>>those who wanted to discuss the issue. Such a shame they felt silenced in the forum.<<

Well obviously they didn't want to discuss it that much. Look: show me these people who are doing the silencing. From what I've seen the moderators on this site have an incredibly prudish and old-fashioned view on the use of 'naughty' words but a remarkably liberal attitude to everything else. I'm a pretty broad-minded chap and I've seen some highly offensive comments on this site - which nobody got silenced for. So I can't see the jackbooted heel of the moderators coming down hard on the throat of outspoken feminists. And the users don't have the power to silence other contributors unless they are 133t hax0rs (or something like that). Site admin would cotton on very quickly if that sort of thing was happening and fix it.

>>As the author, I am disappointed that respectful debate/discussion appears to have been stifled.<<

I respectfully ask that you remember the old adage that things are not always as they appear. As I have just pointed out: nobody is silencing anybody. Everybody - especially the silent lurking likers - is free to contribute to this debate. They are free to offer their opinions, criticise other people's opinions and have their opinions criticised in turn.

I suspect it's that last bit that's causing the problem: the only thing stifling the debate is the unwillingness of some people to make any contribution to the debate. And the only thing I can put that unwillingness down to is an unwillingness of some people to have their opinions criticised: some people can be funny about that. Apparently we're supposed to just nod our heads and agree with whatever these people say - an idea that doesn't sit well with me. If we dare to question or criticise their arguments then we are 'intimidating' and 'silencing' them. You can see how this would make meaningful debate difficult.

I would respectfully suggest that people like that need to grow a pair. Even if it's only a metaphorical pair.

Cheers,

Tony

Ilsa Evans,

You would be mistaken to assume that Killarney's style on here is as pure as the driven snow. She is often aggressive and belligerent and insulting to the men who post here. For someone who seeks to lift women in society, she has a very peculiar way of going about it.
Here's a sample of similar treatment she contributed on a previous thread:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13565&page=0#235088

Not much room for discussion as you can see.

Btw, it does appear trivial to question something that is a metaphor for potency. What's the big deal? Women and men are strong. They both have their special attributes. I don't think the feminist cohort will be happy until we're a species of androgynous purists.

(I'm a woman)

Why would I be shocked Cherful?

After all it is only common sense, & I can't see any reason why you shouldn't have plenty of that.

It is only the ratbag fringe of feminists, & those either too PC, or scared of the whole feminists/PC movement who could ever have seen any sense of any sort in the whole idea.

However I'm afraid your idea of a women's army won't work. You see health & safety won't allow it. The fact that you are likely to be shot, blown up or both, doesn't matter.

You see the girls have a low lifting restriction. They would never be allowed to lift a can of fuel, too heavy, as would be a box of ammunition. Bit hard to go fight anyone, if your jeep won't go, & you've got nothing to shoot, but that's our equal opportunity defence force.

Ilsa, welcome to OLO.

First time author and almost first time poster.

And one of the relatively few author writers who comes back on their thread and gets involved in the discussion.

Good to see.

Cheers.

Poirot

‘[Killarney] is often aggressive and belligerent and insulting to the men who post here.’

Actually, YOU’RE the one I much prefer to be aggressive and belligerent to. Women who repeatedly turn a blind eye to men's misogynist agendas, while never missing an opportunity to wag their imperious finger at other women for daring to upset men's delicate egos really get up my nose.

And, Ilse, I hope you DO get to view the link Poirot posted. I have a strong feeling you’ll immediately get the argument I made. Unfortunately, it went straight over poor old Poirot’s head.

Yeah Poirot you are clearly a traitor to the cause. You are supposed to always take the woman's side regardless of any concept of right or wrong. Don't you get that this isn't about equality, rather a campaign of deception to try and make any form of masculinity a dirty word while holding a certain narrow form of feminism up as the ideal with which we must comply. You are letting the side down.

Now toe the line of they will be coming for you.

R0bert