Thanks Pelican, Cornflower, Whistler, benk, GAJ, Perkinsy, we could not have wanted a better demonstration of your sheer hypocrisy.

Your first and last tactic are mere sneering.

The best of it is to suggest that there is a complementarity between male and female – so generous and insightful of you.

But none of the women or feminist contributors have even joined issue, namely:
• whether it is meaningless, in view of the differences between the sexes, to say they are or can be equal
• whether an equal application of laws to male and female will inevitably result in ongoing differences on the ground, and there is no reason why this should not be so
• whether these differences are persistently taken to justify action *against* male interests both coming and going
• e.g. fewer women on company boards? – we need action biased against men;
• e.g. men’s lesser interest in the support of a given child? – we need action biased against men.
• there is a double standard operating t in which feminists claim both equal rights and equal outcomes, and all differences are applied against men’s interests.

Whatever happened to respecting differences, not exploiting people, nor curtailing liberties, and equal opportunity?

So until you can begin to join issue, I accuse you of evasiveness, facile dishonesty, and blatant hypocrisy.

No doubt you’ll have some amazingly clever personal sneering to rejoin with – so logical, but a minimum of honesty would be better.

Men of Australia – look what you have voted for. We are partly to blame, for the false underlying idea – that if women were hard done by under patriarchy, a fair go requires them to have all the benefits of patriarchy *and* all the benefits of feminism, while men should be liable to the detriments of both.

The single step that would do most to abolish the double standard biased toward women is to abolish compulsory child support laws: the keystone of the arch.

Jefferson, "Pelican, Cornflower, Whistler, benk, GAJ, Perkinsy"

That's an interesting list. I don't know GAJ and Perkinsky's posting history well enough to have an informed view but any list that had Pelican, Cornflower and benk on it with a charge of "sheer hypocrisy" would leave me very suspicious that the compiler of the list was missing the point.

All three seem to try very hard to be fair in their dealings, not always perfect but better than most.

R0bert

Thank you RObert - I am not perfect but do try and look outside the square even it if it is difficult to overcome one's own mindset which like all of us come from personal experiences and generational norms.

There are some posters who make quite derogatory remarks about women on OLO that go beyond criticims of feminism. That is your right on an open forum but just don't expect everyone to agree or to stand by and see their gender being denigrated.

There is a difference between highlighting the different hardships that each gender might face and denigrating a whole gender based on someone's own personal experience. It takes two to break a marriage and perhaps instead of looking for fault on the other side some people need to do some self examination.

benk
Your language could be moderated however that said, maybe you are younger than I but that mindset stud/slut was very much entrenched in my upbringing and some of it remains although admittedley I have never bought into the male stud propaganda. Basically I wouldn't want to be with someone who sleeps around or whom could not be faithful - but that is me I don't expect all people to think the same.

Some remnants of that mindset remain. Look at some of the comments made on OLO over the past year that are openly hostile to women especially those who leave a marriage who are painted as selfish. If a man leaves a marriage those same posters imply the fault is still with the woman ie. failed to satisfy her man - woman are in a no-win situation and are always written about in a negative light. I for one have had enough of the hypocrisy.

Jefferson
Some of your ideas are worthy of more thought, and much of what you suggest has already happened or opened the way for more change. The equality that came with feminism has also helped men but yes there are still areas that need some work. And just for your information women are not all money hungry and sex/love/marriage is more than about money and greed. Women can earn their own money these days just the same as a man so there is not the same economic dependence thanks to feminism.

Marriage is not compulsory. If a man or woman want to live a single life with numerous partners they can. If one wants marriage and/or family they can but with that comes commitment (unless an open marriage suits both). Many men and women want their cake and eat it too but humans are more complicated than that no matter how you want to reduce it to business partnerships. Just because you and your wife think women's sexual responses are motivated by money does not make it true. If that is the basis of some relationships then I suggest both parties probably deserve each other.

This gender debate has evolved into the usual so I will leave you to hash it out between you, I cannot offer anything more without the risk of repetition.

men = people
women = people
people = people

therefore:
men = women

Quod Erat Demonstrandum

Riz
Mouse = mammal
Whale = mammal
Mammal = mammal
Therefore mouse = whale.

Tu asinus es.

And that’s pretty much the intellectual level of the entire feminist argument that we are facing here. And their ethical argument is no better – a completely self-serving hotch-potch.

And they know it. Notice how none of the feminist posts actually address the issues – at any stage in the whole thread? Just as I predicted, the most recent replies consist of nothing but personal sniveling.

So you’ve got to ask, is it that these people genuinely can’t understand the issues? Or is it that they can see perfectly well that they can’t maintain their own argument, so they deliberately obfuscate?

Either way they have completely lost the argument. This is not just a matter of opinion, because the feminists themselves cannot maintain the self-contradictory claims they are making.

There can be no more pretence that the laws they favour can be supported in principle. Obviously they can’t, or they would have done it by now. Their continued shifting and lying prove that they support a straight abuse of power, and they know it.

But if that’s not the case, then how about anyone answer the questions in issue?