I'm with CJ. HRS has his own issues and it's important to him to claim victim status in almost every post. He doesn't tell the truth, either. As you point out, it's not debate.

Feminists discussions on OLO always end up with no women left and some very angry men talking to each other.

SJF, CJ, Botheration,

"Or haven’t you noticed that, apart from me, all the feminists have left this discussion, and the usual anti-feminist bombasts have now captured the space?" See, I think that they genuinely DONT notice. Or, if they do, they stand there rubbing their hands like the schoolyard bullies and saying "There. That put them in their place". as, metaphorically, everyone else slinks off cowering into the middle distance.

However, I also came to the conclusion that their agenda is this: Locked into schools of thought which conclude that anyone who seeks professional help for their problems is a "pussy", and convinced that the female-dominated professions of psychiatry and psychology are tools of the evil nazi-fems, they use these threads as cathartic platforms . Either that, or they are too darned cheap to pay for help like everyone else does. In fact, I have often thought of asking if anyone was interested in a quick whip-round to help?(Similarly I have often toyed with the idea of us all donating a few books to swell the ranks of Pizzy and Patai which seem to constitute the sum total of the "feminist" library of this group).

CJ, HRS was Timkins? AAAh. That explains everything.

Maybe a subscription to Zoo magazine for HRS? This isn't the first time he's claimed never to have heard of men's mags while displaying a frightening familiarity with womens's mags. (See: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6604#98530 )

You know, for research purposes.

SJF
I haven’t used the words ‘angry feminist’ or ‘man-hater’ anywhere, but you have used words such as “men's patriarchal ways”.

That now classifies ALL men as being somehow evil.

That is vilification and discrimination of the entire male gender, and I have yet to find a feminist who does not carry this out. It is universal within feminism.

The author of the article carries this out with lines such as “Men can fantasise about women crawling all over the floor waiting to service them all they like” and “playing by the men’s rules “ .

The author also writes of “respect and dignity”, then has lines such as “which basically amount to not putting up a fuss about being considered “f---”. and “how much men want to f---- them”.

Some arguement or debate the author puts forward, but maybe she has been reading too much Germaine Greer, who once wrote in a UK newspaper that men were "surplus to requirements", and then hired 5 men to carry out work on her recently purchased property outside of Brisbane.

Some arguement or debate Germaine Greer put forward also.

Ho hum, Iain (Hall, I presume) and Desipis trotting out the same tired argument that feminists are all humourless old spinsters who've undergone permanent removal of their funny bone. Yawn.

It's so frustrating when people with genuine reservations or complaints are sidelined as having 'no sense of humour'. I have a great sense of humour - I just don't happen to find lampooning women who question the appropriateness of free breast jobs in a lad's mag particularly hilarious.

Given the intellectual range of some of these comments, I'm unsurprised that a large number of people have deliberately distorted the point of the article. For a start, I have never in anything I've ever written grouped men as collectively offensive, sexist or ignorant. Rather, I have clarified on more than one occasion that I know a great many men who are intelligent, funny, supportive, sensitive and generally all round ace human beings. Feminist bashers love to claim that feminists hate ALL men - namely because it's easier than actually mounting a considered argument.

The only good men are dead men eh James H? What absolute rot - I've never read or a heard a real feminist say that anywhere. You naysayers love to rail against the supposed one eyed demonisation of men by feminists, yet it is apparently perfectly acceptable for you to stereotype feminists yourselves. Perhaps if any of you actually bothered to read modern feminist texts or bloggers, you'd see that your arguments are as weak as dishwater.

If you read widely, you would realise that there is a huge backlash from feminists against women's magazines. I find it highly amusing that because I have, in this one instance, chosen to write about Zoo magazine it is somehow indicative of a general antipathy to the negative impact of women's mags. It IS possible that I may hold opinions on a number of different things you know.

As for SJF, well done for holding your own against the majority of people here - but as CJ Morgan says, engaging with them repeatedly is an insult to your superior intelligence.

JamesH,

“HRS is correct on this, I have read an enormous amount of feminist material and about the only thing positive said about men is "a dead man".”

Unfortunately, you hoisted yourself on your own petard. Anyone who has read ‘an enormous amount of feminist material’ would know that feminists don’t stoop to this kind of rubbish ... unless, of course, you are reading from one of those fake purple 'feminist' sites set up by MRA, right-wing and libertarian organisations to camouflage a profoundly anti-feminist agenda.

CJ, Botheration, Romany

I fully agree on all points. I posted those 'huffies' for the sake of principle, not debate. Sometimes, someone just has declare: ‘THAT’S IT! Enough already!’

Actually, Romany … I’d liken HRS, JamesH and Co. more to a bunch of old drunks at closing time, too bleary-eyed to notice everyone’s left.