This article highlights one aspect of the information age that is disturbing. Bullying is no longer confined to the schoolyard but now reaches a much wider audience via Facebook and similar sites.

This quote from a SA school link:
http://www.schools.sa.gov.au/speced2/pages/cybersafety/36277/?reFlag=1

"Cyber bullying' is bullying which uses e-technology as a means of victimising others. It is the use of an Internet service or mobile technologies - such as e-mail, chat room discussion groups, instant messaging, webpages or SMS (text messaging) - with the intention of harming another person. Examples include communications that seek to intimidate, control, manipulate, put down or humiliate the recipient."

I am surprised there is not a legal avenue that would shut this site down. This is a case where the issue is not about censorship but the right to privacy and the right not to be harased or bullied by ignoramuses.

Is there not a law that seeks permission for photos and the like to be approved by the person or parents before allowing publication? Maybe that only applies to children but I suspect some of these teens are not of adult age.

The title inviting comments about girls you think are "sluts" could be construed as cyber-bullying and provide a case for slander/defamation (not sure which).

Sigh- I just can't stand these "disturbing new "trends" on the internet articles.

It's the internet.

Every person can set up a page, and people are free to say whatever they like- and as such, everything sayable will be said.

Nothing else to see here.

Just another beatup.

Trouble is Hazza, people say that until some kid commits suicide then it is all - why is this sort of harassment legal only because it is on the web?

I could start a page about my ex-boss being a dick but I wouldn't because it is defamation and only gives one side of the story.

The definition of defamation varies but according to this link - http://www.efa.org.au/Issues/Censor/defamation.html#defpubl

"Very generally speaking, material that could be found to be defamatory includes that which has the tendency to lower the person in the estimation of others, or that would tend to result in the person being shunned or avoided or that is likely to expose the person to hatred, contempt or ridicule (trivial ridicule or good natured humour is less likely to be problematic than derisory ridicule)."

I agree with this sentiment about balancing defamation laws with freedom of speech:

"In theory, the objective of defamation laws is to balance protection of individual reputation with freedom of expression. In practice, defamation laws are frequently used as a means of chilling speech. A threat of (costly) defamation proceedings and damages, whether or not a plaintiff's claim is likely to be upheld by a court, is often used to silence criticism not only by a particular person or group but also as a threat to others."

I doubt anyone who has been put up on the Net as a slut could be accused of using a "means to chill speech" when it is their own reputation being diminished.

I'm speechless. Actually, no I'm not. How can ONE MILLION people think this is acceptable behaviour?

It really is disgusting that so many people joined that group. One of the "reviews" of the group, referencing the token comment by the creator which was "stop putting photos of people it's bullying and it's weird, i will delete them" responded by saying "yeah, did you delete the pornographic image of the naked 14 year old girl before it ended up on some pedophile site? You're ruining people's lives."

The photo that was referred to was of some poor girl, who had exposed herself over webcam and the boy she was chatting to took a screen shot and distributed it. Posting it on this group he called her "slut." Apparently his own behaviour is just fine.

Sorry Pelican, but aside from the fact that you often cannot locate the person to charge them with slander- making internet regulation useless, it is up to people to be informed or conscious enough to take statements made on the internet with a grain of salt- if they weren't doing it with other information sources already.

Also, even off the internet- Libel and slander is much harder to slap onto someone who hurt your feelings and makes people not want to be your friend anymore than you think- a decade of Southpark should prove that.

And someone killing themselves because of what text-based comments someone made electronically? Please- he would have had a LOT more problems than that alone.

It is more worthwhile that the internet is a free information medium by adults and mature people of expressing thought, than to be treated as another medium of media, and thus must be regulated and dumbed down to be as kid-friendly as possible (why kids would even be allowed to use the internet outside parental supervision aside).

In short, its up to the world to cast off the cotton wool and toughen up, instead of stunting free speech and communication for the sake of sparing the sensitive feelings of a few thin-skinned whiners, don't you think?

Actually King Hazza, we don't need to toughen up, people need to be more respectful of others. People like you and the misogynists on that facebook page need to get some humanity into your lives.

There is no personal gain from hating and abusing others, in fact if that level vitriol and abuse was directed at some of the posters on that facebook page they would probably be highly offended and react with violence. Violent abusive people who behave like that have no value in this society. Their behaviour reduces us all to the level of scum. No society can gain or improve the lives of those living in it when it hates women, which incidentally is half the population.

The King Hazzas of the world are as responsible as the alleged people who make the posts. He, by his attitude, is condoning this rubbish.
King needs to realise that it is cowards who hide behind aliases so they can't be made accountable for the damage they cause, and I suspect from the tone of his post that he is the type of bully who would cheerfully engage in this gutless slander.

Is it just me, or is this article spread over more pages than necessary to fit in more ads? Does OLO let the advertisers pick which article to advertise on?

Whatever. Sometimes the Internet just sucks, and that silly book of faces (yes, I said 'faces') sucks all the time. But hey, they would say, 'Facebook doesn't kill people; people do'. Yeah, right.

Melinda is trying to make this a feminist issue.

The reality is that probably most of the posters are girls taking a stab at an aquaintance, and this is a bullying issue. This is the same as someone writing rude grafitti anonymously, it is just that facebook is a much bigger wall.

Should we knock down the wall, or punish those responsible?

"it is up to people to be informed or conscious enough to take statements made on the internet with a grain of salt-"

Great point, King Hazza! And while we're at it, let's just do away with all libel and slander laws. Defamation is a farce and all we really need to do is get society to "toughen up."

Of course, if seeing false accusations online leads to people not being hired for jobs, being bullied and sexually harrassed, depression and other problems due to the genuine consequences that befall a person from being on slandered in that way, who cares? Everyone should just grow a backbone.

You've just inspired me to create a new facebook page. I'm going to post pictures of all my past lovers and publicise the fact that they have small penises and are paedophiles and rapists. Hopefully others will join in and then this page will get over 1,000,000 hits too.

Cos what I publish and what others think about these people, true or false, really doesn't matter does it.

While I agree this page raises some concerns, I'm actually more concerned about the extreme prejudice being shown towards sluts by the author and many commenters.

Would you all really think less of a woman, even refusing to hire her, because she'd been branded a slut on a stupid Facebook page?

You know shadow minister, just because people posting on that site may be female doesn't mean its not a feminist issue. The fact is the site denigrates women and girls based on the way they look or their sexual activity. It incites hatred. Dehumanising people to 'that' makes it so much easier to be violent towards them. This type of denigration is damaging and powerful - that makes it a feminist issue. If posts are about targeted bullying then KH you are naive if you think it would just be a single posted picture - the picture/site entry would be promoted for all that person's world to see - it would be part of the bullying strategy - thats how bullying works.

Facebook and other internet sites have unleashed a great deal of hate that was always there. Imagine what use of the internet could be made before and during the holocaust. There is too much of people throwing their hands in the air and saying "that is the internet - free speech and all" one day we will have a government brave enough to ban such material wherever it comes from.

Bonnie J,

What, like this site...

http://dontdatehimgirl.com/posts/273130/

I thought it was empowering and liberating when women were outing the bastards.

SM,

'The reality is that probably most of the posters are girls taking a stab at an acquaintance,'

Self evident. MTR found the misogynists though! She didn't mention any comments from girls, cant think why ATM. Meditate on that, I will.

pelican,

You're such a slapper.

It's just the same as the random judgemental putting down of other's that you'll see every day on the SMH letters section. Bogans, slappers, McMansions, 4WDers, Plazma TV buyers, bad drivers, evil politicians, 'brain-dead' sportsman, media whore models.

It's 2010. Random denigration of people you'll never know or meet, or generic stereotypes of said people, the more outrageous the better, is commonplace. Judgement is a reality TV sport from The Biggest Loser to Super-Nanny.

Monkey see monkey do. Next time you lambaste that McMansion living 4WD driving bogan who spent their baby bonus on a plazma TV, that enviro-vandal shallow capitalist, watch the kids; They'll pipe in with, yeah, and she's probably a massive slut too! Look at those ass antlers!

I love the internet. It allows everyone an *equal* chance to scream to the world how much they hate 'those people'. MTR hates men, I hate OLO posters. Hate is in. Embrace it! It's the new black.

Precisely because of this phenomena, nobody really takes any notice. It's just noise. Venting. Luxuriating in anti-PC hyperbole. Nobody takes much stake in what is posted anonymously on the internet, no matter how much you lot on OLO think you're saving the world.

One of my favourites used to be that chav scum website, or it's poor imitation

http://thingsboganslike.wordpress.com/.

I look forward for the next example of MTR searching and finding the outrage she desires and at the same time confirming for herself the world is full of scary nasty misogynists. It entertains me greatly.

The more I read of Melinda (misogynists under the bed) Tankard Reist, the more I wonder at the emotional problems of such a frightened woman.

Hooray for the Huzza who nailed it. Yep, what you're reading on the Internet once used to be the private domain where pubescent boys and girls met and smoked cigarettes and generally said silly and disgusting things.

The problem is now we've given these children access to the Internet and people like Tankard are reporting it. Is it bad? No. Will they grow out of it? Probably. Can we do anything about it? Nope.

Hazza this is no more whining or whingeing than people whining about censorship of the Net - even only minor tweakings as this article highlights.

Houlley
...slapper (snigger).

I thought it was taken as a given that the message in this article relates to all sites like it including those that invade the privacy of men.

Orange Donkey
Personally I don't care if a woman or a man enjoys sex with numerous partners - their choice. This is not just about the double standards in regards to 'sluts', but about posting private information on the web. What people do in their lives is their business.

Bottom line is do we agree or disagree that one's private activities should be placed on the web without a person's permission?

It's that easy IMO.

Cheryl, you assume that it is children signing up to this facebook group?

You're incorrect. Sure, some were from teenagers, but Many of the photos came from men, others came from women saying "she slept with my boyfriend and has std's." Many people who posted appeared to be in their 30's and even older than that. If they haven't grown out of it now, they never will.

Regardless, we do not need a facebook page that facilitates this crap. You've got a problem with someone? Tell your best friend over a coffee. Don't do the equivalent of taking out an advertisement in a national newspaper.

Elka is right, there are many sites where photos of ex girl friends are posted in far more compromising situations than facebook, so trying to target facebook is a little lame.

The point I was making about the article is that MTR is well known for jumping on the feminist band wagon. And while this page is aimed at women, there are plenty of similar issues with cyber bullying aimed at boys using facebook.

If Melinda is only worried about the femminist angle then she has either missed that this page is only one facet of a larger issue, or she has deliberately ignored it for her own agenda.

That the women are being offended by the sexual tags is more a product of our society that they care. Why don't guys care?

The bullying of boys takes another tack altogether.

Thanks Elke, it's a matter of what one is going to do about it. I suggest nothing - unless of course it was me being defamed. Then I'd call in Slater & Gordon and hammer them.

MTR ain't much of a feminist. She's strongly anti-abortion. See her posts on RU486.

Pelican - some thoughts...
If it's private information it must also be true information and is clearly already known by others. As far as I'm aware, breach of personal trust is not a crime. As for the photos, complaint may be justified if these women do not already have a photo of themselves available elsewhere on the internet, but that's a rare thing these days - I would guess that most have already chosen to place their image on a facebook page or similar.

On the other hand, if it is false information, it is not actually private information, and only defamatory if society takes issue with people's sexual preferences thus placing a woman at a disadvantage for having been branded a slut. If society at large is no more negatively impacted by the label 'slut' as it is by the label 'vegetarian' (for eg.) then how is a woman disadvantaged by the claim?

Perhaps we should be addressing the issue of society's prejudice towards a woman who chooses multiple sex partners in the same way we are (& should be, don't get me wrong) the issue of society's prejudice towards a woman who chooses another woman as her sex partner (again, for eg.).

Now we need a site which identifies all those who post on sites like the one MTR describes so the rest of us can know to stay well clear of them.

pelican "I thought it was taken as a given that the message in this article relates to all sites like it including those that invade the privacy of men." - from what I've seen of MTR's writing I'd not take that as a given. It would be easy enough to add a side line noting that males face similar issues but somehow that does not seem to be part of MTR's agenda. That's a side note, it does not really take away from the point's made in the article.

In some way's I'm more concerned about the media's ability to use images of people without consent. How often do we see someone accused of a crime (or being investigated by a current affairs show) clearly attempting to hide their face from the camera's and making it very obvious that they don't consent to being filmed/photographed. Those images make it to prime time TV broadcasts with a wider audience and potentially with the appearance of greater authority to their claims.

R0bert

Orange Donkey

"Perhaps we should be addressing the issue of society's prejudice towards a woman who chooses multiple sex partners in the same way we are (& should be, don't get me wrong) the issue of society's prejudice towards a woman who chooses another woman as her sex partner (again, for eg.)."

A million people say that you are wrong. Maybe, just maybe, how we conduct our sex lives actually affects other people. Maybe your sex life actually involves other people, but only maybe. Maybe there is good reason to pressure women to think of others. On the other hand, it is much safer to protect women from any and all criticism and use social pressure exclusively to convince men to solve all of the world's problems. And orange donkeys always do what is safe.

I'm actually quite surprised how many people are making an issue out of the facebook page, and that there is an article getting so bent out of shape over what a bunch of basement-dwellers carelessly post about other people on a page with crude language that one would actually have to deliberately seek to view the content of.

Let's try a real-(ie tangible)-world example:

Suppose instead of a remote corner of facebook, on the web- it was a concealed, grimy passageway below an overpass bridge crossing over a river on a wall nobody on the road could see, and somebody graffitied the same misogynistic title as the facebook page there, and the person responsible either got more guys (the majority most likely teens as Cheryl said) doodled a few words of support or some sexist stories describing girls as 'sluts' the way a pimp does (trying to be cool)- eventually this insignificant arch was covered in hundreds of these doodles...

Does anyone actually care? Or think it reflects a disturbing reflection on the attitude to women? Or is it just some silly garbage a bunch of dropkicks wrote to blow off steam or for kicks? Would you think that even half of the people writing these messages were even being remotely serious? That is, that they're holding deep-held convictions of girls as sluts for not covering up?

Would anyone consider the graffiti-ed wall remotely similar to sharing these messages over radio or television? (The answer would hopefully be NO). What about in a (high)schoolyard conversation?

Hence why I felt the need for the shocked wowsers to get a grip.
The internet isn't playschool, it isn't prime-time TV- it's an anarchistic and unlimited network of information- nothing more, nothing less- the information including EVERYTHING and being so diverse that people would actually need to key in a VERY specific address or search term to even find it (that being deliberately looking for it- in the same way someone would have to go WELL out of their way to find the graffiti under the bridge).

it is not surprising that people silly enough to believe we are just animals lower themselves to this level.

Orange donkey:"If society at large is no more negatively impacted by the label 'slut' as it is by the label 'vegetarian' (for eg.) then how is a woman disadvantaged by the claim?"

Excellent question. The use of the pejorative "slut" is mostly used by females about females. My 13 year old daughter knows just who the sluts are at her school, and she was mortified to be called a slut by one of her peers for committing the social gaffe of sitting next to a boy on a bus trip during a school excursion when she had other seats available.

The implication of sluttiness is that the girl/woman is devaluing herself and by implication, other females. For young women, their principal stock-in-trade is their capacity to pick and choose, sometimes quite brutally cutting down a male trier, for no real reason other than to assert their power.

The key is solidarity among the women, since if some women put it about realtively freely, some young men are going to be less willing to put up with a more restricted diet, thus limiting the power of the pussy for those who want to use it that way.

If a boy calls a girl a slut, it is often as a response to a perceived slight, or a rejection. Boys do not regard sluts as a bad thing, but they know that girls do, so they press the button, hoping that the label will stick and the other girls will make her life miserable.

MTR is just responding as generations of girls have responded to the idea of being regarded as insufficiently sexually exclusive. Whether she is a Wowser (which, of course she is) or a Feminist (which is how she would like to be thought of, I suspect) is irrelevant in this case.

One question arises though: if MTR is bothered by this silly Facebook page, is she equally as offended at the Government ads which show young men as irresponsible drivers with small penises? If not, why?

Antiseptic

"For young women, their principal stock-in-trade is their capacity to pick and choose, sometimes quite brutally cutting down a male trier, for no real reason other than to assert their power."

I understand your point and it raises an interesting issue of perception. Many young women have a very presise idea of which sort of boy they like. By only having sex with boys who meet all of these criteria, they avoid looking like sluts to their peers. They also maintain the power that you discussed.

However, they look like sluts to boys. We view women who have sex outside long term relationships as sluts. Ultimately, only women who enter relationships with boys who really love them have long term relationships. These women cannot afford to have a huge wish list, because only a limited group of men actually like them that much.

Hazza,

'that one would actually have to deliberately seek to view the content of.'

Oh don't worry, MTR is on the case!

'Would you think that even half of the people writing these messages were even being remotely serious?'

Of course! We've been waiting for the misogynists to slip up like this. Now we've caught them red handed!

'Suppose instead of a remote corner of facebook'

That is until the likes of MTR publicise them. Then they get much more hits. She's a dirty misogynist at heart perhaps.

pelican,

The title, 'Since when did it become OK to hate women and girls so publicly and to judge them so mercilessly?'

is pretty gender specific. I think you read a different article.

Now, is it that it was previously not ok to do so, or previously not so 'public' (see Hazza), or should it be ok for boys but girls need protecting, or does it just not happen to boys?

I have argued that it's a broader issue, that people are up for judgement in many aspects of life, and it isn't a phenomena directed specifically at women, no-matter how big a chip MTR has on her shoulder.

And really, why not judge people publicly? As I've pointed out it happens in every walk of life every day, even by the moral crusaders, actually especially by the moral crusaders.

MTR says it's 'a monument to girl hatred '
Even if so, hatred of mostly girls of other girls.

anti,

'for no real reason other than to assert their power. '

Or it could be she just doesn't fancy him, and figures that by their behaviour most boys aren't so sensitive.

'The key is solidarity among the women, since if some women put it about relatively freely, some young men are going to be less willing to put up with a more restricted diet, thus limiting the power of the pussy for those who want to use it that way.'

Or maybe they don't want their boyfriend saying 'that Lara Bingle gives BJs so why don't you'.

anti,

'power of the pussy'
I prefer to call it 'The Bermuda Triangle'. Something Michael Clarke knows a lot about. As they said in Rocky, 'Women weaken Legs'!

'Boys do not regard sluts as a bad thing, but they know that girls do, so they press the button'
Haha. Too true.

'hoping that the label will stick and the other girls will make her life miserable.'

Passive aggressive manipulators are they? I thought only women 'played games' like that?

'Government ads which show young men as irresponsible drivers with small penises?'

I don't think they show that. The message I always take away from those adverts is that the government considers it more shameful to have a small penis than endanger the lives of others by reckless driving. It's a call from the government for young boys to buy those internet penis-extender contraptions advertised in SPAM emails.

Benk:"Ultimately, only women who enter relationships with boys who really love them have long term relationships"

If only...
I don't know what the most predictive factors are, but I don't think love has much to do with it. Mutuality of interest and tolerance are probably pretty important.

Houellebecq:"it could be she just doesn't fancy him,"

No, it's always about power and control. Haven't you been paying attention?

Houellebecq:"Lara Bingle gives BJs"

But she's not a slut - they were engaged at the time and Fev was even married. Besides, she has a great pair of assets. It seems Clarke has managed to find his way out of that particular Bermuda Triangle anyway, although I'm sure he isn't unscathed, at least financially. I wonder who gets the Aston?

Houellebecq:"I thought only women 'played games' like that?"

Where'd you get that idea? Women are just better at it.

Nice one Houellebecq!

I'm glad to see someone is taking this frightening new political movement as seriously as I am!

I think the only thing shocking is that some sensitive and naive people were given a dose of reality into something that upsets them, and therefore it has now sprung into existence.

At this point I'd wish OLO had smileys- I think the rolleyes one would sum up this trifling saga quite nicely.

In fact, it reminds me of a feminist art teacher I used to have who railed on about how in art (nude) women are only seen as inhuman objects existing for male pleasure etc- ignoring the fact that the artists might have only wanted to perv on someone they fancied and never really considered anything else except making a painting that would be popular (same might be true for many male artworks too).

In short, some people get their nickers in a twist and go overboard on largely non-existent implications based on pure personal hysteria alone.

Oh Hazza,

I love that 'objectifying' gear. How is a painting supposed to talk. It *is* an object, not a woman. Men normally can tell the difference, and they even try to make the image more real in Play Boy by printing the supposed interests of the object (sorry, woman) on the page. See, men really are interested in women for their minds as well after all. Or at least the kinky sexual part thereof.

In fact, my partner is heartened when she catches me perving at other girls and I tell her, 'don't worry, I see them purely as objects'. She finds this very reassuring, as in I'm not going to go chasing after all these girls and having affairs with them. Although sometimes she wants me to objectify her more often, and sometimes she even catches me objectifying her at the pub and gets really happy about it. She's a rubbish feminist that chick.

But as she says, it doesn't matter where you get your appetite from as long as you come home for dinner.

Orange Donkey
Thanks for your thoughts. I do understand the risk of using privacy as an excuse for suppressing information (such as with governments/corporates and areas of individual accountability). I also agree with you - why do we use the word "slut" anymore? If we want to be a more accepting and liberal society why do these old labels still apply?

Unfortunately though, while these attitudes pervade, websites like this can have negative consequences on those who are targeted. It is not just boys but girls can be quite ruthless about their own sex at times.

Hazza talks about the murmurings of people under bridges and grafitti on toilet doors and underpasses. The difference is the audience is much smaller and ramifications of being posted on the Net is much greater. Schoolyard bullying can be dealt with in the open with intervention by teachers.

RObert - you are right. There was no specific mention of boys or men in similar situations but the message can easily be extended to anyone. Girls were the main targets (and probably perpetrators) in this Facebook site so hence the emphasis by the author on girls (I suspect). But a side comment would have helped given the reputation of the author on OLO. Would it be the same response if someonelse had written it - who knows.

We can't do much about the graffitti on toilet doors or boys/girls muttering about sluttish behaviour, hopefully they will grow up, but we might be able to, as a society, assist victims of bullying on the Net.

"My 13 year old daughter knows just who the sluts are at her school, and she was mortified to be called a slut by one of her peers for committing the social gaffe of sitting next to a boy on a bus trip during a school excursion when she had other seats available."

Yes, of course. It's mostly females who call females sluts. I know lots of men who would like to have casual sex with many, varied and good-looking women. But I don't know any women who would like to have sex with many and varied men, no matter how good-looking the men are. Even Hugh Grant, famous romantic film-star with the lost-puppy eyes, had to pay a woman to have sex and not bother him with endless consequential claims on his time, income and equity. Females calling other females sluts, and marriage, are female anti-competitive practices to drive up the price of pussy.

Thanks for the laugh Houellebecq.
I can be proud enough to say that I've never oggled a naked woman and thought "sombody put that woman in her rightful place!" (not playing down placement of course- ahem)

Pelican- the difference between school bullying and internet bullying is quite more substantial than that:
-Victims are always present and directly affected by school bullies (including spreading rumors behind their back). Internet ones aint.
-Victims cannot escape school bullies until the bullies are punished, threatened or reprimanded into submissive passive behaviour by themselves or another party. On top of that as a common possibility, internet victims can simply not read the page- let alone specifically seek the page.
-Victims can put on as tough an act online as they like and constantly throw the exact same treatment back at the bully- in the school they tend to have to actually be physically stronger.
-Insults online in the form of a bit of text or recorded video tend to be less harsh to recieve than in a direct situation when you're in the same room.

In short, WAY less harsh and much easier to avoid.

Also, I'm dubious that the individuals are so much brainwashed to hate female sexuality as much as a bunch of jealous losers trying to look tough by trying to talk like gansgstas and "Pimpin their Bottom Bitchas" so to speak.

King Hazza:

<<Sigh- I just can't stand these "disturbing new "trends" on the internet articles.
It's the internet.
Every person can set up a page, and people are free to say whatever they like- and as such, everything sayable will be said.
Nothing else to see here.
Just another beatup.>>

A vacuous response. Where there's a grain of truth it's the bleeding obvious.

MTR said:

<<By allowing this site, Facebook is a conduit for bullying, harassment and abuse.>>

The posts by KH or Houelly and so on don't rebut this essential point in the article, notwithstanding some false analogies with railway bridges, school playgrounds etc. I sense that, while it may be easy for people like KH, Houelly or I to ignore bullying and insulting posts about us if they were to exist, or to 'retaliate' (as if we would stoop to that level, eh, KH?), many people targeted on this Facebook page possibly already have been victims of abuse and bullying; even if they were not, who are you, KH, to exhort them to 'toughen up'? It's trite, disingenuous and a further insult, to offer the facile 'it's the internet... deal with it' kind of advice we're seeing here.

In the absence of research findings - if such do exist - I hazard a guess that Facebook abuse and ridicule would be more disturbing to many victims than the graffiti on a railway bridge or a school locker.

The retort to Pelican, asserting internet-based bullying to be 'WAY less harsh and much easier to avoid', is not persuasive. For a start, the point about having to be 'physically stronger' in the school yard, is simplistic as most bullying victims have surely already been identified by abusers' groups as physically non-conforming and emotionally vulnerable. The whole idea of retaliation, in any case, is inane. I think the hold of social networking sites over individuals' lives and the psychological effect of cyber-bullying is an area worth more investigation rather than simply telling abuse victims to toughen up.

King Hazza again:

<<And someone killing themselves because of what text-based comments someone made electronically? Please- he would have had a LOT more problems than that alone.>>

This isn't for you to say, KH. Reports of the recent work-place bullying case in Melbourne, in which four men were found guilty of bullying to the extent of hounding a young woman to take her own life, did not include any references to her having a 'LOT more problems than that alone'.

The laws of defamation, slander, libel apply to the internet. Their enforcement may be more difficult, but it would surprise many people just how easy it is to identify the average anonymous poster. The chief problem will always be that ordinary people who are being maligned, abused and ridiculed mostly lack the wherewithal to pursue litigation; this also applies to print publications or even comments made in the workplace.

<<It is more worthwhile that the internet is a free information medium by adults and mature people of expressing thought, than to be treated as another medium of media, and thus must be regulated and dumbed down.>>

This is very convoluted, and doesn't make sense: the internet has been well and truly 'dumbed down' despite the absence of regulation. You already implied as much in your first post, quoted in my previous one.

Rapscallion:". Where there's a grain of truth it's the bleeding obvious."

Arbeit Macht Frei, Mein Herr.

The bleeding obviosity of any given statement depends entirely on whether one is required to "arbeit" to "macht frei"....

Rapscallion: I agree.

There are so many people trying to justify the basest of human behaviour.

I note the posturing of those who champion bullies - including the attempt to squeeze a bit of german into the convo. I think it's an attempt to infer that people who oppose nasty behaviour are nazi like. I'd say that took a bit of work to find a place to squeeze in something that doesn't really fit. Nevermind.

Whether or not poor behaviour can be legislated doesn't matter much; it seems to me more important to at least uphold an ideal of desirable behaviour. Informal social expectations can have great impact.

It's also just plain silly to say that online abuses against someone are less harmful than playground bullying. For one thing it assumes that bullying is the province of school kids - which it isn't. It also assumes that it's one sort of bullying versus another sort - whereas quite often they occur together.

I'm really sick of all the piggish bravado that so many people seem to admire. When did callous indifference become fashionable?

In other forms of bullying the victim is not always present nor does attempting to ignore it take away all the consequences.

Bulling away from the internet can also be about trying to harm someones reputation, it can be about pressuring friends to not be friends anymore. Bullying is not just physical intimidation.

In most cases I suspect that the non-physical forms of bullying can be far worst, they can be harder to prove, they are harder to avoid, they often involve more people and a fast set of legs does not help to avoid them.

R0bert

Agree with both Pynchme and R0bert

What some people don't get is that the child ridiculed on the internet, then has to turn up at school knowing that everyone, friends and foes alike, have read the taunts and comments. Often friends will turn away in order not to be bullied themselves, leaving the victim further isolated.

Suggest that those dismissive of bullying do some research:

http://www.kidshelp.com.au/teens/get-info/hot-topics/cyber-bullying.php

<<< Bullying vs other types of conflict

It's important to remember that not all fighting or arguing is bullying. It is normal to have times when you have conflict and arguments with people. So, it is important to learn how to deal with conflict. Bullying is different to having an argument or a fight.

There are four things that can help you identify bullying over a normal argument between friends. Bullying is targeted and persistent behaviour that is intended to:

* demean
* intimidate
* embarrass, or
* harass

Bullying also involves:

* An imbalance of power - for example a group ganging up on an individual or someone much more confident picking on someone who is less confident
* Repeatedly picking on someone over the phone, email, website or online forum (for example, sending messages to the same person over and over) >>>

Pynchme:"I think it's an attempt to infer that people who oppose nasty behaviour are nazi like."

LOL. Let me explain...

It was "bleeding obvious" to many Germans that the Jews were of inferior stock. It was not obvious to the millions of Jews who were required to "Arbeit" (work) to "macht Frei" (be set free). After the war, it was no longer "bleeding obvious" to anyone but the deranged.

As I said and as you make clear with every utterance, the bleeding obviosity of any statement depends on which side you think you're on.

R0bert:"In most cases I suspect that the non-physical forms of bullying can be far worst, they can be harder to prove, they are harder to avoid, they often involve more people and a fast set of legs does not help to avoid them."

I'd agree with that to a large degree. Social isolation in particular can be very destructive. I've mentioned the response of my boy's school to a complaint of such bullying, which was basically "meh, that's kids, what can we do about it?", as compared to a massive over-response to a minor incident involving one student pulling my daughter's hair.

I attended a Anglican Church Grammar School in Brisbane as a boarder for 5 years, where bullying and violence were rife. It was rare for violent incidents to involve more than one perpetrator or to last for very long, but episodes of psychological bullying could often involve an entire dorm going out of their way to curry favour with some dominant kid or other by making some other kid's life miserable for weeks on end.

I've gone out of my way to avoid having anything to do with that school ever since. It was a toxic environment.

Antiseptic: As I understand it, the term was used in concentration camps - as if the Jews had a hope of getting free if they'd just shape up to the expectations of their oppressors. No matter how hard they worked for the Nazis who controlled them, they would never gain their liberty.

Therefore, it was a warped reality imposed by the bullying Nazis on their captives while they endured every imaginable abuse - including being described as and told they were worthless, despicable and not fit to live amongst their superiors (the Nazis) except as slave labour.

I don't think you appreciate the irony of seeing a bully use the same term to dismiss the ongoing denigration and devaluing of other humans.
The additional pretentiousness of trying to use it by wringing it through a few contortions is really quite something.

Some seem to miss the point, here it's not gender per se it, bullying.
BS excuses aside it is wrong. And those who defend it are simply self justifying their own short comings as humans to justify their lack of personal concern and effort.

Antiseptic,

I was referring to this:

"It's the internet.
Every person can set up a page, and people are free to say whatever they like- and as such, everything sayable will be said.
Nothing else to see here."

It's 'argument' by statement of 'the bleeding obvious'. So obvious to the poster that he ridicules the article's author for apparently not noticing. He and another poster eventually had a good chortle about this. While it might be true in a sense, it's a truism too, and doesn't address cultural, moral and ethical issues that arise. It's a shrug of the shoulders response which, today, is often followed by that ghastly, clichéd discussion-killer, 'deal with it'.

I disagree with your view, though, in so far as I don't think Melinda has failed to notice the obvious, despite her being in opposition to the views put by KH and one or two others. Just because a certain state of affairs is obvious doesn't mean that it ought to be that way or that there is no point in trying to alter things; as it turns out, Facebook's owners have removed the offending page. Perhaps the obviosity is not quite so bleeding after all.

I'm glad you brought up the Nazis, though, because I'm sure that in Nazi Germany there were millions of people who also shrugged their shoulders, said that's the way things are, and did nothing about the slogans daubed all over the homes, work-places and business premises of Jews, even if they hadn't thought that they were of inferior stock. It was also a type of bullying, and a prelude to the holocaust. Some of the observers possibly also thought the slogans and cartoons were harmless and not to be taken seriously.

I think your comment, "After the war, it was no longer "bleeding obvious" to anyone but the deranged" might well be directed at KH. Perhaps after some long period of free-for-all say-whatever-you-like Internet, the attitude that criticism of online abuse and bullying and its effects is 'just another beat-up' or a curtailment of free speech might also appear 'deranged'.

"Whether or not poor behaviour can be legislated doesn't matter much; it seems to me more important to at least uphold an ideal of desirable behaviour. Informal social expectations can have great impact."

Excellent thinking. Why can't we apply this to promiscuous females? Men who sleep around are certainly encouraged to "uphold an ideal of desirable behaviour".

Counselling for your negative experience[s]Benk; you generalise about women excessively, placing us all in the same basket which is farcical. I do not place men in one basket despite my negative experiences; why do you? Open up a thread and let it all out in one long go; it will assist you and in turn you can assist other blokes who generalise after negative painful experiences

Rapscallion:"ust because a certain state of affairs is obvious doesn't mean that it ought to be that way or that there is no point in trying to alter things"

That was precisely my point.

MTR has a personal agenda, prosecuted through all of her writings, which is essentially religiously-based wowserism with a soupcon of feminist dogma to act as a dog-whistle. She's getting quite good at her schtick and this sort of thing, especially the perjorative "slut" fits neatly into her bag of tricks. If it had been a page about boys who toss off in the school dunny, she'd have found it altogether less offensive, I suspect.

Once again, it depends on whether you think you're a Nazi or a Jew, figuratively speaking.

On the wider subject of a free internet, i don't see how this has any relevance. All the ISPs have abuse policies which would encompass this sort of situation. There is no need for external regulation as far as I can see.

'When did callous indifference become fashionable?'

It's not. Righteous grand standing, now that's fashionable! Callous indifference is the necessary counter-culture balancing out the ubiquitous 'think of the children!' shrieks.

I'm constantly bemused by older people thinking just because the internet is used as a tool for something, that something becomes suddenly new and exciting.

Kids pass notes around the bus saying Severin smells, and nobody cares. But if they post it on 'that exciting new thing called twitter, that all the kids are using' it suddenly becomes 'the evil internet' and 'we must protect our kids from it'.

Hey, everybody. The internet. Not new! Not exciting! Part of life now, like paper! Get over it! There's bullys, always has been always will be. The internet doesn't make it any more interesting.

BTW: Thanks Severin, nobody previously knew what a bully is. I've got a new idea, Fractelle, can you research socks for us? How to put them on and stuff, maybe different colours and the history of the use of socks.

'lack of personal concern and effort'.

Hahaha. I'm sure the bullys read OLO and will stop. Or the government will base policy on the comments here, or on the screeching of MTR.

I hereby declare I have no intention of displaying 'personal concern and effort' about bullying on OLO. I just don't need to win the 'I'm a good citizen and I'm more empathetic than you' contest some others are running for.

'clichéd discussion-killer, 'deal with it'. '

As opposed to 'think of the children'? Tomatoes, tomatoes...

BTW: I'm liking the Nazi stuff. These kids are hard core huh. I think we should ban the internet. If we could save just one child, it would be worth it.

We are unique (if only you were)

I'm happy to discuss experiences, as long as the discussion involves actually reading arguments and presenting counter-arguments, not just vague, unsubstantiated claims about other people.

I believe that there is strong pressure on blokes not to sleep around. This can be anything from name-calling, rumors and physical violence to other women (quite understandibly) choosing not to have anything to do with these blokes. I have also seen the hurt that these blokes have caused to female friends. Like Pynchme, I believe that social pressure is alright (to a point) to convince these blokes to think of others.

Name calling towards (female) sluts is simply another example of pressuring people to think of the greater good.

So, benk - what is the colloquial term for a promiscuous man that is the equivalent of "slut"? Also, can you please point us to a Facebook page that is dedicated to shaming them?

Sorry, CJ, its probably better if I don't use that sort of language here and I'm not about to spend my valuable time trawling Facebook. Suffice to say, you have your work cut out convincing me that sleazy blokes walk away from their victims without facing any criticism. No-one craps on about how liberated and independent these creeps are.

"Kids pass notes around the bus saying Severin smells, and nobody cares. But if they post it on 'that exciting new thing called twitter, that all the kids are using' it suddenly becomes 'the evil internet' and 'we must protect our kids from it'. "

What makes you think nobody cares? Houlley bullying has been around for a while it is not a modern concept and there has been a great deal of attention paid to anti-bullying practices in schools.

The Internet has just allowed a wider audience and greater humiliation for those who are listed on sites like this. It is a much wider medium for harassment and bullying that is not easily managed such as a round table discussion with teachers, principals, parents and kids; or suspension in cases of overt bullying where there is no remorse.

The internet is here but if we don't recognise that advancements in technology create new and complex problems in the information age we ignore some of the negatives of those advancements.

A kid handing around a note on a bus saying X smells will no doubt be dealth with, a kid doing the same on the internet according to you can be let run riot as he/she feels free.

Not the same at all.

benk: << Sorry, CJ, its probably better if I don't use that sort of language here >>

Yet you seem quite comfortable using the word 'slut'.

QED.

CJMorgan:"what is the colloquial term for a promiscuous man that is the equivalent of "slut"?"

"Butch": if humping legs indiscriminately counts. Oh, hold on, you said "man" - as you were...

Pelican, bullying is bullying, but there are degrees. A difference of degree does not render the analogy invalid.

I don't know if the humiliation is any greater simply because one reads it on the internet instead of seeing it on a public wall or hearing it first-hand.

Would CJMorgan be more humiliated by my pointing out his remarkable resemblance to a small canine of dubious parentage and unsavoury habits here or if I were to do it among a group at a social gethering, say a barbecue? What if it was in a more formal setting, such as a work meeting or a meeting of the Greens? I'd suggest that the harm done would potentially be considerable in the latter cases, but does not even exist in this setting on the 'net.

Bullying implies a power differential, not just name-calling. If that exists, then the medium is largely irrelevant.

I stand by my earlier comment that noone here would be upset if this had been a page about boys caught tossing off in the dunny and certainly MTR would not have written about it.

The male equivalent of nymphomanic is a satyr. Or in modern parlance, a lucky bastard.

Mens' attitudes towards promiscuity are very different to women's.

As non PC as it is, there is a very strong biological imperative for the difference in behaviour which probably drives social norms.

While the term slut is not an effective slur for boys there are plenty of other handles that work and are used on Facebook and other social sites.

If MTR is railing against women being called sluts, the only really effective counter to this is women not caring about being called sluts, and then it will be as useless as for boys.

Anti
My point was that the medium is relevant given as I said previously that a bully in a schoolyard can be dealt with.

A few names on a website without knowing the source is impossible to bring to account.

True, bullying is awful for the victim whether face to face or over the Net. The difference is the Net is anonymous and there is no accountability for actions and the bullying is likely to continue.

What if a person took out an Ad in the The Australian listing all the sluts they have known by name? I doubt for one the paper would take the listing, so why should the Net be absolved from any of these normal sensibilities and codes of decent behaviour?

Why do we shut our minds to it on the Net but if we were to see it in the paper the effects and outcry would be much greater (IMO).

'Septic: << Would CJMorgan be more humiliated by my pointing out his remarkable resemblance to a small canine of dubious parentage and unsavoury habits here or if I were to do it among a group at a social gethering, say a barbecue? >>

The most obvious flaw in Septic's attempt at a gratuitous puerile insult is that he wouldn't dare try it in any face to face situation. Instead, he does so both cowardly and anonymously on the Internet.

That the Internet facilitates such odious activity by cowards is one of Reist's points. However, I think that the answer doesn't lie in censoring such sites as Facebook - rather, the answer is in the effective socialisation of children, such that they don't think that bullying is OK under any circumstances, online or otherwise.

Clearly, those who engage in cowardly anonymous abuse on the Internet are products of poor parenting and flawed socialisation. Septic is a prime example of a failed adult - undoubtedly his unfortunate children are being socialised in similarly dysfunctional ways.

Fortunately, there's some hope for them, since they spend half their time with their mother, who has obviously some experience in dealing with oafish bullies.

Pelican, what is more impoertant, stopping the bullying or finding someone to blame? The net allows easy regulation of what is published, as Facebook has demonstrated on several occasions and as many responsible ISPs have also shown.

One of the best way to deter graffitists is to rapidly remove any new graffiti that appears. It is not necessary to catch the perpetrators to reduce the problem.

A "slut" ad in the paper would be worse because it persists and is beyond anyone's control once it has been published and distributed. Unless a website is duplicated, once it is removed it is gone.

Butch:"he wouldn't dare try it in any face to face situation."

Well no, I'd not put myself in any situation away from the 'net in which contact with you would be likely to occur. Apart from anything else, Max might take a chunk out of you and catch something nasty.

He's not fond of mindless leg-humpers either.

He must be getting to you CJ. A joke about dogs and you slam his parenting and personal relationships. Oh, that's right, you denounce bullying so it's all ok. Ah, that nice boy CJ the girls always talk about who's never abusive.

pelican,

'The Internet has just allowed a wider audience'
Really? The audience that matters to the kid is the same; Their peers.

Just like going to a nudist beach. Nobody cares about letting it all hang out with people they don't know and will never see again.

I take your point it's not as easily managed, but neither is graffiti on the school toilet walls. If you take the internet away, there is still anonymous bullying to a wide audience of peers. Kids are inventive.

Howler, you're like one of those diminutive toadies that follow school bullies around, sniggering at their exploits. It wasn't a "joke about dogs", it was a gratuitous personal insult made from the coward's cloak of anonymity, and is part of Septic's ongoing futile campaign to try and bully me because I don't toe the bloke line.

Fortunately, all bullies are cowards, and I know how to deal with them. Since you mention it, I've noticed that most women and men admire those of us who make a point of standing up to bullying thugs.

CJ that laurel and hardy routine you two have going about dogs is a harmless sideshow. You turned from that into a serious discussion about his upbringing of his daughter and his relationship with his wife.

As I said, I had no idea that dog banter was so upsetting to you.

'Fortunately, all bullies are cowards, and I know how to deal with them. Since you mention it, I've noticed that most women and men admire those of us who make a point of standing up to bullying thugs.'

Oooh you're so brave! You're my hero CJ!

'you're like one of those diminutive toadies'

Perhaps you're just bullying me because I don't toe the high and mighty antiseptic castigation line. As I've said before, there's one of him and umpteen of you lot.

Oh by the way, I thought I had it on record I don't find any of that dog stuff remotely funny. But it's how you two seem to converse and I was under the impression it wasn't exactly 'a gratuitous personal insult made from the coward's cloak of anonymity'. How dramatic!

I hereby give you the voice of Sir John Gielgud

Houellebecq: <"... that laurel and hardy routine you two have going about dogs is a harmless sideshow.">

Since there is only one initiator delivering a string of quite silly dog insults it doesn't qualify as a Laurel and Hardy routine. What's more, Laurel and Hardy humour was original and often very funny.

As I think you're well aware, though you pretend not to be, the insults are supposed to diminish CJ's masculine identity because he refuses to cheer boy-group-hug thuggery. There are plenty of others in that cheer squad. Are you on duty because it's Cornflower's day off or summin?

Benk: I don't know what word you mean and I haven't led a sheltered life. I am pretty sure I'm shock proof. Can you give a hint?

Sounds like?

Pynchme,

I agree it's pretty tiresome, as I said in my last post. I believe CJ gets involved quite often in the analogies and they both seem to be enjoying themselves.

'cheer boy-group-hug thuggery'?

Perhaps you're just bullying me because I don't toe the high and mighty antiseptic castigation line too. You and CJ seem so upset that anyone doesn't join in your anti's the devil incarnate stuff.

Thug
1. a cruel or vicious ruffian, robber, or murderer.
2.(sometimes initial capital letter) one of a former group of professional robbers and murderers in India who strangled their victims.

Yes I confirmed the definition as two different people seem to be calling septic cruel and vicious (or murderer?). This I don't see.

CJ's recent form here, well, that I think could qualify. Oh yes, that's right CJs the nice boy isn't he. Couldn't be because he agrees with your feministing gear could it?

Houellebecq: More like this:

http://i493.photobucket.com/albums/rr292/nismopower24/E-thug.jpg

Houellebecq: <"Oh yes, that's right CJs the nice boy isn't he. Couldn't be because he agrees with your feministing gear could it?">

Well I'd like to think I was circumspect enough to say it isn't but of course that has something to do with it. I admire men who have the courage to stand apart from the crowd. Not just agreeing with "feministing gear" - but more. There's disagreeing at times too (as amongst feminists in general) and on the whole showing that he actually understands the concepts without resorting to silly stereotypes. He clearly understands what he's talking about.

On the other hand, I also get along fine with many people who don't share my basic beliefs - people who are neither feminist nor Christian and who live their lives in all sorts of ways that I just wouldn't and who express their beliefs accordingly. I consider everything they say and read any information they provide with great interest.

CJ

"Yet you seem quite comfortable using the word 'slut'."
How else can society communicate to these women that their behaviour is unacceptable?

Pynchme

There is no direct equivalent to slut, but that doesn't mean that sleazy blokes don't face criticism.

Pelican

Ultimately, we cannot control what others say about us. We can control what people think when they hear people being criticised.

benk: << How else can society communicate to these women that their behaviour is unacceptable? >>

Dear oh dear, benk - you sound like a Jane Austen novel. You just don't get it, do you?

<< There is no direct equivalent to slut >>

Like I said, QED.

Shadow Minister:"there is a very strong biological imperative for the difference in behaviour which probably drives social norms."

Absolutely correct. This discussion has been held previously in relation to porn usage.

Houellebecq:"Kids are inventive."

Indeed they are. It's remarkable that "slut" has retained currency, really.

Houellebecq:"I don't find any of that dog stuff remotely funny"

You think it's meant to be funny? I see it as a character sketch, albeit unflattering to pomeranians everywhere.

pynchme:"diminish CJ's masculine identity"

Only in the sense of getting the last drop out of the bottle.

pynchme:"I admire men who have the courage to stand apart from the crowd."

Aw shucks, hon, 'tain't nothin'.

CJMorgan:"You just don't get it, do you?"

Answer me a simple question, CJ, no dodging. Do you regard promiscuity as something to be encouraged? If so, why?

'How else can society communicate to these women that their behaviour is unacceptable?'

What an odd question. 'these women'? Hmmm. Unacceptable? To who?

'Do you regard promiscuity as something to be encouraged? If so, why?'

anti,

I can answer for CJ, as we're great mates.

Promiscuity is not the problem, and though sluts are branded as such for promiscuity, it's really other factors now days that are the real issue.

I think the derogatory aspect of slut these days is more about dishonesty. Promiscuity is neither here nor there. Someone who has many sexual partners who hasn't deceived them or used them in any way I think is quite accepted by today's standards.

One aspect is pity really. Pity for a girl who has sex for the purpose of trying to get people to like her. Another aspect again is using the offer of sex for other material gains or for manipulation.

Basically it all boils down to honesty. It's not the how many, it's the why you have the partners. Same for prudes who don't have sex. It's the why they don't have sex. Don't have sex because you don't like it with that person; nobody cares. You really like and secretly want to shag but feel inhibited; You're a prude.

These rules are there for men. Men are a sleaze, lecherous, a player, a dirty old man etc if they use women just for sex. It's the dishonesty. Of course your average feminist ignores these terms attempting to put constraints on mens sexual activity as if they don't exist. They also ignore men being characterised as the boring nice guy/sexy bad boy dichotomy analogous to the supposed Madonna/Whore.

I think women who shag lots of men just because they want to don't get called sluts and if they do they don't care because they're the kind of people who don't care what others think, hence they shag who they like.

I think you're on the money with women more likely using slut for competitive reasons though.

Thanks Howler, old mate. I'm not in the habit of responding to questions from ill-mannered oafs, but as it happens I agree pretty much with your take on it - except for the gratuitous feminist bash.

Also, I told you the dog sh!t is no joke, as Septic acknowledges. It's entirely one sided, and he does it purely to provoke and insult. In this thread, I hadn't addressed a single comment to him, but he couldn't manage to disagree with me without flaming.

'In this thread, I hadn't addressed a single comment to him, but he couldn't manage to disagree with me without flaming.'

In this thread, yes. I've seen the reverse happen many times as well though. Journalistic integrity anyone...

'Ill mannered oafs'.

Classic Gielgud!

'except for the gratuitous feminist bash'

It's 'de rigueur'. It's also apposite! As in MTR would never concede the points I made about the terms used for men or the nice guy/bad boy stuff. Neither would pynchme. Or if they did, they'd say it's somehow men's fault. And it'd be no indication of misandry. 'It's... it's just... it's just different!'. 'I don't know why'.

With all these feminist deconstruction of culture articles, everything is seen as evidence of the oppressing of women and the misogynist nature of men. When you point out to them men have similar constraints and that women make up half of 'societal expectations', they normally give you a look like Julie Bishop on Q&A.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s_jKKnO9NE0

BTW: I love it how no spell checker ever knows the word misandry. Perhaps it doesn't exist in gender studies courses either...

"Do you regard promiscuity as something to be encouraged? If so, why?"

When I was unattached promiscuity should have been thoroughly encouraged. I hope the why does not require explaining.

With a long term partner it's not something I have a personal stake in.

I do think that we should be teaching kids to respect their bodies and how they use them. We should be making it clear that sexual intimacy can be a very powerful thing and that for most of us some care is required in how we manage it, either for our own sake's or for the sake of those we are intimate with.

It means that promiscuity with caution against the obvious risks and undertaken with care for all involved can be fun but that promiscuity to try and gain acceptance from others or as a weapon against others can be a source of heartache and regret.

R0bert

"The net allows easy regulation of what is published, as Facebook has demonstrated on several occasions and as many responsible ISPs have also shown."

Anti
I agree with a lot of what you said (eg. grafitti scenario) however, I thought the whole point of this debate was that this website was allowed to continue and there was no regulation or responsibility assigned to ISPs. Hence unlike grafitti it was not to be 'scrubbed' away.

My comments have been based on the assumption that we don't allow bullying to fester in real life, why do we allow it to run amok on the Web.

If it has been taken down or others like it then I guess my concerns are no longer valid

Houellebecq:" they're the kind of people who don't care what others think"

I think you're right. The important factor is self-confidence, rather than any moral judgement. Let's face it, self-confident people are not really vulnerable to the judgements of others less well-endowed.

An important aspect of bullying is the social one and for people who don't define themselves by the social norms imposed by others this aspect is not effective. OTOH, those who are prone to dependency are more greatly affected by the judgement of others.

Hence CJMorgan, whose entire sense of self-worth is created by the response of others to his blandishments, is a perfect exemplar of my point.

If he had a strong sense of self-worth based on his own capacity to cope with vicissitudes, he'd not get upset when I point out how his behaviour resembles that of a small dog seeking a lap to lie on.

Hourllebecq:"men have similar constraints"

Of course. All that has happened in recent years is that some women have become enamoured of the idea that society exists purely for their benefit. That's dysfunctional, but hardly unexpected given the Flood of fatuous propaganda that has been put about on the subject.

With so much guff being published, it becomes difficult to sort through to the facts, especially when there is a social norm that says dissent is aberrant, such as exists in most social groups of women.

R0bert:"promiscuity with caution against the obvious risks and undertaken with care for all involved can be fun "

And there's the rub, isn't it? Adolescents are given to rebellion against the strictures of their parents. They are much more vulnerable to influence by their peers. If their peers are saying "promiscuity is bad", most won't engage in it. If their peer group approves, then you end up with the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s and all the negative as well as positive consequences.

How the peer group expresses itself is all that's at issue here. The gender stuff is purely a sideshow.

Pelican, I believe it's been taken down.

Just remember! our young are a reflection of ourselves and the environment their nurtured in! If our young are encouraged to idolize
sluttish behavior like Madonna promotes, and countless other bimbos! What do you expect? Monkey see! Monkey do! And as fare as girl hatred goes, feminism is to be blamed for that. A backlash! and an over
sense of worth!

Anti

“self-confident people are not really vulnerable to the judgements of others less well-endowed."
To put it another way, arrogant people don't care about others.

CJ

Sleazy men are criticicised with a variety of terms, none of which are reserved purely for men who sleep around. As you have pointed out, there is no insult reserved purely for this variety of deadbeats. Thank-you for drawing our attention to this gaping hole in the English language. We desperately need more insults. Feel free to invent a new word that is the male equivalent of slut.

Houllie

Unacceptable to who?

Those blokes who have done the right thing by women by not sleeping around.

Those women who have earned the right not to be called a slut.

Those of us who cannot stand hypocrites. You will never meet a slut who doesn't criticise men who have left them.

Those of us who cannot stand losers. These women all want a long term relationship, at some time, with a bloke who can afford to be fussy. By sleeping around, they are shooting themselves in the foot.

Those of us who despise arrogance. It must take an amazing amount of self-belief to think that they can sleep around without looking bad. They are also addicted more to the attention that their reputation brings than to the actual sex.

Those of us who cannot stand selfishness. These women don’t care about how their previous exploits make any current boyfriend look like a loser. The availability of casual sex also makes it hard for other women to maintain long-term relationships.

Those of us who don’t respect suckers. Sleazy blokes are like con-artists. Women who sleep with them look like they are easily conned.

benk you're getting creepy man.

'earned the right'?
So all women are to be called sluts unless they earn the right not to be called such?

'You will never meet a slut who doesn't criticise men who have left them.'
Re he he healllly? Those sluts hey. Such hypocrites.

'cannot stand losers'?
So much anger. Why don't you just pity 'losers'?

'these women all want a long term relationship, at some time, with a bloke who can afford to be fussy.'
Do they just. 'These women'.

'how their previous exploits make any current boyfriend look like a loser.'
Re he he he he he heallllly! Wow! What Are you Sheik Hilaly? So a man's worth is determined by the amount of sexual experience of their partner?

'The availability of casual sex also makes it hard for other women to maintain long-term relationships.'
You are Shiek Hilaly! Oooh watch out for that uncovered meet girls, it'll lead your boyfriends astray. These men just cant help themselves faced with the power of those sluts, turning them into losers.

'Those of us who don’t respect suckers. Sleazy blokes are like con-artists.'
SO when men are dishonest, you don't respect the 'suckers'. When women are dishonest you don't respect the 'sluts'. Interesting way of looking at things. And anyone who forms a relationship is a slut is a loser. What about someone who forms a relationship with a sucker?

BTW: When you talk about 'these women', do you mean cheerleaders?

Antiseptic: <"pynchme:"I admire men who have the courage to stand apart from the crowd."

Aw shucks, hon, 'tain't nothin'.">

Your views are chained to the 1950s. Nothing revolutionary or original.

Careful Houellebecq; you're in danger of being seen as a feminist sympathizer.

However, you're always drawing opinions out of your stereotypical-feminist nonsense box and attributing them to me or to "your average feminist." I AM your average feminist and most of the rubbish you attribute to me/them is not something I (at least, or any feminists I know) think.

I am heartened when I see and hear young people questioning these sorts of issues:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jc8bVJxkcGE

Benk: <"These women all want a long term relationship, at some time, with a bloke who can afford to be fussy. By sleeping around, they are shooting themselves in the foot.">

Are men who sleep around shooting themselves in the foot?

See the problem is that you don't exhort men to be less promiscuous; you somehow expect women to be responsible for everyone else's moral choices and behaviour.

It isn't the responsibility of one sex or the other, but of individuals making better or worse choices.

Btw - sounds like you're suffered in a relationship. You must have been terribly hurt. Sorry.

Houllie

"So all women are to be called sluts unless they earn the right not to be called such?"
I get a little peeved at women who act like sluts and can't understand why they are labelled as such. I cannot be the only one.

'You will never meet a slut who doesn't criticise men who have left them.'
Have you ever met one of these women who didn't complain about blokes who chose not to stay with them?

"Why don't you just pity 'losers'?"
I stand corrected.

'these women all want a long term relationship, at some time, with a bloke who can afford to be fussy.'
Have you ever met one of these women who didn't suffer from the delusion that they could choose to have a long term relationship, at a time of their choosing, with the guy of their dreams?

'how their previous exploits make any current boyfriend look like a loser.'
C'mon Houllie, you've seen it. Her and the new boyfriend arriving somewhere. The funny looks. The people going into huddles and snickering. The blokes who insist on telling him about the time that they had a one-night stand. I've seen the same scene plenty of times with sleazy men and their new sucker. The mock surprise when she tells us how they have only been together for a couple of weeks.

"These men just cant help themselves faced with the power of those sluts, turning them into losers." Beware of false dichotomies. Saying that women have a responsibility to try to stop these creeps, even if it comes at a cost, in no way implies that men have no responsibility to show some self-restraint.

"SO when men are dishonest, you don't respect the 'suckers'. When women are dishonest you don't respect the 'sluts'."
Again, beware of false dichotomies. I have little respect for either the con-artists or their victims.

"When you talk about 'these women', do you mean cheerleaders?"
No, obscure French authors and poets.

Benk: <" I get a little peeved at women who act like sluts and can't understand why they are labelled as such. I cannot be the only one.">

No you're far from the only one. That's what feminists have been fighting that condemnation for so long.

Benk: What about a girl who meets a bloke who says he loves her and, convinced that they have the relationship of a lifetime, they have sex (maybe have a baby). The bloke then either loses interest or it becomes apparent that he didn't love her in the first place and off he goes.

Are you saying you have no compassion for her?

Is she more in the wrong than him?

Reverse the situation and it's a bloke being convinced that some girl is ready to commit to a long lasting relationship; they have sex etc and then she loses interest or it turns out she was never committed in the first place.

Do you have any compassion for him?

Is he more in the wrong than her ?

Pynchme

You go girl. Loving your responses here, just thought I'd let you know you are not alone. Can't really be arsed posting further, made my opinion on bullying known - applies to both sexes.

Really Benk, you can't claim women are sluts without acknowledging that their paramours are "slutees"? Sounds like some kind of cough medicine. Sore throat after taking on the entire rugby team? Take a Sluteaze. Sorry. But this pointless bickering of yours brings out my inner facetiousness.

pynchme:"I AM your average feminist"

LOL. I thought there was no such thing as an "average feminist"? Obviously then, an average feminist is a committed Catholic, who deals only with dysfunctional men in a professional counselling capacity and is incapable of grasping simple mathematics.

Glad we got that cleared up; it's important to establish norms.

You really are a confused old thing, but you do know that all men are bastards: it must be true, Michael Flood said so...

benk, the reason for the double standard is that girls instinctually understand that their ownership of a womb gives them an automatic gold pass when they decide to use it, rather than just the attached plumbing. To satisfy their urge to reproduce and to raise children, all they need a man for is to inseminate them.

On the other hand, boys understand that if they want to reproduce and to raise their kids, they have to convince a girl that she wants to keep them around. I think your lament is an expression of this naturally unbalanced situation, which has been exacerbated by the hamfisted efforts of feminist social constructionist ideologues.

When the man-as-breadwinner model was in existence, the reason was obvious: to have a comfortably supported lifestyle. The feminist revolution changed all that, justifying it on the basis that some relationships are dysfunctional, but never mentioning that the vast majority of relationships are not seriously dysfunctional at all.

What I find most amusing is the likes of pynchme waxing rhapsodic about their own domestic situation but advocating an ideology that assumes all relationships consist of wifebashing men and victimised women. "All the world's mad 'cept me and thee".

It's a form of messiah complex: all women are downtrodden except her and they desperately need saving from themselves. It's pynchme to the rescue!

Hey pynchme,

How many times do you think you've ever used or heard or read the word misandry, and how many times misogynist?

Do you think that there are more men who hate women than women who hate men?

Do you think as MTR does that the site is a 'monument to girl hatred'? I never hear you disagree with anything in articles like this.

Do you think dontdatehimgirl.com is a 'monument to man hatred'?

Can you ever in your wildest dreams imagine an article about such a site from MTR, or anybody?

'I AM your average feminist and most of the rubbish you attribute to me/them is not something I (at least, or any feminists I know) think. '
You don't refute any of the claims specifically and you have often rejected any parallels I make with any of the plethora of downtrodden women sob storys (ie victim of societal expectations) we are fed by OLO and yourself and career feminists such as MTR.

I wanna hear you say it. You cant can you?

I wanna once hear you concede 'societal expectations' are created by women just as much as men. That men have equal constraints on their behaviour and sexuality. That we never hear it mentioned, and that we are bombarded with feminist sob stories.

So, agree with me, or refute it and prove me right. It will hurt you either way. I await the Julie Bishop stare.

Severin

"you can't claim women are sluts without acknowledging that their paramours are "slutees"?"

I have never defended the behaviour of these "slutees". I have yet to be convinced that any double-standard exists in society more generally. People can be vicious to the creep who broke some poor girl's heart.

Pynchme

Regarding your concern questions, it is never easy knowing how much sympathy to extend to those who have made silly choices. Regarding the scenarios, I would treat all involved with some sympathy and an expectation that they solve their own problems and learn from their mistakes.

"Are men who sleep around shooting themselves in the foot?"

I've known plenty of blokes who had really nice girlfriends, got rid of them to "play the field", earned a reputation and found it harder and harder to find women who were interested (or gullible) and ended up with someone very ordinary.

"See the problem is that you don't exhort men to be less promiscuous; you somehow expect women to be responsible for everyone else's moral choices and behaviour."

I agree that OLO discussions often focus more on the sexual behaviour of women than of men and that this is of concern. I believe that this is because no-one ever defends creepy blokes, therefore there is no debate about them. If people acknowledged that some women also make stupid or selfish choices, there would be no debate about them either.

"It isn't the responsibility of one sex or the other, but of individuals making better or worse choices."

Spot-on. Why do some people misinterpret any criticism of women as implying that men don't also have responsibilities?

"sounds like you're suffered in a relationship. You must have been terribly hurt. Sorry."

Thank-you for your concern. My anger comes from making a real effort to make the world a better place for women, including not using women, only to discover that most "feminists" aren't interested in paying any price for their principles.

Houellebecq: <"So, agree with me, or refute it and prove me right. It will hurt you either way. I await the Julie Bishop stare.">

Haw you have an overinflated idea of your capacity to cause me discomfort; in fact I laughed. This is a tedious chore for a Friday evening, but since you asked nicely let's see.

H: How many times do you think you've ever used or heard or read the word misandry, and how many times misogynist?

There is no institutional or historical context in which men have been systematically exploited, abused, killed and loathed by women. Feminism challenges a reality with a long history of systematic abuse. There is nothing new any of you blokes come up with that isn't being said by men who oppose human rights for women in India, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

Not to say that men aren't systematically exploited, abused, killed and loathed by MEN with more power than the average Joe - welcome to Marxist feminism.

What puzzles me is how you all can put women down as the enemy, but not speak out about your own victimization by more more socially or physically powerful men.

Feminism is one possible answer to the way that men with less power relative to OTHER men might detach themselves from an exploitative system.

http://crimitism.wordpress.com/2009/12/22/against-our-better-judgement-lets-read-spreading-misandry-chapter-four/

H: Do you think that there are more men who hate women than women who hate men?

Most women love men - to the point of building their lives around them.

However, hatred of women is so ingrained into social institutions and everyday interactions that people in general have become desensitized to it.

You ever hear of Marc Lepine ? (Hailed as a folk hero by some menz advocates). What's your female equivalent ?

Ever seen an article celebrating the rape and murder of a 5 year old boy and saying he deserved it? There's a menz advocate site that includes that. Also glorifies various rapists.

How about http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/ - I challenge you to find an equivalent set of negative commentary and reader postings made by women about men, or

cont/d

The news is daily fare of stories about women and children being raped and murdered mainly by males. If you were reading every day about men/boys being murdered by women, and women reading it seemed indifferent, what would you think? You think that dating site means that women hate men; heaven forbid that females should start killing men at the rate men presently kill women.

H: Do you think as MTR does that the site is a 'monument to girl hatred'? I never hear you disagree with anything in articles like this.

I didn't see the site, but the quotes from it; the denigration of women as objects ("that") and the constant demeaning of females by rating their f/ckability as the measure of their human worth, doesn't sound too promising.

H: Do you think dontdatehimgirl.com is a 'monument to man hatred'?

No not at all. It's a relationship site from what I can see. I took a bit of time to research it as far as that's possible. The terms of service are that the information has to be accurate; also the posters can be contacted and/or located; and the person has the means to reply and put a case.

Btw: There's an equivalent site (actually more than one) where men can post about women and their bad relationships. It didn't seem too busy but I notice that pics there included intimate pics of their former partners' genitalia and nudity etc accompanied by disparaging commentary. I didn't see any right of reply.

H: Can you ever in your wildest dreams imagine an article about such a site from MTR, or anybody?

Possibly. Have you got a site where women post pics of male genitalia and make fun of them with crude, demeaning language ?

H: <"You don't refute any of the claims specifically and you have often rejected any parallels I make with any of the plethora of downtrodden women sob storys">

What sob story are you talking about? Can you be specific.
Are females here whining more than the male posters ?

cont/d:

H: I wanna hear you say it. You cant can you?

Say what?

H: I wanna once hear you concede 'societal expectations' are created by women just as much as men. That men have equal constraints on their behaviour and sexuality. That we never hear it mentioned, and that we are bombarded with feminist sob stories.

I don't have any trouble 'conceding' that societal expectations are created by women as well as men. Haven't you ever heard the term "party to their own oppression." ? It's the same sort of thing where women ensure they uphold the existing social relations by participating in honour killings of their own daughters.

Men do not have equal constraints on their behaviour and sexuality. They do experience social pressure to behave in a macho sort of way towards women and to denigrate any non-heterosexual sexual orientation or non-macho expressions of masculinity (you know - manginas and similar expressions help keep you all in line).

I have posted links to such things. If you have something that you'd like to say about male experience, I will be most interested to read it.

Antiseptic: I'm not Catholic nor an adherent to any formal religious organization. The rest of your remarks are silly. Did you expect some sort of response to your suppositions?

Houellebecq: Further to my earlier responses to your questions, I doubt you'll find an equivalent by women about men and boys, for this sort of manufactured hatred of women:

To see more concisely what I mean, skip to the last pages if you prefer the short version:

http://www.girlsagainstporn.com/download/ccv.pdf

http://manufacturedcontempt.wordpress.com/2007/06/20/larry-flynt-and-hustler-magazine/

Benk: <"I believe that this is because no-one ever defends creepy blokes, therefore there is no debate about them. If people acknowledged that some women also make stupid or selfish choices, there would be no debate about them either.">

I'm afraid that there would be debate about them Benk. Women have always been scapegoated for society's moral behaviour. You talked about men leaving nice girls to play the field. Where does the pressure or desire to play the field come from?

Nobody has trouble acknowledging that women make stupid and selfish choices; it just so happens though that men's choices are legitimated in major social institutions and in societal expectations. Like if a bloke impregnates a woman and walks away she is most likely to be blamed for trying to trap him or for wanting a baby to get benefits or for seeking a termination or whatever. Who in society is calling him to account? I don't see any men here ever acknowledging men's responsibility or role in their own relationship demise. If I read something about the bitches who get the house and kids from the (cue violins) hard working male, etc etc. I feel obliged to put out information re: female experience. Which isn't the same as saying that some women aren't bitches, just that not all are. Anyway, big topic for another time :)

Severin: hey g'day :D

Sorry Rapscallion, you shot yourself in the foot by trying to compare workplace bullying with anonymous internet bullying- again, show me a healthy person with everything working out in their lives, until one dark day an anonymous villain took your photo and said "slut" on it on a remote corner of a site with thousands upon thousands of pages....

I personally find the notion that copying someone's photo and calling her a slut on a different page could be a punishable offense of bullying or slander to be overkill.

Houellebecq, too right about the nazis- we will fight them on the twitter pages, we will fight them on the Kalymdor plains in Warcraft....

What amazes me is that the implications of legal or government action against websites or web users for mere speech is totally lost on some people- who ironically, use the internet to communicate (and not with much ettiquite I might add). A possible consequence is that many corrupt politicians or businessmen or religious organizations could actually sue people for any accusations that might actually link to a real scandal but they could keep enough incriminating details hidden from a court (or the person simply couldn't afford the legal expenses).

Personally, I'm more comfortable with the most important medium of information and communication on the planet be kept free to criticize whatever or whoever one wants, and undisturbed by outside bodies, than allow outside organizations to interfere with it with full authority. I tend to smell the religious defamation laws and the netfilter in these proposals. In short, a serious information medium, and not just an entertainment playground for thin-skinned wowsers.

Pynchme

<"Women have always been scapegoated for society's moral behaviour.">

Just because some people criticise their choices doesn't, of itself, prove that they are being expected to wear all of the blame. You would also need to prove that men aren't getting criticised, which you will find rather difficult.

"You talked about men leaving nice girls to play the field. Where does the pressure or desire to play the field come from?"

I think that it is biologically programmed. This doesn't imply that we cannot overcome these urges.

"Nobody has trouble acknowledging that women make stupid and selfish choices; it just so happens though that men's choices are legitimated in major social institutions and in societal expectations."

Men are told to face up to consequences of our choices like a "real man". The biggest obstacle in this is that people dislike being asked to help those who will-not help themselves. Hence, any criticism of men on OLO is guaranteed to provoke a barrage of "what about you women" type responses. These will then be interpreted as expecting her to take all blame. I agree that this would be unfair, but....just because some people criticise their choices doesn't, of itself, prove that they are being expected to wear all of the blame.

Despite all of the progress that society has made, there is still an undertone of paternalism. Women need to be protected from criticism. Men can be expected to solve all of their problems.

I don't like bullying in any shape or form.
However, I don't believe it is mainly men who have the monopoly on girl hatred. Other girls can be even more cruel to each other than the boys.

While we have sites like this 'slut page' on the internet, and other sites that have girls comparing male lover's penis size and sexual prowess online, there will always be bullies of both genders around.

Both genders are equally cruel to each other really.

King Hazza "show me a healthy person with everything working out in their lives, until one dark day an anonymous villain took your photo and said "slut" on it on a remote corner of a site with thousands upon thousands of pages...." that's a massive misrepresentation of what's being discussed. I suspect that you know that already.

How likely is it that the anonymous person won't ensure that people who know the victim find out about the site? How likely no future prospective partner will run an internet search on the name of the person they are just starting to get to know? How likely that a prospective employer won't run a similar search and find tasteless comments which in some comments will color their views?

A lot of work has gone into ensuring that those remote corners of sites with thousands upon thousands of pages can be found with the most basic of search skills.

Suzie excellent post.

R0bert

Robert- the point is somebody will have to search for them- actually LOOK for them- in the same way someone would have to actually go to the graffitied section under the bridge that is out of their way- likely to specifically look for the derogatory message.

An employer? Rejecting employing somebody because someone ELSE online slagged off about them? Are you serious? It would be like you hearing someone slagging off another person in the pub. You would have to actually ask someone to prove/clarify it before you believed it.

Now, if these people actually tried to illustrate a potentially believable scenario (that did NOT happen) defaming someone online, then yes- THEN you would have a defamation case. But some site where people slag others off and use derogatory remarks is hardly on the same level.

It would be like me saying John Howard is a baby-eater.
Yes, just like that.
How many people are going to find this comment and gasp "Oh no, I never thought he would do such a thing."

Therein lies the difference between slagging and defaming- a lot of nonsense would have to be written to try to frame Howard as a baby-eating cannibal.

But it also connects to the slippery slope of conspiracy sites that make elaborate conspiracies about world domination or Israeli plots etc. Should we censor those or just let them run and dismiss it with counter-evidence.

Censoring remarks on the net is harder than it looks- which is why the US doesn't casually censor Bill O'Reilly's arguably actually dangerous statements- because it overrides potentially liberties too much just to stop one man from spreading disinformation.

Now, I think my point about 'otherwise healthy' should be obvious. If no healthy person has ever succumbed to internet bullying, then OBVIOUSLY they had other troubles and the problem was therefore the failure for any corrections to be addressed to that. The alternative is to leave the problem and have the internet censored, just so their OTHER problem simply doesn't have anything added to it.

It is becoming more clear now?

pynchme,

'... I feel obliged to put out information re: female experience. Which isn't the same as saying that some women aren't bitches, just that not all are.'

Which is all I'm doing. The all men are bastards propaganda is everywhere.

I liked your harmless comics as misogyny crap. If a woman comedienne laughs at guys dicks or something it's just a joke (rightly). Any reference to anything derogatory about women, even in cartoons is just but another example of the innate misogyny of men in your world.

You keep riling against men's fantasies and I'll get a group together to ban vibrators that reduce men to just a penis!

'Women have always..'
Done the dishes, put the toilet seat down, blah blah blah. It's all we ever hear.

'Who in society is calling him to account? '
Um, how about.. the government.

'Nobody has trouble acknowledging that women make stupid and selfish choices'
No, but it's never called misandry is it now.

'honour killings of their own daughters'
Case in point. No women would ever kill her own daughter. A man must have made her!

'societal expectations'
Say it again. I love that stuff! Ramp it up love!

'help keep you all in line'
You really don't know much about men do you?

'and women reading it seemed indifferent, what would you think?'
So, that people skim over poverty in Africa and starving children is evidence they hate children and poor people?

'exploited, abused, killed and loathed by women.'
Oh, misogyny is only by men? So men being killed by men isn't ever misogyny?
I suppose you think if women ran the world there would be no war? And if women had been in power, any hardship encountered by men would be misandry. That clears it up. Thanks.

'less power relative to OTHER men might detach themselves from an exploitative system. '
Men understand in life there is always and has to be a pecking order. Some winners some losers. That's why the feminist talking stick everyone gets a prize stuff never works.

pynch,

I'm really loving your work.

What sob story am I talking about? Well...

'However, hatred of women is so ingrained into social institutions and everyday interactions that people in general have become desensitized to it.'

As I said, with every feminist deconstruction of culture, you will always see everything is seen as evidence of the oppressing of women and the misogynist nature of men. Comics, holding a door open, not holding a door open, any human idiosyncrasy can be explained away by the FACT that all men secretly hate women.

As the great Jack Marx once said, 'Had she been moved to write anything at all on, say, the events of September 11, it would probably have been a lament for all the dead women, along with a wag of the finger at al Qaeda for not trusting females to carry out the hijackings. She views the tale of humanity as nothing more grand than Adam vs Eve. '

'Like if a bloke impregnates a woman ...'
Um... ever heard of the term deadbeat dad? The CSA? Being a man? Doing the honourable thing? Looking after your responsibilities as a man and providing for your children.

You have confirmed for me the blinkered way you look at the world. It's all judgement of women and blaming women? Off you go and read one of the 10 trillian gender studies texts or feminist opinion columns that puts all the problems with the world onto men. Or those really edgy ones that say women have a little bit of responsibility for being 'compliant' with those nasty men. I think they're more powerful than some puny menarebetterthanwomen.com site.

BTW: I'm glad you decided to prove me right rather than agreeing with me.