CJ it's off topic but I'd been frustrated by Suzie's (who's views I generally respect) choice to support benq on that thread and found the comment on this thread "It is an impossible war to win of course, but us women have had to fight for every 'right' we have now, so I will continue to argue for our right to have an opinion about any subject we choose." at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10536#173570 more fuel for the fire.

I may be unduly bothered by it but I'm utterly fed up with the needless point scoring against opponents that seems to all to often to characterize OLO debate's.

If my choice to highlight my concerns over that on this thread (in my view in response to Suzie's comment about the right to have an opinion) was the wrong place I can accept that. I had planned to just avoid the original thread because it had degenerated into an ugly slanging match between DD and benq.

R0bert

Suzanonline,
I do apologize, I missed your last post.

So “Most of the women I know like to have sex with their partner”

The word “partner” is a feminist term that can mean anything or anyone. Why not use the word “man” instead, as in ” Most of the women I know like to have sex with their man”.

About the only time I have heard a feminist use the words “men” or “man” is when they are carrying out denigration of males. Apart from that they use words such as partner, to avoid referring to men.

BTW I’m not Catholic, but do feminists discriminate against Catholics. I thought feminists were pure and good and non-discriminating.

C. J Morgan

I’m not sure what feminist courses you have undertaken, but I normally refer to people by the name they give (eg. Vanna and not Vanikins etc). Calling someone by other than the name they give must be some bad habit you have learnt somewhere.

I have undertaken many courses, some of which have been through universities, and after that experience I do not automatically believe very much at all from a university academic.

The fiasco of global warming and foreign students would be two recent examples of why someone should not believe too much from university academics.

But if, as you say, universities encourage a “diversity of opinion” (cough/splutter) and are not heavily left-wing biased or feminist corrupted, then how come it is so difficult to find an academic feminist that has published something that says even one good thing about the male gender.

Lets see.

Doughbear, yourself and also the sweet and innocent feminist Suzanomline cannot find such as feminist employed in an Australian university.

Such academic feminists employed in Australian universities must be rarer than hen’s teeth (and hens do not have any teeth).

But back to the topic.

I wonder why the author opposes drugs to increase a woman’s sexual libido, but does not oppose the drugs given to women in IVF clinics so they can become pregnant without having sexual intercourse with a man?

vannakins, I refer to you as that because it's quicker to type than vanna/HRS/Timkins et al. If it offends you, perhaps you could stop changing your pseudonym?

So it seems that you haven't actually been to a university. Why do you then feel qualified to comment negatively about the way they are run, indeed to the extent of inventing subjects that you falsely claim they teach?

I've stated that I don't think is a very good article, and I've said why. If you want any credibility at all, perhaps you could address the substance of the article, rather than focusing on one line from it and attacking the author for who she is and what she's said elsewhere.

C. J Morgan,
I thought that your insistence on flaming and name calling of other posters was because of your university education.

I also thought that it was decided that the article was little more than feminist fluff, or a disguised attempt by a feminist to denigrate men by inferring that they were over-sexed and in need of medication.

An important issue would be the continuous calls by university academics for more and more public funding, when people such as the author are being employed by universities to write their fluff.

If the author is anything to go by, less and less public money should be spent on universities, and more spent elsewhere.

Perhaps sending our students to other countries for their tertiary education may now be the best option.

Vanna <" About the only time I have heard a feminist use the words “men” or “man” is when they are carrying out denigration of males. Apart from that they use words such as partner, to avoid referring to men."

Vanna, you don't really know much about feminists at all do you?
When I spoke of partners, I was covering all the different sorts of sexual partners that women have these days- Husbands, de-factos, male lovers, female partners, female lovers etc.

I have no problem using the word MEN at all Vanna. I have a much loved Husband, brothers, father and nephews in my life.

I don't dislike most males at all, just those males who dislike females.

Fair enough R0bert, and thanks for the explanation. As someone who's fairly neutral about the CSA I notice that discussions about it tend to polarise, with the usual suspects generally monstering anybody who dares to say that the agency isn't necessarily the ATO's Dementor squad. I understand that you're a bit sensitive about it though.

vanna - if anybody's "flaming" on this thread it's you. I'm content to have shown you up as fabricating factoids to further your silly attempt to sling mud at a university system about which you obviously know next to nothing.