hey RObert; that's okay, I don't think your arguments are valid either.
Your suggestion that there is any symmetry in encouraging (not forcing) boys to study whatever they dam' well please, and actively discouraging (or simply disallowing) girls to study anything other than 'home economics' is downright fatuous.
As to history, a couple of decades ago I had the crap kicked out of me in a pub one night. About a week later -after I got out of hospital- my assailant and his father came to see me. Although they didn't actually apologise, they were keen to point out the beauty of forgiveness, the need to forgive and forget, and not indulge in vindictive acts of vengeance or retribution.
Why is it bullies always expect their victims to be better people than they themselves are?
The pendulum swings.
Today's ratbags will be yesterday's heroes. Remember those outrageous greenies, protesting the damming of the Franklin? Seem pretty ordinary by today's standards.
BTW, I agree with the last para of your last post. It's high time we outgrew a lot of irrational cultural taboos.

"Your suggestion that there is any symmetry in encouraging (not forcing) boys to study whatever they dam' well please, and actively discouraging (or simply disallowing) girls to study anything other than 'home economics' is downright fatuous."

When and where did I make that suggestion?

That's not something I can recall ever thinking or believing and I certainly don't recall ever posting something like that.

Just in case there is any confusion I did not kick the crap out of you or anyone else so I'd rather not be blamed for their behavior.

The problem I have is with the view that seems to be expressed in your thinking that by analogy you seem to think that it's legitimate for your daughter to go round and kick the crap out of that fellows kid.

R0bert

Most feminists do not liken men to slave owners or the Taliban which I think is pretty self evident given most posters concur that any future as regards gender, has to be one that is inclusive and fair for men and women (and most importantly - kids).

The majority of male posters also concur that women have equally contributed to society albeit in different and changing ways throughout history.

My guess is what Pynchme was trying to express was in relation to vanna's continunual drone about "feminist academics at university writing positive statements about men" is a nonsense considering that feminist studies critically examine the characteristics of patriarchial society as being potentially damaging to men as well as to women such as her statement here:

"Feminist analysis HAS pointed out exactly how men (everyday men like yourself and Ivanna) ARE exploited in a patriarchy."

I will be accused of being overly-generous I am sure, but I believe it was the "system" of patriarchy being compared with slave owners and the Taliban not men as indvividuals in a society as clearly a matriarchy would equally lead to undesirable outcomes for the most part.

For example in a strong patriarchial system building a structure or travel to the moon is considered a contribution but nuturing children and ensuring social and famililial connections are maintained is not perceived as important.

In a more equal society what is 'the feminine' and 'the masculine' would equally be valued (sounds very Da Vinci Code I know).

pelican thanks for your comments.
It's appreciated. It's not an interpretation I'd choose to put on the comments but I've been accused of being overly-generous at times in regard to Antiseptic and Severin where others have taken a different meaning to their words so I get what you are saying

R0bert

Hey RObert,
I guess you must have forgotten you posted this:
"It can become a pointless round of point scoring but try a rephrase of your points"

"For at least 2 thousand years men have been told:
engineering is a man's job,"(because women aren't allowed)
"'doctoring' is a man's job (but not nursing)" (because women aren't allowed)
"politics is a man's job" (because women aren't allowed)
"building is a man's job" (because women aren't allowed)
This to me at least this infers there is some symmetry between being 'expected' (allowed, encouraged) and simply denied any right to, regardless of desire or aptitude.
And no, I don't encourage my daughters to take the law into their own hands, but I did charge the SOB, and he did stop king hitting people.
Crimes need to be addressed, and injustice righted; ie I believe it is better to 'take up arms against a sea of troubles, and by fighting, end them'; keeping always in mind the danger of becoming that which you despise; clearly the jeopardy Vanna is striving mightily against (on behalf of academic feminists).

Pelican and Grim - thanks for understanding what I am trying to convey. (way back; way back - thanks too to Severin) Sorry I have been a bit preoccupied elsewhere so can only zoom by here occasionally.

I wouldn't doubt that Robert would "choose" another interpretation; nevermind.

Robert, there is no likeness between MRA sites and opinions and any feminist site or opinion. For example, almost all MRA sites link together and many of the things that various male posters write here reflect (mis)information gleaned from those sites. Some of those sites relish harm done to women (especially feminists) and girls. To be equivalent, a radical man hater would be celebrating or even just indifferent to deaths, murders, sexual abuse etc of men and boys, and physically retaliating against men in revenge. If a woman is doing any of those things she isn't a feminist because it's antithetical to any version of feminism.

There is something I've always been curious about. If some men can rally so energetically against what they perceive as injustices arising from feminist activity; why can't they rally as strongly against murder and rape amongst men and boys ? Leaving women out of it for now; how come there isn't a mens movement against murder or rape amongst men?