sqeers,

poirot struggles for anything intelligent to say and so resorts to belittling men,

'I would prefer to look up to you guys, but what I'm witnessing would be more at home in a school playground.'

and this gem of female logic:

'I thought this sort of behaviour was the province of teenage girls. It would have been just as easy to argue in opposition to Squeers' views without casting personal aspersions his way'

First belittle men by insinuating they are teenage girls and then in the very next sentence claim there is no need to get personal. Only a female could in all seriousness put those two sentences together.

I know belittling men is de regueur in most Left wing circles but I think many men are getting a bit tired of it. The teenage girl stuff is most galling. If you think of the lyrics to the One Direction song that has teenage girls falling all over them,

'You're insecure
Don't know what for
You're turning heads when you walk through the door
Don't need make up
To cover up
Being the way that you are is enough

Everyone else in the room can see it
Everyone else but you'

At the end of the day, if One Direction want to manipulate teenage egos and make their millions then fine, but to suggest that men are somehow this vain is a bit much.

I'm sure it made you feel good to come riding to poirot's aid like a knight in shining armour, but women don't need it. They have government, schools, universities, countless women's centres, anti discrimination boards and endless other officers and bureaucrats looking after them. Speak to any man who has been through the family court system and see if he thinks women need men riding to their aid.

I certainly think it's time men do 'man up' and confront this sort of rubbish. If you look on the MRM sites you'll see more men are waking up to the nightmare feminism has foisted on our society every day.

Leaving aside the themes male is bad, female is good aspect of the article for a bit I'd like to highlight another aspect. The apparent view that people should be able to control a partners sexuality (as opposed to choices made out of mutual respect and love).

To simplify I'll stick with the stereotype male porn user, female opposed situation while acknowledging the existance of other situations. Likewise the override that in a healthy loving relationship a lot of this stuff does not apply.

Some of the anti-porn view points seem to suggest that women should be able to force abstenance from all sexual activity on a partner. That viewpoint should be as widely rejected as rape in marriage is rejected. Profoundly different views on sexuality may be reason to move on but not reason for badgering, bullying, threats, retaliatiin or an expectatiin of compliance.

His body his choice.

For those who insist that their marriage implies monogamy in all ways then I'd suggest that monogamy implies sexual availability to a partner as well. Many seem to get the first bit, not the second.

As for other points made by the author, some have been well travelled previously. I suggest that womens magazines do a far greater harm to relationships than porn usage. A lot more people seemed to be taken in by the body image, latest died, home makeover (or upgrade), holiday destination material in those magazines than by the idea that three naked 18 year old girls are ever so keen for a foursome.

Poor body image is probably driven far more by images in womens mags than by the porn a partner watches in private. Probably easier to argue that some porn usage is driven by women covering up due to poor body image than that porn usage drives poor body image.

If women want men less involved in work and achievement and more ivolved in quality time then rather than attacking men for not getting the balance right target the campaign on the behaviours women reward.

R0bert

OT, I'm afraid, but I couldn't let this note of dane's to pass without comment.

>>"The Swiss, on the other hand, had brotherly love, 500 years of democracy and peace, and all they had produced was the cuckoo clock." You can see where I am heading: Switzerland embodies the feminine virtues of co-operation and peace...<<

You forget the major role of the Swiss in the twentieth century, which was to hide the ill-gotten billions of tyrants across the world - African warlords and dictators, Nazi gold-looters etc. - in cosy, anonymous bank accounts. Nice work if you can get it, of course, so long as you have no sense of smell.

dane,

My initial criticism wasn't aimed at your gender. It was in response to your post. If you don't wish to be offended, then you might try reining in you own offensive rhetoric.

And what sort of "rubbish" do you guys have to "man up" for from me? You seem to be rallying the troops as if I'm some sort of "typical feminist". There is nothing typical about me - and I'm more likely to jump on a thread to defend men against a gung-ho feminist than I am to join her in spitting venom.

I initially responded to a particularly malevolent post of yours - and to behaviour that seemed unfair and below the belt. Is there any other allusion one man can make to another that is more toxic and insulting than the one you and others were directing toward Squeers? Being compared to teenage girls pales in comparison. You guys were engaging in the "belittling". I'm the one who threw a spoke in the wheels.

I'm one of the few women who post here regularly and often. Guess what? It's because I enjoy talking to men. I could just as easily engage with women and feminists on the myriad sites available, yet that holds no attraction for me. For the most part, OLO's men demonstrate intelligence, depth and maturity - that's what keeps me coming back.

Houellie,

Just in response to your last post to me (and my last word on the subject.)

You said: "Too rite when someone calls you a paedophile..."

But he didn't call you a paedophile.

There is a world of difference between making a general observation on anthropological, social and psychological grounds, and seeking to fire off squalid personal innuendo at the author of the observation.

If, for instance, Squeers had merely stated that men had the potential during war to rape and indiscriminate slaughter, would any of the men here have advised him to seek therapy as a potential rapist and murderer? No, they would have accepted his statement for what it was - a general observation on the potentialities of the male of the species in times of social mayhem.

Instead, some men here internalised and personalised his comment as an affront to their sensibilities and decided to fire back at him in the most personal and vexatious manner available.

I agree with this article but I think a key point has been missed. Two types of male users of porn are described; those who use porn openly in agreement with their partners, and those who use porn in secret without their partners knowledge. From my experience there is a third type; men who use porn openly without their partner's agreement, in spite of her distress and even because of it. In my experience (both personal and professional as DV survivor and DV worker) this often goes hand in hand with domestic violence and the man's sense of entitlement and coercive controlling tactics that serve to control the woman, destroy her sense of self and keep her in fear. I suspect this third type is more common than we think.