... Two thousand years of patriarchal rule under the shadow of the cross ought to be enough to turn women toward the feminist 'salvation' of this world." (Annie Laurie Gaylor, "Feminist Salvation," The Humanist, p. 37, July/August 1988.

8. "In order to raise children with equality, we must take them away from families and communally raise them" (Dr. Mary Jo Bane, feminist and assistant professor of education at Wellesley College, and associate director of the school's Center for Research on Woman).

9. "Being a housewife is an illegitimate profession... The choice to serve and be protected and plan towards being a family- maker is a choice that shouldn't be. The heart of radical feminism is to change that." (Vivian Gornick, feminist author, University of Illinois, The Daily Illini, April 25, 1981.

10. "The most merciful thing a large family can to do one of its infant members is to kill it." (Margaret Sanger, founder of Planned Parenthood, in "Women and the New Race," p. 67).

"We are, as a sex, infinitely superior to men." -- Elizabeth Cady Stanton

From 'A feminist Dictionary; ed. Kramarae and Triechler, Pandora Press, 1985:

MALE:...represents a variant of or deviation from the category of female. The first males were mutants...the male sex represents a degeneration and deformity of the female.

MAN:...an obsolete life form... an ordinary creature who needs to be watched...a contradictory baby-man...

TESTOSTERONE POISONING: ... 'Until now it has been though that the level of testosterone in men is normal simply because they have it. But if you consider how abnormal their behavior is, then you are led to the hypothesis that almost all men are suffering from "testosterone poisoning."

Letter to editor: "Women's Turn to Dominate". "......Clearly you are not yet a free-thinking feminist but rather one of those women who bounce off the male-dominated, male-controlled social structures. Who cares how men feel or what they do or whether they suffer? They have had over 2000 years to dominate and made a complete hash of it. Now it is our turn. My only comment to men is: if you don't like it, bad luck--and if you get in my way I'll run you down."
Signed: Liberated Women, Boronia Herald-Sun, Melbourne, Australia. 9 Feb., 1996.

The most surprising thing is that there are so many women who do not appear to be very “certain” or “happy”. Rachel Hills states this in the first sentence of her article :- “there are a lot of confused and unhappy women out there”.

But Fem-World is upon us. It is here and now.

A woman can now have a variety of free-form, flowing type of relationships with a number of men, continuously seeking fresh stimuli and new novelty along the way. If there are children involved, then she can take them with her, together with the man’s money also. For a fee, there appears to be a number of organisations that will help her to do this.

Fem-World has it’s brainwashing machines in the form of women’s magazines, books and TV programs, and a multitude of “gender” courses at universities that will help the modern woman believe that she has “choice”, and therefore a right to do as she pleases.

Fem-World has made available a number of role models for the modern woman, like Our Nic, Germaine, or even Fergi. These role models help show the modern woman that she can have a variety of relationships, (and even children), without being confined to a husband.

But still there are soo many women who are just not happy.

In her condescending or just plain biased way, Rachell Hills has not included the vast number of men who don’t appear to be very happy either, or perhaps she believes that they don’t matter.

Now call me sexist or chauvinistic, but the men do matter because it becomes very difficult to make a man like or love a woman if he senses that she is a Miss Feminist, or a Miss Me, or a Miss Duplicity.

With so many unhappy people, it is a very sad state of affairs that is upon us.

Dear Puzzled,

How boring of you to find every single quote from every singe feminist in the world! Of course I didn't read them all.

I think men are great. I think most men think women are great. Of course there will always be women who despise men. Let them be miserable and try and look for the good differences in our species!

Timithy and Black Man, I think you may have misinterpreted what I was actually getting at with this article.

Leaving aside for a moment all the debate over marriage laws and whether women are taking over the world (we're having a similar discussion over at Vibewire.net, if you're interested: http://www.vibewire.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=1826), I'd like to make it clear that I wasn't intending to be condescending to men or to imply that one book written by a man is one too many (the book was actually co-written by a man and a woman, and there are plenty of self-help books written by people of both sexes anyway).

I was commenting on a very silly book that, while being marketed to women, reduces the chances for both men and women of achieving happy relationships.

In writing "hard as it may be to believe, some men do get intimidated, are burnt from past relationships, and even have normal human doubts and emotions," I wasn't poking fun of men, but at the book, which essentially claims that men are nothing sex-hungry robots with nothing better to do with their lives than chase women 24-7. Of course men have normal human doubts and emotions; they're human beings.

I mention unhappy women in the article because the book is targeted at neurotic, unhappy women, unfortunately in such a way that will only increase their unhappiness, and that of the men they're in relationships with.

You seem very angry, Timithy. I'd like to reiterate lisamarie's point above that most women do like men. Most feminists like men. In lashing out at women the way you seem to be doing all over this site, you're only replicating the behaviour of the agressive, man-hating 'feminazis' you claim to despise.

Hi Rachel,

Your article is like so many others that I have read, that does not fully show the male perspective. If you look at a posting at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2905#717 you will see that Social Science in Australia has not fully included the male perspective in a range of social issues either. But I’m not greatly angry, just very annoyed that certain media organisation keep serving up articles like the recent one by Melinda Tankard Reist, that try and discredit my gender.

You have written articles that have included the word “feminist”. Personally I think that such a word should be struck from every dictionary, and replaced with the word “humanist”, such that if someone calls themselves a “humanist”, then they will be obliged to think of people of both genders and not just one.

As a female, you may think it acceptable to use various techniques to “empower” yourself, such as the use of technique no. 17 in the list (not my list) at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2940#883 , but looking a many web-sites around the world, then I think that there are now a lot of men who have had a gutful of people who call themselves feminist.

NB. 50% of my CD collection is by female artists and about 50% of the books I read are by female authors. However I have learnt to be quite selective in what I listen to, read or believe from members of the female gender.

Dear Rach,

You portray women as victims, have nothing good to say about men, get us all riled up, then come out and say you were misunderstood and you like some of us (presumably the ones that can read and comprehend). Furthermore, "Most feminists like men".

Silly us ...

Oldest trick in the book.

Gee, this is a turn-around! You guys have no sense of humour! that's what feminists have been hearing for years.

For the guy who posted all the quotes by feminists, most taken out of context and made during the last fifty years or so, I could do the same in return, but a web site wouldn't be large enough to handle the vast array of alarming, disturbing and non-factual statements about women made by men and recorded throughout thousands of years!

You're just pissed off that you missed out on the rights of 'man' that your grandfathers had. You know, only a hundred years ago, when women couldn't vote, only forty years ago when a woman who married had to leave her public service job, only now when there still is not equal pay.

hahahahahahahahahahaha

Hi OceanGrrl,

The word feminist should not be in the dictionary. It is a highly sexist term, and it is the absolute epitome of hypocrisy. Feminism means that females should be given preference over males (ie one gender is given preference to another). This is why I personally would like feminists to convert to humanists, so that they would have to think of both genders, and not just the female gender only (but big ask I think).

To most males who have been exposed to feminism (as I have), then feminism just means deceit, duplicity, distortion of information, misinformation, biased research, indoctrination of the young, maliciousness, and of course total hypocrisy.

They use all the techniques available to them to carry out their pernicious activities, but the main techniques are in the list at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2940#883

It is standard practice for feminists to say that they like men. After a feminist has mocked, maligned, vilified or acted maliciously towards a male, the feminist will normally say that they like males, or that their vilification was only a joke. That is item 17 on the list of techniques used by feminists, and that list has been around for years. The feminist knows that without men, she would be living in a cave. She needs men for her day to day existence, so she hangs the “but I really like men, really” tag onto the end of any vilification. It’s standard practice.

Also many of the quotes by feminists that someone posted in the comments section were from the 1990’s I believe, not 50 yrs ago at all.

As far as the equal pay thing goes, even feminists know that this is a farce. There is a write up about this at http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0112roberts.html
and a book published called “Why Men Earn More”.

I think there is a good recent summation of feminism by a young woman journalist at http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Columnists/Winnipeg/Lydia_Lovric/2004/12/27/798107.html

She sees no real place for feminism in her life and she sums up feminism “The truth is, equality isn't so important for feminists when the person seeking parity is a guy. Equal treatment only applies when it benefits women. And that's why feminism just doesn't add up.”

Poor dears, Timithy and Seeker, you really should give it a rest. Rachel does not deserve this, she was trying to be amusing, for goodness sake. You two have had this pathetic, embarrassing, self-absorbed, woman-hating conversation earlier and at great length in response to a previous article. Perhaps you should just get together for a little private love-in over a cup of tea. Maybe you could slip on some black shirts, have a good gossip about how bad women have destroyed your lives, and leave the rest of us in peace. I think you have children Timithy? I really worry about what you are teaching them, and how they will survive you to find the kind of unselfish love that we all deserve.

HI Grace
My child is doing very well thanks. She does very well at school, and at her sports, and at her art, receiving awards in everything. My only hope is that she does not become indoctrinated by feminists as she gets older and enters university. So far she seems unaffected and happy.

I did not start this topic. It was started by OLO who posted the topic, and I have been replying to comments made by other people, some of whom have made remarks about myself. Your belief that men cannot have any say is one of the techniques of feminists (IE no 16 “State that women have a right to speak their minds, then oppose any male who speaks his mind regards feminism or the modern woman. Label this male as being sexist, chauvinistic, or belonging to a radical men’s group.”)

You did not tell OceanGrrl to “give-over” only me. This is most typical. If a male critics feminism, then try and shut him down. It is standard practice.

I have also read many of the articles posted in the Society section of OLO and most do not seem to contain much of the male perspective I believe. Perhaps you do not like to here from the male perspective.

If Rachel does not deserve it, do many of the young men going through life deserve what is going to happen to them.

Poor Grace. I find you much more attractive in the religion bashing topics.

In order to have a credible debate, you must first formulate, and then articulate a personal opinion; not just drop in from nowhere and deride those that do.

Both Rachel and you WERE amusing (if that is any comfort to you ;-). Thank you.

Furthermore, I seek to teach my girls, and my boy, some true equality and respect for both genders.

OceanGrrl, hahahahahahahahahahaha

Now that I’ve recovered from laughter induced by OceanGrrl, I’d like to ask her if single-motherhood is all that it is cracked up to be - and how and when did YOU know that he was just not that into you?

I assume you are also not getting equal pay running that sinister multinational that is donating money to tsunami victims.

Grace and Oceangirl, I believe that there are plenty of good women out there but, I would have to agree with Timothy when he says that 'feminism just means deceit, duplicity, distortion of information, misinformation, biased research, indoctrination of the young, maliciousness, and of course total hypocrisy.' There are also plenty of women out there who also agree with Timothy's description.

Feminists and male-chauvinists are much the same. As always it's such extremists who cause division and problems in society. Male-chauvinism has been made to back down and the same should be done to feminism. Until then the inequality battle will rage on.

I agree there Hazza, If you get the list of the techniques normally used by feminists, and then change the word “feminist” to “masculinist” or something similar, then the techniques are just as negative and unconstructive. Those techniques do not solve problems, whether they are used by males or females.

Unfortunately there are now a lot of younger people being indoctrinated into using those techniques, particularly younger girls being indoctrinated by feminist teachers. This was in universities mainly in the past, but I have seen it now occurring in high school (even in grade 8), which is troubling I think

Not only is feminist indoctrination of young people an issue for the future, but if you read the education articles above (Science and technology in primary schools: A cause for concern, and Wadderloader! Maths and science teaching in Australia), you’ll see that structural changes in our education system are disadvantaging boys, and the country.

There are less boys now attending uni, and our illustrious politicians are thinking up ways to send them to do trades. Presumably this can then be also used to validate their under-representation at unis.

Rachel, I think you have been too kind with Timithy and Seeker. Their excessive diatribe and selective interpretation of women's 'lit' is destructive at best. Why would you suggest that feminist be taken out of the dictionary? It is a legitimate term with an associated body of thought and literature. Lets not forget that 'misogynist' is also in the dictionary. Legitimately. Shall we rename that to 'misunderstood by women'??? I believe it was there before 'feminist'. Timithy - you may have read a sizeable body of books from the women's studies part of the bookstore/library but it is apparent that you have not taken the time to understand it. If I were to use your tactic and set about approaching books in the 'men's studies' section with my trusty highlighter and too much time on my hands, well I'd quickly end up with a cramped arm and overwhelmed by the volume of statements that are anti-women, objectifying and frighteningly misleading about what women feel, want and are. It would also make me feel demoralised and angry, as you have been made to feel. At least feminism does not hide it's intentions. Men's 'lit' or the rise in laddism however, does. It hides behind the notion that men just want to be having 'fun', not be tied down, never grow up and are emotionally immature and we're supposed to applaud that! If you want us to rid the shelves of legitimate and society shifting feminist literature then please also remove the Ralph's, FHMs, GQs, and plethora of pornographic literature that is degrading and objectifying to women. Men, and popular culture, ridicule/insult women every day and noone even blinks an eyelid - as a majority of Timithy and Seeker's statements on these pages also do - therefore feminism has every right to be as insulting in return. It seems to me that 'respectful discourse' left this website as soon as Timithy turned up.

The article by Racheh is a standard type article that is written daily by various journalists. The actual subject of the article does not really matter, just the ability to portray males negatively, or to try and blame males for this, blame males for that etc The article ends with it's just "The Rules", marginally updated and packaged from a man's perspective.”

So in other words --- it’s the man’s fault (isn’t it).

There are women’s magazines that are filled with such articles, that disparage males or try and blame males for any type of problem, while at the same time portraying women in a positive way. If women (as a gender) were presented in a negative way in these magazines then obviously these magazines would not sell.

The type of articles in these magazines also spill over into other areas of the media, into newspapers, TV, radio, and into areas such as OLO. The advertising industry has churned out ads for many years that portray the male gender negatively. Those men that have complained have met with a wall, but that is now changing both in Australia and in other countries.

Rachel can learn from this and become a better journalist, because the future of journalism will not be based on blaming males as an easy excuse for anything or everything

Audrey,

You make some valid points, and I thank you for adding to my understanding of the issues. Timithy also makes some very good points.

Perhaps there is some pain in debating issues that can demoralise and destabilise. But then, that is exactly the point. It is how feminism achieved all that it did. The pendulum has swung too far now in some respects, and this also, should be debated. You shouldn’t try to shut it down, just because it is inconvenient to feminism. Feminism, I’m sure is robust enough to withstand my little snipes.

I’ve actually tried to recommend for deletion, a recent post of mine, because I thought it was going too far and was basically just a personal attack on someone, without adding anything of value. There is probably more than one such post. It wasn’t removed as I asked.

The point is, there is some heated argument and raw emotion shown at times, on both sides of the fence. It is not always thoughtful, or logical; I think most of us recognise this, even within our own commentary. Yes, that includes overreaction. From time to time we also see that magic flash of light, exposing the previously hidden, the out of reach. Sadly, we don’t always publicly acknowledge it, since it may spoil our argument, but nevertheless, we learn from it. This is the beauty of such a forum – its biggest advantage is also its greatest weakness – it is interactive. Let’s sift through all ideas, and take with us only the valid.

Now, please don’t try to shut opinion down, because I know that is precisely what feminism fought against. I’m open to good ideas. To challenge them is to validate them.

Seeker, I would never advocate shutting down the expression of opinion, and in fact was aiming for a contrast. I'm a firm believer in the Socratic method and hence felt that bombarding the comment pages with a long list of complaints about feminism is over burdening the debate and creating an imbalance. Timithy has the right to an opinion, but I sense that Timithy's opinion is invariably one-sided and it's either 'my way or the highway'. That's not debate. That is just noise.

Fact is, you can't prevent people from reading but you can encourage them to take in some bits and not others and to ask questions. As much as Timithy opposes Feminism and fails to see it's value, it has provided a voice that has helped a lot of women into a better position in life, gotten them closer to equality, and urged them to leave abuse behind. Perhaps the tide has turned to now to encourage men to state that they also now feel aggressed against and misunderstood and have a right to say so. And I'm all for that. But blaming feminism is not a solution. Expressing yourselves in an independent and intelligent way is. Feminism did.

Audrey, It is extremely debateable that feminism has helped many women at all. Of course feminists will say that it has, but it is also know that feminists use a lot of propaganda, and tend to look at history through a very narrow magnifying glass.

If feminism is a political or social movement, then most definitely it should be open for analysis and criticism. But I do get the feeling that various feminists have now learnt not to cross swords too often with too many adult men, and I do get the feeling that various feminists are now targeting younger men and boys (as these are more vulnerable).

I have noticed that feminists will try and imply that any criticism of feminism is abuse or misogny. Not so, its just criticism and they will have to begin to understand that. I have also noticed that certain people have also called me a variety of names and made various insinuations regards myself, when they don’t even know me. I could be female for all they know.

However any thing I have said of feminism, I have provided examples of, (or will further provide if you require). My opinions of feminism have been founded upon considerable research and experience, and at the end of it all, I’m like the young female journalist that said that feminism just "doesn’t add-up”. It is non-demoncratic.

In regards to women’s literature, then the majority of it is now in women’s magazines. These magazines sell more copies than all other types of magazine put together, but most of the articles in these magazines operate to a formula. For a good understanding of that formula, read “Spin Sisters : How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness --- and Liberalism --- to the Women of America” by Myrana Blyth

A question in another forum on IVF I personally would like an answer to is “Why do women choose IVF treatment over adopting orphaned children. Perhaps you could go to that forum and provide some thoughts.

I'm going to talk to the females in the kind of language that they understand.
If you were told that over half the dates you go on will end in a date rape, and that one in thierteen of those rape victims would be so traumatised that she would suicide would you continue dating? No.

Well thats your answer. Because half the marriages end in divorce and one in thirteen of the men suffer so badly from post divorce trauma that they do suicide.

Twelve hundred dead bodies every year. Equal to the national road toll.

No woonder hes not into you.

Timithy, seems to be a slight misunderstanding.

I’m asking why is it that out of those marriages that fail, the women made mistakes about choice of partner, more than 70% of the time. With all this advice available to them, why do women get it so wrong so often?
Seeker

Seeker
Heres your answer

I go on this great first date and we decide to share a cab home - separate stops. When we get in, he buckles his seatbelt! I know that's a wise thing to do, so I feel like a jerk saying this, but it totally turned me off. It just seemed so kid-like and lame. Is he too much of a weenie for me, or am I out of my mind?" wrote Unrestrained Lady, Upper West Side.

To the uninitiated, Unrestrained Lady may seem like a neurotic aberration. But ditching men because they fail to measure up in some infinitesimal way has been common place among daters and among womens talk for years. We all know women who won't go out with men who don't drive prestige cars or didn't go to a prestige school. Or the woman who instantly went off a man she had been crazy for because he turned up at her front door wearing a plaited belt. In the days before e-tags, another felt her stomach turn when her date fumbled with the bridge toll. These are usually not just excuses to jettison an unsatisfactory male, but genuine reasons for spontaneous revulsion

Clearly, there is no man shortage. Only an abundance of shallow women!

A few absoloutely choice cuts from the book

Page 14

“He’s not into you”
Dear Greg
I have a crush on my gardener. It was hot. I saw him without his shirt on.. I bought out some beers and we talked. I think he wants to ask me out but is afraid because he is my hired man..

Can’t I ask him out.
Cherie

Greg’s Answer
He’s capable of asking you out. Haven’t you ever seen a porno? Hope he gets there before the pizza guy.

But seriously, if he didn’t pick up the vibe after the beer garden it has nothing to do with you being hi s boss lady. Time to stop and smell the bad news.

He’s not into you

The right answer.
Dear Cherie,
When the girls moan to me about man shortages I promptly ask them, “Would you date a man who made two thousand a year less than you, or was two years younger , or was two inches shorter than you?

The usual replay is “Of course not” followed by a melodramatic tantrum when I point out that half of these girls have just turned down a date with Tom Cruise. He’s a little guy.
He’s not wasting his time with you because he “knows” that you wont date him because you make more money than him.
End of story!

His story anyway.

Your serving refreshment means nothing. Most companies provide morning coffee for their workers and a great many provide their execs with liquor allowances. It’s not an invitation to sex.

As for Greg’s idea of not “picking up the vibe” well……..

Your pigs are clear for take off.

The girl who gives off the hottest vibes, around our office, is a lovely, beautiful vivacious, mid aged, very happily married woman who has a large ring on her finger and pictures of her husband and kids on her desk.

She regularly has to politely knock back guys who have read the vibes wrong.
Forget about “vibes” That’s an old spinsters myth. Cave man invented language because “vibes” where a totally unreliable form of communication. You want to date him. You ask him.In plain English.

And if he says yes it means yes and if he says no it means no. Now let me clarify that last one for the sake of your fragile ego. No means no! You’ve heard it a thousand times from the anti rape crusades but you still fail to appreciate it. If he says “no” it doesn’t’ mean “You are a hopeless case who isn’t worth dating” It means “No I don’t’ want to date you” Any reason for the “no” is his business.
And often there is no reason. Tell me this, Do you always dish out a reason for knocking back a guy?