*Sigh*
Apart from the obligatory nonsensical Hitler reference this article isn't bad. Hitler didn't grow up fatherless, his parents both died when he was a young man and he didn't kill anyone outside the context of war.
Feminism and the assault on the family are another part of the story but not the whole picture.

There are roughly 100,000 fatherless kids in Norway.

One of them went on a killing rampage.

99,999 didn't.

Now explain that.

Jon J, there are a million fathers in this country that face the loss of their children

Not a bad article, Warwick, but I think you're drawing a long bow. Breivik's problems may have stemmed from many things, but I doubt that fatherlessness was a prime motivator. Certainly having to endure a Feminist upbringing bereft of a moderating influence would have been a nasty experience for any boy, but I have to think that this particular guy had more on his plate.

The rise in Feminist-ideological political pandering has lead to a lot of bad things, including the fatherless youth you speak about, but I believe the worst thing it has done is to drive a wedge between the genders that is entirely artificial and designed for political reasons. It has broken the connection that makes us people together instead of "demographic groups" that cynical political operatives can manipulate. Feminism must demonise men in order to elevate women and it is that demonisation that has caused the greatest problems. It prevents proper examination of Feminist claims ("of course you'd say that, you're a misogynist", leads to "of course you'd say that, you're a man"), it prevents any other form of analysis from gaining traction ("this doesn't do anything for women", as though that's the only thing that matters).

It leads to bad laws, since if women are preeminent, men must, definitionally, be subservient. 'twere ever thus - productive work is a bit beneath the ruling class and so it is today: women managers and professionals make twice as many claims for work-related injury as their male colleagues doing the same work and they take nearly twice as many sick days, yet we never hear anything about how important it is to have more male managers or professionals.

The rise in women working has seen almost all the increase in GDP spent on redistributive measures, suggesting that much work women choose to do is not just unproductive, it has negative value.

All in all a disaster, but Breivik probably wasn't a symptom.

I'm not overly fond of fatherlessness myself nor of many of the assumptions and extremes of feminism but I think Warwick is more interested in pushing christian fundy barrows than a genuine analysis of the issues.

The reports I've seen suggest that Anders was a right wing fundamentalist christian and the mindset associated with that appears to have had a lot to do with the outcomes. Strangely Warwich didn't choose to discuss the impact of extremist religious thinking and the contribution that has made to a history of atrocities.

Neither do I think that the divide on undisciplined parenting is nearly as gender orientated as Warwick seems to imply. Enough mum's are the ones to provide the consistent boundaries and enough dads fail to do so to remind us that it's not about the gender of the parent.

R0bert

All I can say is thank goodness you weren't Lional Murphy's Dad.

The ideal set-up is where 'responsible' biological parents are involved in the raising of their children, but this article is a bit all over the place and I think vastly misses the point.

In the case of the Norwegian killer, how can you stop fathers from abandoning their children, it appears there was a stepfather on the scene for much of this killer's life.

The article falls down by the usual pointed attack on feminists. What was the point of describing the grandmother as a feminist as though this is a negative connotation. The stepfather is clearly a radical masculinist given he was off in Thailand visiting prostitutes. Not a good father figure at all. Isn't fatherlessness preferable to a negative role model? And who isn't a feminist these days. Who does not believe that women are equal and sentient beings with the same rights as men? Sorry, but this is the usual hogwash from the anti-female lobby and the tone diminishes the fatherlessness issue much more than enhances it.

There are millions of children around the world who are raised in single parent homes (single father or mother) or who were abandoned by their fathers; or where the biological parents have died who are doing okay and are not going around killing innocent people.

What about children raised in dysfunctional families where they have observed violence. Much more damaging than being raised in a single parent home with the security of one reliable and loving parent.

This article is just too off the spectrum and draws a number of unsubstantiated and self-fullfilling conclusions to be taken seriously.

It is appallingly bad taste to use other people's pain and anguish to push one's own single-issue-fanatic barrow.

Warwick Marsh hasn't been the first to gleefully latch on to one detail of this tragedy, that touches hundreds of Norwegian families, to promote a dimly-related pet "cause".

And sadly, I doubt he'll be the last.

As human behaviour goes, though, it doesn't get much lower.

I tend to agree, Pericles.

Oh dear, the Women hating Author blames Women again, fancy that. It's not the killers fualt, it's not even runaway Dadddy's fualt no it's his Mum for daring to want to be treated as fully human. Women used to be treated as property and still are in some countries to be subservant to Men. The Author seems to want to return to those days, the list of sources to back up his twisted logic says it all. Christ-stain fundies to the man.

Not even wrong.

Warwick Marsh,

No other hook to hang your coat? Or it is a cassock?

Pip66.

The tragedy is that Lionel Murphy died before being dragged to a Nuremberg court

Warrick is on the money.

This guys actions are directly related to his upbringing. It has been proven that homes where fathers are involved are more stable. This is not to blame the father however - a typical knee jerk reaction when things like this happen is to cast the father as a beast. The facts are the mother took the kids away suddenly from the father and went to another country and attempted to deny him access to them. This is the beginning of sorrows for the killer boy. The family court systems in countries like Norway are very similar to that of Australia, with a culture of bias towards the woman.

In my 5 years working as a family court mediator and counsellor in Australia dealing with hundreds of married couples, the disenfranchisement of men with society and its values in is a very huge theme. Men tend to be at loggerheads with the “system” on a number of fronts. The education system, media, healthcare, the court system both family and criminal, and the church are all areas where average guys feel there is an erosion of their rights and values as men.

Having the stigma that ‘men are the problem’ seems to them an insurmountable obstacle or test they have to pass, all the while not being heard or being able to gain access to things that their counterparts take for granted. Take for example the new Family Violence Amendment Bill before parliament at present, which will encourage perjury, parental alienation and unsubstantiated allegations as legitimate means used to deny a child their right to have contact with their fathers/or "violent" caregiver. This bill has fathers groups and other pro-family organizations up in arms as it reverses the concept that a person is innocent until proven guilty to guilty until proven innocent. A mother only has to mention the word 'violence' which automatically sets off a process of denial of access for months, even years before a father can get through the court system to prove his innocence.

For many dads the reality is that they are not allowed to see their kids because the other party assisted by law sharks have imposed impossible restrictions giving them a take it or leave it scenario. What they don’t tell you when we hear about suicidal dad’s and tragic double homicides is the terrible back story that shows the denial of access and quite often a lone father against a system that assumed his guilt before he even opened his mouth.

Dr Steve Biddulph a campaigner for men and boys and someone who sees this travesty unfolding recently said;

"When Susan Brown declared that "all men are rapists", nobody laughed. In the media and in many discussions, men see themselves portrayed as the worst kind of animals, and many of us wonder if it is true. And for growing boys - ten year-olds gazing at the prospect of their masculinity, or seventeen year-olds standing on the brink of male sexual experience -- a deep ambivalence, bordering on self-loathing is not hard to acquire". – (Turning Boys into Creeps).

Its not the military or the father for that matter that created this killer - it is our own systems in society that have failed boys. If we dont return the balance then this sort of thing will become more prevalent as time goes on and fatherless homes multiply.

Another rubbish article by this 'author'.
I agree fully with RObert's assertion that this guy is really pushing his usual fundamentalist Christian barrel, and is really more upset about the fact this Norwegian killer is also a fundamentalist Christian than he cares to acknowledge.

Marsh aligns himself to the anti-feminist, pro-father's groups under false pretenses.

He is more upset over single mothers, defacto marriages and 'fatherless' children because they are against his religion - which advocates lifelong marriage between two heterosexuals.

Any other family unit is a sin and has been punished by producing children who 'kill' as a result.

What of Jared Lee Loughner then, the guy who shot six people dead in the US earlier this year, including Senator Amy Gifford?
His parents were married, and he was an only child.

What of the dreadful Timothy McVeigh (Oaklahoma City Bombing), who was raised by his FATHER after his parents divorced at the age of ten?

We can't say that divorce or fatherlessness does not affect some children negatively, but so do some married parent's problems, motherlessness, and a myriad of other 'reasons' why there are criminals in the world.

I am of the opinion that once you are an adult, then YOU are fully to blame for your actions, unless therE are predetermined mental health problems.

Fatherlessness, chaos and the Norwegian killer", an interesting but over-stated theory of a father's absence. It negates the huge global number of fatherless boys-become-men whose lives are admirably lived in a socially just and caring manner.

The most important section is the brief mention of evil and sin. Sin is not a word I care to use, its defining coming, as it always does, from some powerful person, almost always male, speaking of what one may or may not do...the gospel according to that particular 'Him'.

Evil, however, or whatever you want to call it, the desire to harm others, the action of harming humans or other creatures, is a facet of essential humanity and intelligence. We are not automatons, our lives are not predestined, we have the grand choice of choosing exactly how we want live and be; as did Breivik. He can be seen as a man who chose to do enormous harm to many others. He should be contained, without harm, for the rest of his life.

It astonishes me that people will not accept the continuum we live with, the capacity for vast evil and great good at each end, with most of us in the middle between the two, all of us capable of acting out the full extent of good or evil.

A problem is the desire not to talk about or accept this part of our lives. The statement of evil, sin, moral relativism from Warwick Marsh has been ignored by these comments. The attitude of the Norwegian psychiatrist is pathetic; if she can only see evil actions as the result of mental illness she has not given much thought to the human condition.

Let's stop seeing "evil" as an unacceptable notion and see it as a fact of life.

@ suzeonline
Loughner shot Senator GABRIELLE Giffords but though severely disabled in the attack she's very much alive, she appeared in the U.S Senate last night to cast her vote on the new debt ceiling bill.

The link between the two issues - fatherlessness and murder - is a bit tenuous. The real motivation - the resentment of Muslims in Norway - doesn't seem to rate a mention.
The feminist tendency to relativise all cultures is a link that would make more sense; and one, given time, will have to be confronted by the West.

I find it astounding that many of the comments here are attacking the author of this article, when they seem to miss the point altogether.
Many years ago when Christian Family values were the ‘norm’ in most western societies, there was very little crime of any description. There were few prisons and few courts needed to try alleged criminals.
Fathers held their rightful place within the family structure. And before the feminists on this blog go off the rails at me and screech like seething harridans, I personally did not grow up in a society where women were denigrated and treated like slaves. In fact, many of the mothers of my friends worked in many varied jobs. I grew up in the 1960s, where there were still many intact families that were kept together by wonderful mothers and held secure by strong fathers.
Young men and women did not go off the rails as much as they do today. What with all the late teens dying on the roads as they in a drunken state, slide their cars across a road, then wrap themselves and all the occupants of their cars around a tree or light pole. This rarely happened in my day, because the fathers would have dealt with that behaviour long before the kid ever got a license.
Yet here we are today in the enlightened ‘new millennium’ where fathers are largely dismissed or banished from families altogether and we have crime rates that have blown out of all proportion and never been this bad throughout the history of mankind.
And you people poo poo the author’s statements that lend toward that of Christian families and fatherhood, and Christian principles.
Only a fool would say we are better off today, now that the Christian model of a nuclear family has all but been extinguished.

I grew up in the 1960's and 1970's too Paw, when there were far fewer people in Australia, and thus less crime and jails.
Maybe you never knew of crime and family problems back then, personally, but they were most definitely there for most of us.

My father played up on my mother, and left the marriage for another woman, leaving three children at home with mum in the 1970's.
How does that situation figure in your memories of the 'good ol days'?
And guess what? We all grew up to become law-abiding citizens with good jobs, families and lifestyles.

Why, whenever people mention the dreadful things that feminists are supposed to have 'done' to society- such as single motherhood, divorce, legal abortion etc, are the men who must have been involved in these situations, ignored or blameless?

Society has moved on since the the fabulous sixties Paw, for good or bad. All the 'oldies' complained about us kids/teens in the 60's and 70's too, remember?

The Norwegian killer had a father and a stepfather - but that didn't seem to stop him did it?
Sometimes no one can explain such tragedies

The Norwegian murderer did not have a father in his life at all.

As with almost all western nations, the natural father was summarily barred by the family court from his life.
Thus the Norwegian murderer grew up without a meaningful relationship with his father. Any father in fact!

He was raised in a single mother home, where feminism was shoved down his throat and the male that hooked up with his mother, was busy off with other women too. This male was no father figure!

Just because the mother gets herself a boyfriend or another husband, that does not mean that the child/ren have a new father. This is one typical and deliberate error feminists and womens groups make all the time. They claim any male that comes into the home of a single mother, is a father. Well, they are totally wrong using the term father to any other male, until that male behaves like a father, can he only then be given a similar name, like Step-father. Outside of that, any dog that turns up to the single mothers house for sex, is not a fathers bootlace.

I feel sorry that your family suffered in those days. But just because you are bitter over those days, does not mean that your situation was the norm. It actually wasn't the norm. Your past experience is what happens a lot today, not back then.

And yes, feminism is the cause of many evils in our society. But what you say about the men who also aided in the introduction of all these family and societal destructive changes to our lives is true, and these men will likewise have to face up to what they have done.

I don't excuse evil men from what they have done. And I am most certainly not going to excuse evil women for what they do. But I will never agree that in 2011 we are now better off than before, because we are worse off today than we have ever been in human history.

And it is getting worse by the day!

Paw -- you DO realise, I take it, that Breivik is a card-carrying Christian? And he's managed to exterminate quite a few 'nuclear families', all by himself.

Huh!

I'm sorry, I don't follow what you are saying.

I do not support this murderer in any way shape or form. So, please if you have any need to address any of his behaviour, then you will need to ask him. In this sad case, my support lies with the families, who have lost innocent family members.

My point in the argument, was to show how crime is out of control, now that we have a largely fatherless society.

I can assure you Paw that Australians are better off today than they have ever been, and without the help of religeon.

We'd be better off looking and the family background of religious and political Martyrs than spree killers, though the introduction to this article is really only "HITLER!....now that we have your attention".
Are all Jihadists and suicide bombers from fatherless homes?
I doubt it.
Breivik is motivated by his environment and civic role models rather than familial examples.
He's been in bad company, specifically bad online company in the form of the Extreme Right Wing Zionists.
Breivik listened to fanatical extremists who only want to use and exploit people to whom they have no loyalty or kinship.
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-was-the-massacre-in-norway-a-reaction-to-bds.html
http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/gilad-atzmon-massacre-in-norway-more-about-the-jewish-right.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDr6SjPMRzs&skipcontrinter=1

Children need BOTH NATURAL parents... Statistically speaking, by-and-large, typically, on average etc.

A 'father figure' typically means a string of mummies-new-boyfriends is the worst situation for a child - worse than no male at all (statistically speaking/typically etc).

Please note how most of the people disagreeing with Warwick simply insult him, or point out a single exception.

Good work as always Warwick.

Sorry to disappoint many commentors, but the most common factor in gang warfare and violent crime in the US is fatherless children.

This usually comes about from very low rates of marriage in various communities (70% to 80% of children in some communities are now born outside of marriage).

I would agree with the comments that feminism has been a major contributor to poverty, fatherless children, alienation of the genders, destruction of family finances and low productivity in the workforce.

I would also add increased costs for everyone, much unhappiness for many, dramatically increased child poverty even in rich countries, a decline in education systems, and of course it has made social science into a complete farce.

Who could say it better than this guy?

http://www.abc.net.au/foreign/content/2011/s3225800.htm

<DET SGT (RET) JOE COFFEY: “Let me tell you something about profilers, absolute BS! There’s never been a crime in this country solved by a profiler. They’re always after the fact people. They’re always super eggheads who think they know all the answers after you catch them. Profilers are full of crap, okay? Make it very clear”.>

Some of the comments on here leave one speechless.

Gang membership is related to poverty, disenfranchisement and exposure to violence in the home. Nothing to do with single mothers per se. Single motherhood might be more common in certain demographics than others, but that is because there is a higher incarceration of men, domestic violence and all the other pressures of low incomes.

I suppose some of these radical masculinists think that it is a woman's place to just put up and shut up when she is being beaten up in front of the children.

What child is better off in a two-parent home where there is violence.

Marsh's article clearly states that the Norwegian killer's father abandoned the family.

Feminism is simply about equality - always has been - it is not about a female conspiracy to take over the world for goodness sake. Or to keep fathers from their children. Those more radical commentators who argue all men are rapists or who push greater benefits for women over men are clearly not feminists but a whole other animal.

Please try and maintain some grip on reality. This issue is far too important to serve up in such a biased and bitter angle based on nothing more than a self-serving, selfish and intolerant agenda.

Vanna.
That's a figure I've seen quoted for Black Americans, not all Americans.
The rates of family dysfunction and criminality among Whites,Mestizos and Asians are much, much lower. Google "The Colour Of Crime"

Norway isn't America, neither is it Australia.
Maybe a more important question might be "Why have the governments of White countries imported a non White underclass?"
Actually, forget the racial element for a second, "Why have they imported an underclass at all?"

Jay Of Melbourne,
It is true that various black communities in the US have very low rates of marriage, together with high rates of fatherless children, high rates of crime, high rates of drug abuse, high rates of teenage pregnancy, high rates of school dropouts, high rates of violence etc.

Makes one think twice about the feminist dream.

pelican,

I think the link between this individual case and fatherlessness is a bit difficult to prove but Marsh's basic premise is very true. Statistics are clear that children from single parent families (read: mothers) do worse by pretty much all social indicators.

Feminists should be very happy. Their entire goal was to tear down the 'patriarchal' nuclear family and marriage. They have largely succeeded. Why would you get married now when it doesn't mean anything? Women get the same rights to everything after one year as a de facto anyway so why bother getting married. So long as men continue to work longer and harder than women and transferring wealth over to them via the tax system than feminists should be happy. They have succeeded.

...Warwick Marsh simply presents a theory with his article; overall making a lot of sense. Sure, like a rusty trailer, it exhibits a few holes, but I subscribe to the general theme of it. As some posters here attempt to scuttle Marshes attempt to present a moral alternative to the social mess Liberalism has wrought since the reformation of the sixties, and his attempts in the article to direct attention to cause and effect of the decline associated with a loss of traditional Christian values of our own country, I believe he is on a winner.

...Afterall, the choice is simple; social stability or social instability! As suzyonline grinds the edge to another axe from the homosexual closet and attempts to chop down the Christian oak tree, it is hypocrisy to dismiss Marsh as a Christian fundamentalist “nutter” on the strength of this article. A read of Marshes profile on this site attests to his dedication to social contribution: His work in the prison system of Australia alone equips him with experience and insight which back up his theories here, in my view.

dane
Well at least we agree Marsh is drawing a long bow on the Norwegian analogy.

"Feminists should be very happy. Their entire goal was to tear down the 'patriarchal' nuclear family and marriage."

Are you arguing it is the woman's fault if she is abandoned or if she is fleeing domestic violence?

What do you mean by patricarchial family? In my experience the best marriages are those where there is no strong power imbalance and where there is respect and sharing in decisions.

"Why would you get married now ...? Women get the same rights to everything after one year as a de facto anyway so why bother getting married."

Women get 'everything' - really? That is a completely false assertion. Women also contribute financially to the property and to the family, so why should property not be split evenly. Men are also protected in this arrangement - the law is equal except in cases where one parent has the greater custodial burden and in these days of shared parenting that is rarer than in the past.

Despite your views, the marriage industry appears to be booming. More people are opting for marriage than de-facto because people commit to each other out of love not with the purpose of obtaining property.

"So long as men continue to work longer and harder than women and transferring wealth over to them via the tax system than feminists should be happy. They have succeeded."

Women are also working harder and longer as well as juggling work, home and child care as many men are also doing. This is due to a growthist wealth obsessed economy not the fault of women.

Feminist does not = women. Most men I know are feminists - do men wish for the overthrow of themselves. Women are not substandard beings not much better than animals as in some cultures. Women are also human beings with the same rights, abilities and opportunties as men.

Women may choose not to get married as might many men, that is their right and none of our business.

How did you figure that "Anders was abandoned by his father, Jens Breivik"?
Later in the same article we learn that "After his parents' divorced when he was one year old, Anders was then brought back to Oslo with his half-sister and mother..."
It sounds like to me that Anders' mother was responsible for removing his father.
Indeed, please read the essay by Robert Franklin at http://www.fathersandfamilies.org/?p=17932
Please, don't "blame the dad" on this one.

I can assure you Paw that Australians are better off today than they have ever been, and without the help of religeon.

Posted by Kipp, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 7:17:07 PM

Really? On what measure?

As an educator, I am dealing with more police, DoCS workers, counsellors, lawyers, etc than I ever did before and it is only increasing.

Single Mother homes (USA): (cites omitted for brevity)
37.8% of single mothers are divorced, 41% never married, and only 6.5% widows.
“The strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison, is that they were raised by a single parent”.
70% of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long sentences, were raised by single mothers.
72% of juvenile murderers, and 60% of rapists came from single mother homes.
70% of teen births occur to girls in single mother homes.

70% of drop-outs, and 70% of teen suicides come from single mother homes.
70% of runaways, 70% of juvenile delinquents, and 70% of Child murderers, come from single mother homes.
“Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous, and more likely to end up divorced.”
“After controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.”
63% of all youth suicides,
70% of all teen pregnancies,
71% of all adolescent chemical/substance abusers,
80% of all prison inmates, and
90% of all homeless and runaway children, came from single mother homes.
Children brought up in single mother homes are:
5 times more likely to commit suicide,
9 times more likely to drop out of high school,
10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances,
14 times more likely to commit rape,
20 times more likely to end up in prison,
32 times more likely to run away from home.

Detroit ranks No.1 in unmarried births among the nation's 50 largest cities. Of the 16,729 babies born in Detroit in 1997, seventy-one percent were born to unmarried mothers. This compared with a state average of 33 percent and a 50-city average of 43 percent."

Detroit is the worst offender on our list of America's most dangerous cities, thanks to a staggering rate of 1,220 violent crimes committed per 100,000 "

50% of single mothers are below the poverty line, their children are 6 times more likely to be in poverty than children with married parents.
85% of homeless families are single mother families.
90% of welfare recipients are single mothers

PCLEMSC, great stats there. And I have seen stats here in Australia that are very similar to those you have shown.

I would like to add one more state to that shameful list.

In the US since 1973 (Roe v Wade), the number of defenseless "BABIES" murdered in their mothers wombs, currently stands at: 52,008,665.
Yep, that is over 52 million babies murdered. Unbelievable how this black tragedy can occur and no one says a word about it.

That is genocide!!

But here in Australia 80,000 - 90,000 babies are murdered each year. That equates to roughly one in three babies will be murdered.

And people like to say on this site that here in Australia (and the US), we are better off today than before. I would like them to show how they come to this conclusion and prove to me that they think all this crime, all these families denied fathers, and all these babies being murdered, is in anyway an indication that society is better today than it was 40 years ago.

I'm amazed at the ignorance of those who rubbish Marsh's opinion and imply that fatherlessness is irrelevant. OK fatherlessness is one of many factors, but it is a KEY factor. The FACT is that countless studies prove beyond all reasonable doubt that on average kids do better when they live with both their biological parents, and even better when their parents are married. That's fact - though it should be obvious from common sense and thousands of years of history.

And as for the killer being a Christian fundamentalist - that's not true as anyone who bothered to read what the killer wrote should know. But then Marsh's critics often seem weak on facts and strong on vincible ignorance and anti-Christian bigotry.

Paw,
So much for "women and their children" (where the father is considered irrelevant).

I have wondered how it was once possible to raise a family, own a home, and retire at 65 on a single income.

Now, 2 incomes may not be sufficient to even own a home, and this is at a time of globalisation (which is supposed to make things cheaper), and during a resources boom.

I tend to think that feminism has been a significant part of this society shift towards working longer for less.

<Feminism is simply about equality - always has been - it is not about a female conspiracy to take over the world for goodness sake. Or to keep fathers from their children. Those more radical commentators who argue all men are rapists or who push greater benefits for women over men are clearly not feminists but a whole other animal.>

Posted by pelican, Tuesday, 2 August 2011 9:13:33 PM

Whilst those commentators are a whole other animal, they do use the cover of feminism to push and justify their own agenda and if women who claim that they are feminist's (equality) do not speak out against them, then they by default support them by their silence.

James "if women who claim that they are feminist's (equality) do not speak out against them, then they by default support them by their silence." while I agree in part it can be taken to extremes.

How often do moderate feminists have to speak out against agsint the extremist? How often do men wanting fairer treatment for men in coverage of DV, child residency etc have to clarify their comments with a condemnation of men who do abuse their partners or who don't care for their kid's? It can be taken as a point scoring exercise when taken to far.

Like most things its a balance which we all need to pick. The bit that really get's up my nose is the strong condemnation of opponents for the type of behaviors people engage in themselves or praise/ignore in those they agree with.

R0bert

Sorry Robert, I have to go with JamesH on this one.

It is a well known phenomenon here in Aus, where women (in general) rarely speak out against the evils perpetrated by other women under the guise of "equality feminism", where men and children are discriminated against and abused.

It's been my experience throughout my half century of life, that men (in general) will always speak out against and condemn any man who seeks to abuse or destroy another human being.

Yet when it comes to the evil committed by women in society, especially through the family court, there is nothing but a deathly silence coming from the female community of Aust. Why is that Robert?

To answer your question about how many times they have to complain or speak out against. I would like to see them do it for the first time, so that we can then decide how many times.

So far to date, there is only a sprinkling of women fighting for the 'true' welfare and rights of children who should have proper and equal access to both parents. When it comes to the suffering of men in Aus, there are virtually no women at all. Maybe one or two prominent women, but that is about it.

Even Blind Dumb Stupid Freddy can see that there is no equality with feminism today. I have spoken to women who agree that feminism today is not about equality and that it has gone way too far. But do you think these same women will speak out publicly about this?
Not on your life!

There are as many masculinists who rarely acknowledge problems facing women. The more radical masculinists are scathing of women in general, comments of which if directed at men would have them off in a flurry of outrage.

The growth in male victimhood is rife, some of it warranted but much of it vitriolic and fuelled by personal slights. How are they any better than the shock jock feminists who, for example, misconstrue Bettina Arndt's comments for their own purposes.

JamesH
I get your point but just because someone calls themselves a feminist or espouses a feminist policy does not make it so.

Why not debate the policy rather than the label of feminism? It is more meaningful to argue on points rather than on emotional psychology around feminism. Also why not argue that the policy is not feminist if it discriminates.

Just as men are not responsible for the actions of other men, it is unreasonable to expect women to take responsibiity for the actions of other women who use the cover of feminism for matters far beyond that narrow perspective. It is the same as the 'all men are rapist' lobby in making sweeping generalisations about a group of peope.

Some writers like Jennifer Wilson and others do attempt a fair analysis of gender without pushing a strong 'feminist' agenda other than one of equality for both sexes. I suspect many readers of these discussions cherrypick what already matches their own position and ignore any salient points made about the experiences of the opposite sex.

My POV is that many of the female posters on OLO genuinely support equality and take on board the comments by men, particularly when comments are not veiled in 'anti-women' sentiment. What is more disheartening is some men who speak angrily about discrimination they experience, show little compassion for women in difficult circumstances choosing instead to blame women for all manner of offences with little responsibility or onus on men to behave with integrity.

Sometimes those pushing an 'equality' agenda are really all about 'me' on both sides of the gender divide.

Pelican

Well stated, as always.

A random psychotic ruins the lives of many people and somehow this is linked to "feminism gone too far."

As illogical as it is unbelievable.

Pelican, thanks for the line of sanity along these increasingly manic comments.

Errrm.. have you actually read the document, CompeterN?

>>And as for the killer being a Christian fundamentalist - that's not true as anyone who bothered to read what the killer wrote should know<<

There is an entire Section - "Christian Justification of the Struggle" - over a hundred pages of it.

He talks, on page 1425, about "the huge amounts of grace I am about to generate with my martyrdom operation."

Think about it for a moment. If those words had been uttered by a Muslim, about to embark on a killing spree, would you not - immediately, and happily - describe that person as a "Muslim Fundamentalist"?

Of course you would.

The only defence you have is the one employed by almost every christian evangelist I know - "he didn't follow Jesus' teachings, so he's not actually a Christian".

I suggest you start memorizing that line, fast.

Pericles:"It is appallingly bad taste to use other people's pain and anguish to push one's own single-issue-fanatic barrow."

Excellent advice...

Errrm.. Pericles, you imply that over a 100 pages of “Christian Justification of the Struggle” demonstrates that the killer was a Christian Fundamentalist.

But the killer clearly falsifies that implication, in fact he calls it a ‘LIE’. Pericles, he demolishes your argument in just two sentences:
“I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie. I've always been very pragmatic and influenced by my secular surroundings and environment."

Didn’t you read that bit Pericles – or did you choose to ignore it? Clearly the guy is not a Christian fundamentalist.

Pericles, my repertoire already includes the question: “Whose example and teaching did they follow: Jesus or Muhammad?” And you have already tacitly admitted that the killer didn’t follow Jesus’ teachings, though I’m not blaming Muhammad either. But thanks for bringing up that excellent point.

More to the topic, the kid had a lousy upbringing without a father and that's much more relevant than spurious claims that he was a "Christian Fundamentalist:.

is it possible to consider that Breivik, without undue influence from Christianity, Islam or a partly fatherless childhood, has made up his own quite intelligent mind; to terrorise and kill adults and minors as a means to have globally noted some 'important' theories from his 'manifesto'? That was his plan. He has carried it out quite successfully.

Evil thoughts, evil actions, massive tragedy. The lives of those who lose a child to violence are changed forever

Nice try, CompeterN.

>>...he demolishes your argument in just two sentences: “I'm not going to pretend I'm a very religious person, as that would be a lie."<<

Two sentences, against a hundred-odd pages. I think the weight of evidence is, literally, on the affirmative: he is a Christian fundamentalist, who proclaims, with great humility, that he is not very religious. A familiar tactic from Southern Baptists too - Lord, ah'm jest a sinner...

>>Pericles, my repertoire already includes the question: “Whose example and teaching did they follow: Jesus or Muhammad?”<<

Thought it might, somehow.

I expect you also pick and choose very carefully the bits of the Bible and the Qur'an that "prove" your point, don't you? Go on, show us your whole cabaret.

Sanctimonious hypocrisy at work. A familiar story.

Pericles painted into a corner persists! The killer self-identifies as a pragmatic secularist and says it's a lie that he's very religious. But despite Pericles admitting the killer isn't following Jesus' teachings, which is the only logical definition of a Christian, Pericles still insists the killer is a Christian fundamentalist because of 100+ pages of waffle! More to the point, Pericles, surprise surprise, is more interested in rubbishing Christians!

And back to the point: fatherlessness. Fatherlessness is part of the scourge of atheism and secularism. The only reason the West enjoys the remnants of freedom and rule of law is that Christians won all those benefits over centuries. But now many atheists and secularists seem intent on destroying marriage and the family and Christianity. But families and fatherhood are essential for civilisation.

So-called Christians may have killed thousands in Crusades and so-called religious wars, but that pales into insignificance compared to the tens of millions killed by atheists such as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot. Mao etc who killed more in one century than died in all previous wars. But then atheism is actually a religion because it's based on beliefs that can't be proved.

So just as Pericles defends his religion, I defend mine.

"But despite Pericles admitting the killer isn't following Jesus' teachings, which is the only logical definition of a Christian, Pericles still insists the killer is a Christian fundamentalist because of 100+ pages of waffle! "

Yeah but what christian fundamentalist does follow Jesus teachings?
What biblical literalist takes the whole thing literally?

There is a mindset in place as well that's a far bigger problem. The christian fundy grouping that may or may not following Jesus teachings more genuinely that christian liberals (the fundies mostly think that the christian liberals don't follow Jesus teachings).

A mindset espoused by those willing to twist whatever they can to create a need for christian "values" to be pre-eminant in society.

A mindset that considers itself at war with secular values, that constantly tries to find fault with what's not christain and spin it for it's own purposes.

Fertile breeding grounds for extremists who may not consider themselves overly religious or spiritual and who may eventually take the lessons learned from their fundy pals to extremes that the fundy purveyors of hate didn't expect.

R0bert

Gawd.

Mucho grande irony:

Either Christian fundamentalists or feminists are to blame for the behaviour of Breivik.

Does that mean the man is innocent of his crimes?

"Does that mean the man is innocent of his crimes?"

Why does it have to mean that he's innocent.
Can't someone still be responsible for their actions while still being influenced by a particular set of teaching. Like everything else we get a choice is what we choose to do with influences on our lives but that does not make those influences value neutral.

In this case Warwick has gone on the attack one the basis of Breivik growing up without his father being an influence in his life and of Breivik's mother and grandmother being feminists and completely ignored what appears to be a strong alignment with a lot of christain fundy causes and thinking.

A lot of these issues are not either/or, he can be guilty for his crimes and those who preach extremist messages can still hold responsibility for their own role in fostering the extremism.

R0bert

You put a lot of faith in that one sentence, CompeterN, given the masses of contradictory statements.

>>Pericles still insists the killer is a Christian fundamentalist because of 100+ pages of waffle!<<

Waffle? Let's take a look.

"I explained to God that unless he wanted the Marxist-Islamic alliance and the certain Islamic takeover of Europe to completely annihilate European Christendom within the next hundred years he must ensure that the warriors fighting for the preservation of European Christendom prevail."

Hmmm.

"We do not only have the people on our side, we have the truth on our side, we have time on our side, we have the will of our ancestors and the will of God on our side."

Ri-i-i-i-ght

And the induction ritual into the "Knights Templar"?

"[The candidate kneels in front of the altar, while reading the oath out loudly] I, ________, of my own free will and accord, in the presence of Almighty God..."

He is quite direct, in some places, even naming the particular version of Christianity that he believes in...

"We Protestants correctly talk about our church building as God's house"

He excoriates wussy Christians, too. Just to prove his Fundamentalism.

"many professing Christians... are willing to read a modified, pacifist, gender neutral Bible, missing what God says so that they can continue to ignore their duties in regards to the ongoing Crusade"

And his Fundamentalist Christian concept of God he makes crystal clear:

"Clearly, this is not a pacifist God we serve. It's God who teaches our hands to war and our fingers to fight. Over and over again throughout the Old Testament, His people are commanded to fight with the best weapons available to them at that time."

There are many, many other examples. One humble moment, and you are convinced the whole Christian bit was a sham? You are kidding yourself.

>>More to the point, Pericles, surprise surprise, is more interested in rubbishing Christians!<<

Not at all. Just the bigoted evangelists, that's all.

The ones who believe that they are somehow entitled to vilify other religions, while ignoring the rot inside their own.

Robert

IRONY: The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

The man is a homicidal maniac who needs be locked away till the end of his days.

My point was that many here are looking to blame their favourite pariah be it religious fundamentalism, bitter parents or dreaded (irony intended) feminists.

OK, there's not much point debating when the post-modern atheist Christ-haters on this site define Christian as functionally non-Christian.

I define a Christian as someone who takes it seriously when Jesus Christ said 'Teach them to obey everything I have commanded you'.

But so many on this site want a word to mean whatever they want it to mean - shades of Alice in Wonderland and magic mushrooms.

But in a way, the atheist god-haters are right, their degrading influence, and the gutlessness of much of the so-called "Christian Church", is such that the West is now 'Christian' in name only. Hence those who follow the example and teaching of Muhammad, and others, blame the decadence and decay in values on 'Christianity'. They are right, but we need to qualify and share the blame between gutless 'Christians', and true-to-their-belief atheists and humanist etc.

Well it did not take long for this discussion to end up in a Christian fundamentalist extremist versus Muslim fundamentalist extremist exchange.

And along comes another Christian who uses the denigrating and disingenuous phrase "atheist god-haters" when rational argument would suffice. Do you know what an atheist is? You cannot hate something that does not exist, one can only abhor violence and extremism no matter what spurns it.

Christians like others can learn from the mistakes of the past, that is not an unworthy process, there is no need to hide or diminish the very cruel events of the Crusades or the inquisitions. Until an organisation 'owns' their mistakes they cannot move on. The Catholic Church is finally finding that out themselves albeit it is a slow process.

Using terms like "atheist god-haters" is another example of fundamentalist speak and absolves the writer of having to put forward any cogent argument on the issues.

A bit of moderation and perspective would not go astray.

The attack of Pericles is unwarranted particularly as he often pushes back on those minority of atheists who call for bans on religion.

It is no different from some Muslim groups who fail to admonish violence in their own, or who cheer when planes crash into buildings killing thousands of people.

i see the closet communist, corporate paedophiles are at it again, trying to destroy Warwicks excellent article in order to continue the status quo & the many metrosexual men are trying to appease the feMANazis. (who will never be appeased or admit they have ever been wrong about anything)

the destruction of the family was closet communist, corporate paedophile policy to destroy our society/culture, the foundations under our economy/government. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8_YL3q1--U&feature=related George Carlin, used to be a leftie himself until he worked it out, the PC, Thought Police are just as much our enemy as the international banksters. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvE97zz5loc Men do the hard yards & women do the complaining.

Just when you thought women could not possibly sink any lower http://news.ninemsn.com.au/entertainment/8277861/plus-size-model-uses-padding-to-look-bigger thinner model's wearing fat suits.

The first time i have seen a fauxMANista even come close to some honesty http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgHI1r-KBpg&feature=youtube_gdata this is the bit missing from Warwicks article, hinted at but not tackled directly enough, misandrist hatred, breeds misogynist hatred.

this is what they want next http://www.henrymakow.com/uns_planned_pedophilia.html sex education in school is not enough, they want sexual beings, children, given Karma Sutra lessons & encouragement to do it as well.

When will you WAKE UP?

Women's liberation was women's wage & tax enslavement http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8EZQuLaAJ0&feature=player_embedded you feMANazi fools are victims of your own self oppression.

Closet communist social/cultural treason http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236# not enough for you http://www.rense.com/general32/americ.htm look at all items on this list see how much has come true in the land of OZ. try this version http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/ or are you a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot perhaps this will bring it home for you http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VpZtX32sKVE&feature=feedu no, try this one http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JarRIC4rS1M no, your stuborn, still need more proof http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zeMZGGQ0ERk&feature=player_embedded#! will you be one of those in this video?

What have you fools done to http://www.dorotheamackellar.com.au/archive/mycountry.htm as Derrin Hunch would say, "shame, shame, shame".

Formersnag you're a national treasure. I feel really content, smug and warn just to know you're there, just you being you.

That was a wonderful post.

Such a Potpourri of paranoia and anger at everything, the powers that you see as threatening to you.

Thinner model's wearing fat suits. The My Country conclusion was comic genius!

Any teenager who has conservative prudish over-protective parents really needs those sexual human rights BTW.

Though, sometimes, I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion!

Say it after me.. I'm not afraid anymore!

Formersnag
Well I thought your analysis of the situation to be quite accurate, and also your references to be quite accurate.

This sentence from one of your referenced articles certainly struck a chord.

"In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness certain groups are good – feminist women, (only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) blacks, Hispanics, homosexuals. These groups are determined to be “victims,” and therefore automatically good regardless of what any of them do. Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie in economic Marxism."

http://www.academia.org/the-origins-of-political-correctness/

I have never found it to be any different, and in fact, if someone ever finds a university academic saying anything good about men or about fathers, they should immediately rush out and buy a loto ticket, because such a situation may never occur again.

That is the extent of the bigotry, discrimination, feminism, corruption and sexism within the university system.

Vanna are you married, as with the tone of your postings, I assume you are not; why one asks!!

Kipp,
I have spent most of my life working to pay money to women, if that makes you feel any better.

The data regards fatherless societies cannot be easily swept under the carpet, even by feminists or university academics.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12409#214779

Ah pericles, What about communist/econazi/feMANazi/multiculti fundies? pericles, methinks the pot calls the kettle black.

Denial is not a river in Egypt. Young norwegian communists in training were slaughtered by a monster who was carefully manufactured by their own closet communist parents & grand parents with their ANTI family, ANTI christian policies designed to produce moral & ethical DE generation. they are "reaping as they sowed".

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12409#214908

Thanks Vanna, if you are in Brisbane & would like to have some fun while dealing with the communists let me know.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12409#214911

Kipp, why are you so keen on grooming innocent women & children for abuse?

"Fatherless societies". How many were born of immaculate conception?

Some of the comments are becoming comical. Everybody has a father and even in divorce situations, the non-custodial parents are involved in their children's lives.

Men are not paying 'for' women, only for the care of their children in custody situations if that is what you refer.

Earning an income while your wife is at home raising children and supporting the family during that time is not 'paying for women'. Women are not slaves, neither are men, both contribute to the family structure that they believe to be right.

What do Communists have to do with feminism? Most of the Conservative Libertarians I know and read support equality for women and men.

vanna despite your obsession with universities, I at least thought you better than the feelings of hate and paranoia that comes out of some of the more vitriolic posters on this forum.

Anger at a personal situation is one thing, hate quite another.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12409#215040

Poor Dear Pelican, you know very well that i do not hate you or any other feMANazi, but feel sorry for you. Also do not pretend that the fauxMANistas have nothing to do with communism. Almost all of the movements leaders have been closet communists. i have proven this to you before, many times over.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12409#214815

Howler, i am disappointed in you, your work before this has been much better in quality.

You well know that i have no fear of anybody, it is the closet communists who fear me & all the other moderate, centrist, conservatives. You may have heard of us before as the silent majority. We are getting louder every day & it is the closet communist's we are coming for.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12409#214774

Ammonite, of course he is not completely, innocent of his crimes but there are reasons as to why he is crazy, closet communism.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12409#214684

carol83, "denial is not a river in Egypt".

the closet communists apparently have not had enough proof

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/world/8282973/fresh-outbreaks-of-violence-in-london

http://mensightmagazine.com/reviews/svoboda/ontheirown.htm

still want to pretend that "denial is not a river in Egypt".

Formersnag
Your posts literally drip with intolerance if not hatred as such.

I once asked you how you would structure society if you had the power. What roles would you see for men and women? Would women have the same rights as individuals as men? Or would you class them as 2nd class citizens without rights. You never answered, maybe you will now.

How do you define a feminNAZI? And what criteria do you use to place someone in that category (male or female).

Liberty and freedom for both genders has nothing to do with Communism in fact just the opposite. Your comments are just an excuse to rant. If you don't like something it has to be related to Communism. All ideological systems have their risks including Capitalism in it's extremes of greed and obsession with wealth.

My husband does not think me a femiNAZI and he certainly knows I am not a Communist. We have been married for 25 years and he should know me by now.

You soujnd very unhappy which is why I rarely respond directly to your posts - there is no point when the well runs so deep. I do feel sorry for you though as I can imagine you must have had some negative experiences in your life to lead you to that place. It is healthier to be less afraid and to embrace life - give and you will receive.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12409#215103

Pelican, are you suggesting that i should tolerate child abuse, devil worship?

i have answered before & will waste my time on you once more, women had more equality in the 1950's than they do now. repealing almost all laws passed federal, state & local since the mid 1960's would be a good start. undoing almost every government reform since then would be another. About the only good thing i can remember in all that time would be the 1967 referendum recognising aboriginals as citizens & giving them the vote. Almost everything else has in fact been regressive, NOT progressive.

just because you don't THINK you have been brain washed with communist dogma, does not mean that you not been brain washed. most people struggle to drop evil ideologies they have been indoctrinated with earlier in their lives. it took me a while to connect the dots, recognise the patterns, why should you be any different.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8_YL3q1--U&feature=related enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYIC0eZYEtI&feature=share enjoy more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLt5U7VcHw8&feature=related this what the women's libbers have been doing for years, making it up as they go along.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgHI1r-KBpg&feature=youtube_gdata notice she is talking about boys being vilified/terrorised in class daily.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=24sjYlydAuw&feature=share this is the micro-codependent version of what fauxMANistas have been doing to boys for decades, are you sure this happening in Breiviks childhood did not contribute to his mental state?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e0mKw41UUwQ sharia law is already being declared by British local governments, want it here?

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/8281168/aggressive-aussie-ladettes-on-the-rise have a good look at some of the British riots TV news, some of these rioters are girls as young as 10, where are their single mothers in this?

http://barenakedislam.wordpress.com/2011/08/08/douglas-murray-multiculturalism-is-not-multiracialism/ closet communists use multiculturalism to destroy western society, are you sure you are not getting it now?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b8WBBvyBfm8&feature=BFa&list=PL35F7FBEEFF0B3DE2&index=6 this "documentary" was made by a feminist who is a friend of that idiot Tim Flannery, please tell me this is drug inspired & these people really dont genuinely believe this rubbish?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8630135369495797236# the communists have been planing your indoctination & the downfall of our society for some time now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Weishaupt maybe even longer than you think.

FS

You don't need to waste your time on me - that is your choice.

None of those links have anything to do with my previous post.

If you note the first comment on the Carlin You Tube link mentions that the Left and Right are both guilty of 'control' but in different ways. That is why I tend to sit in the centre valuing the idea of collective interests in some important spheres of life and in other aspects believe strongly that governments should butt out. Having been in the public service on and off, I have seen so much waste and empire building to write a book.

The fact is you still have not defined what a Feminazi is to you? Which aspects of feminism are you uneasy with? Posting links that have nothing to do with any of this is wasting your time and mine.

I will leave you to your own devices.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12409#215147

Pelican, you have not had enought time to watch even one of those videos all the way through or read any of the ones in text all the way through.

You can claim the middle ground as i do, all you like, but if you still support policies which are closet communist then you are a closet communist or deluded.

My posts have always included condemnation of both the loony left & raving right, as you well know.

Every one of those links is directly relevant to answering your question, i cant help it if you find the truth inconvenient.

i repeat, i don't hate you or even my EX wife for neglecting & abusing my children while i was at work, you were all conned by the "cruel hoax" that is communist feMANazism.

why cant you accept that & move forwards?

Well we are in agreement in condemning the looney Left and Right. But you are hardly in the middle ground when you equate feminism with Communism or with devil worship or child abuse. Feminism has nothing to do with Communism - not sure how many times that has to be reinforced. Putting up 100s of links that do not answer my previous question does not make me any clearer about your position.

There was much more child abuse when some Churches were not held to account for child sexual abuse during those good old 50s,60s and 70s. At least these days this issue is more open and there is much more support and help in exposing child abuse.

I will try one more time, what makes somebody a feminazi as opposed to just a plain feminist or a woman? What criteria pushes then into that group in your opinion (not the opinion of somebody on You Tube).

What is unfair about equal rights, freedom of speech and liberty for all human beings to be able to make the choices that best suit them?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12409#215165

Pelican, Germaine & Betty are but 2 of the feMANazi leadership who were/are Marxists. My personal politics has nothing to do with it. That almost all of the fauxMANista leadership were/are closet communists is not up for debate, this is a well documented, scientifically proven fact. if you refuse to accept the evidence for this then that is your choice. i have given you good authoritative links on this subject repeatedly before. feMANazism was invented as part of political correctness by closet communists to break up families, as a way to beat capitalism at the height of the "cold war".

Have we forgotten about the "cold war"?

There was nowhere near the amount of child abuse in the 1950's as there is today thanks to feMANazism. That is precisely what it was for, create a generation of neglected/abused dysfunctional adult/children.

i also thought for a while that there might be such a thing as "moderate" feminism, but there is not, nor is there "christian" feminism, all of it is without a shadow of doubt deliberate, premeditated child abuse, training women in how to fail at motherhood. it is both closet communism & devil worship, pure & simple.

Those British riots contain children from ages 7 to 12, where are their dead beat single mothers in all that chaos?

On one or 2 ocasions i have seen comments from women like yourself advocating "equality", but every submission going into every government inquiry from women's groups advocates slavery for men, with zero responsibility for anything to women.

As for your last paragraph, fine sentiments womem always say they want this then lobby for the opposite.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=12409#215165

Pelican, just found this one in my emails, if you cannot bring yourself to believe anything a man says i will try another female on you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2024690/UK-riots-2011-Britains-liberal-intelligentsia-smashed-virtually-social-value.html

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YgHI1r-KBpg&feature=youtube_gdata i will try the reformed feMANazi on you again, maybe if you watch it several times it will sink in?

"As for your last paragraph, fine sentiments womem always say they want this then lobby for the opposite."

The way you talk about women is that they are all the same and all want the same things. If you cannot see that women are humans just like men then you are no better than the radical feminists who accuse all men of being rapists or worse. They are the minority, you are using them as the standard for feminism rather than the exception.

Women are just like men, they hold different opinions and act in different ways and want different things from life. I take people as they are gender is rarely relevant and I disagree with women as much as with men on many issues.

You pick two women you know who were Marxists and then lump all feminists in the same basket. That is hardly logical. Is it so difficult to believe that many Right Wing women also believe in equality and call themselves feminists. Feminism is about equality for women and this is broadly accepted across the political spectrum from Left to Right.

Please tell me which policies you are referring to, you make blanket statements but provide no detail about which policies you think are unfair to men.

While you may make judgements about me just on the basis of being a women please remember that I am human first, a mother, a wife, a worker and a student, my gender is only one part of who I am.

Do you know what I find really disturbing?

Someone committed a simultaneous terrorist bombing in a crowded city and an arguably genocidal (he wanted to get rid of the next generation of 'marxists')- gun massacre of children;

-and there are plenty of people who share that mans exact views in this thread (including Warwick Marsh himself)!

I will rest much easier knowing this.