I am glad that I am of an age where womens' opinions of me or anything else are of no interest.

Many of the men I know tell me that the women in their lives check them before they leave the house to make sure they are presentable.
To whom? Other women?
My ambition is to grow old not gracefully, but disgracefully.

Well ummm, perhaps, maybe, it might be happening? And possibly explains why many confused emasculate young men, bereft of a traditional role?
Are preferring to remain single and uncommitted; and raise all their kids the same way?

That said, I'm very firmly in favor of genuine equality in all things, including a predilection to stereotype. My favorite target being oversexed old men! You know, those incorrigible old politically incorrect reprobates standing around permanently to attention. And have a want to start dribbling at the sight of a pair of naked ankles? Oops, sorry Sir, should have gone to specsavers!

Saw the family GP a few weeks ago about a "plumbing problem" need a new washer, the current one has sprung an inconvenient intermittent leak. Several weeks later, I was there again as he perused reports and x rays, tut tutting all the while. Finally he turned and said, sorry old timer, but you're going to give up all horizontal recreation! Whadda ya mean Doc, I inquired, thinking about it or talking about it?

So? You think it's psychological then? he replied, that maybe you'd be helped by some counseling?

Hell no Doc, I retorted, anyone who thinks they need a psychiatrist ought to have their head examined.

Where do you think the leak is coming from, he asked?
Water on the brain? I replied.
To be sure, we Irish have a cure for that, he exclaimed.

Yes, I'm all ears, I replied.

I've noticed Jumbo, he said, then went on to explain, a wee tap on the head.
I thought I should repeat every word at least twice, but that might be seen as stereo typing?
You know when I'm on the level, given I dribble equally out of both sides of the mouth.
Can't polish a turd even with, boom boom repetition.
Hey man, you'll have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.

This article is pretending to be about the need for 'fairness' of gender criticism in the media, but it's really just reinforcing the age-old stereotype that men just want to be left alone, while women just want to nag.

The long-suffering male beseiged by the petty moralising of women is deeply embedded in the culture. The male-controlled media simply maintains this trope

A good piece, Peter.

The tendency for women to want to make "something better" out of the men in their lives is an old one. There used to be a saying that "a woman marries a man because she thinks she can change him and a man marries a woman because he thinks she'll never change" with the rather sour sting that "both end up disappointed".

One of my Mum's favourite games when I lined up for inspection before leaving the house was to order me to do some small thing or other to improve my appearance because "you look like nobody owns you".

My Dad would always submit to the same inspection and got the same short shrift if his tie wasn't straight, his shoes were dull or he hadn't trimmed his nasal hair recently enough. He certainly never had the temerity to choose his own clothes for any kind of social occasion!

I know the same process occurred in thousands of homes across the land in middle-class households, where female social stature was inextricably linked to their capacity to manage their men. Simone de Beauvoir wrote about it in "The Second Sex", lamenting that petit bourgeois women were too interested in the display of their capacity to manage their men and their households to be easily conscripted to an ideal in which men and women were able to live as equals.

She thought that was a social construction, rather than an expression of an intrinsic motivation, in which I think she was partly right: the construction emerges from rather than being imposed on the intrinsic motivations of both men and women.

As you point out, the same thing is being writ large across society as women move in greater numbers into positions of social influence in media and to a lesser extent, business.

Alan,
for a leaky old bugger you can be very funny...

Sometimes humour is the only refuge we have from the barrage of criticism...

And surely there's something good about ABC's "Man Up". It's trying to say some helpful things about men and boys, at least....... Even our female correspondents will be happy with that, I'm certain. Women need good men in their lives.

WTF?

Waverley states that women need good men in their lives.
Good young men are walking away from traditional roles as they see no value in it for them.
Woman are now left to share the thugs and losers.

Waverley

'Women need good men in their lives.'

No. Women need financial and emotional independence. Then they can pick and choose what kind of man they want in their lives. If at all.

Killarney,
the irony in your comments is that they demonstrate the author's point for him.

Try not to be so angry and bitter all the time, it can't be doing you any good.

The trouble with getting older is that you get hardening of the attitudes.

I'll just stay as twitter and bisted as I can be.

And by the way: If feminists are presumably supportive of women, do they need to be hostile to, or suspicious of men? Some of the guys who go to men's sheds and men's groups seem to have the full support of wives and partners. It would be nice if each group could support the other.

That's a good comment, Waverley.

The problem is that the way the gender topic has been thought about is as a "zero sum game", which means that in order for women to "win", there must be men who "lose". This appeals to a politics of resentment, in which the emphasis is on casting blame rather than on solving problems. There must be "fights" and "champions of the underdog" standing on the side of grace and good against the forces of oppressive evil.

Of course, this is obviously stupid, but it's an easy story to sell if one is unscrupulous. There are lots of people who've had bad experiences and some of those will feel that the deck has been stacked against them, so if some snake-oil salesperson comes along with a panacaea they are easy pickings. Even more, they are easily taught not to trust anyone who tries to tell them different: it's simple aversion-based behavioural modification. Even bacteria will learn to avoid sections of a Petri dish that contains some substance that causes them to "feel bad", even if it contains more of things that they need to prosper as a colony.

There is a lot more going on than this, of course. I'd be happy to continue the discussion if you're interested.

Hmm. It's easier to say what we don't want- than what we do.
eg
I find some women's activists are too full of some kind of bitterness, perhaps coming from bad experiences with men. And I shut down or turn off when I see their name.
Likewise- few of us would find attractive the kind of guy who gropes people. I don't like being groped or grabbed. Why should women (or anyone really) like the kind of guy who just grabs people? Trump's behaviour is appalling. My friends say there's very little of the language or behaviour that Trump more or less boasts of, even in gym change rooms.

Put those extremes aside, and many of us have great people in our lives: kids, women, men, children, who listen to us -and who hopefully we listen to!

What's her name.. the writer of the 'Female Eunuch' has a lot to answer for. Reading it at age 14 I thought: if that's the way wimmin want to go - then on yer bike ladies (or ladettes). 40 odd years later and having been a sole parent Dad for the best part of half that time I can see why some women are like they are. I can, after being on the rough end of the pineapple AKA Child Support Agency, see why many blokes don't want anything to do with the person they once loved, similarly with the ladies.Go to the outskirts of Humpty Doo, Bees Creek, Mandorah and talk to the "blockies" of the Darwin region, there are many tales of men being screwed by CSA/Family Court.

There are feminists, there is feminism and then there are feminazis. None of which have anything to do with being "feminine". During that 40 years since reading Mizz Greers opus, that and many other feminist writers literature. For the 20 plus years I have been a single Dad raising 2 sons I can see why some women are as they are portrayed by media - likewise as the recipient of female inflicted psychological, financial and emotional abuse, I have seen the other side of the coin. There are bastards who don't pay their Child Support, but for those non payers with vagina's, it is another matter all together in my experience. When it comes to parental responsibilities, put on a bucket of tears before the magistrate/registrar then get a pat on the wrist, a hot cup of tea and the court attendant will come over with a box of Kleenex because the poor bastard father is still being seen as the perpetrator irrespective of the actual circumstances involved.

I chuckle though, witnessing the tired old hags of bra burning campaigns past who are now grandparents and having to put up with absent daughters and daughters in law abrogating their parental duties...how many chooks have come home to roost when their words condemn Mizz Greer and her proteges throughout the years.

I have a lot of time for Germaine, Albie. She was and remains fundamentally well motivated and has had the guts and honesty to change her view as new evidence has come in. The same goes for Eva Cox.

I don't think there's any point in name calling.

The problems have largely been caused by institutionalising policies based on very simplistic models of human behaviour in order to make management easier and to satisfy a political need to be seen to be "doing something". If anyone should be castigated over that it is Bob Hawke and the "femocrats" (as Anne Summers, the original femocrat, coined it) who were too politically lazy and personally venal to do the heavy lifting of properly analysing the situation, opting instead for a stupidly shallow populist approach.

The tax department dropped the hot potato of collecting child support as soon as it could, realising it was counter-productive, and so the CSA was born, as deformed a monster child as has ever been seen in this country.

On a more positive note, it's now gone the way of the dodo after years of mismanagement and destruction and the job has been given to the DHS, which seems to be doing much better.

Nice thoughts, Craig. I wish all the gender warriors were as kind as you are. Sadly.......

Craig Minns

I was expecting the usual angry, personally nasty attack from you - that I ALWAYS get whenever I make a comment on an OLO gender discussion. You certainly didn't disappoint.

I have asked you in the past to stop attacking me personally. I've asked you this more than once. Now I have to ask you again.

You loathe feminist viewpoints with a passion. I get that - many, many times over. But that does NOT give you an excuse to personally bully me on a public forum every time I give my point of view.

What gives you the idea I hate feminist viewpoints? I just praised both Germain Greer and Eva Cox and I wrote a whole article in praise of feminism.

What I don't think much of is the thin-skinned women who insist on berating everyone with rubbish.

Please strive to be more like Germaine and Eva...

What part of 'Please stop attacking me personally' don't you understand? I don't know how much clearer I can make it.

Killarney,
Ask yourself why every attempt to have a discussion with you ends with you whining about people attacking you and then ask yourself why nobody bothers trying.

I've given you some simple straightforward advice about how to improve your approach. If you don't want to take it, that's up to you. However, if you continue to post offensive nonsense I'll no doubt continue to point it out from time to time.

Do try to lift your game.

Of course there have been some writing in teachers' union journals some years ago- "Wouldn't it be wonderful to have a world without men". I think Peter quoted this in an earlier article. I reckon the world's better off with both of us, warts and all

“In our media, discussion about men is monitored by, and largely written by, women.”

This is a rather unsubstantiated claim. How can such an argument be proven to be true?

Even if it were true then what is the real problem since these women are only expressing their opinions about men? They are entitled to those opinions. Men do not have to agree with those opinions. It is irrelevant that these opinions are ‘largely’ written by women. What matters is the opinions themselves and they should be judged on their merits.

Men should focus on the opinions and present counter arguments if they disagree. If women have more influence in the media and this is seen as a negative thing then it is up to men to counter that influence by fighting for their fair share of it.

It smacks of bitterness to make irrelevant claims about the gender of the authors of these opinions. Everyone has the right to free speech and the right to work in the media. If men have good arguments in response then that is all they need whoever the arguer might be.

Look at the examples cited in the article, phantom.
How many programs can you name in which these issues are discussed mainly by men:
relationships
family matters, especially when difficult (separation, divorce, tension)
being a parent
raising boys, raising girls
behaviour in the street
behaviour in the gym excluding what to do for strength

That will do for a start......
But read the article again and check off the examples, and references especially Macnamara

Good luck!

Waverley:

The point is that women are entitled to an opinion. You do not have to agree with their opinion and the author obviously does not. He presents good arguments but he does not need to complain about the fact that those arguments are presented by women or that women have an inordinate control of the media.

You could say that the opinion of those women is ill-informed and their arguments do not stack up but it is irrelevant to say that those opinions are wrong because they have come from women or that women should not have the power in the media which they have won by fair means.

Men can speak up for themselves without having to play the gender card.

Maybe you should read the article again and check that it is saying what it says, not what you think it might be saying or implying.
Sure it's a free country, say what you like: but Macnamara's research is pretty powerful and he's a media analyst. Perhaps he knows his subject, having presented it as a PhD thesis. The article critiques a number of examples. And the criticisms carry some weight.
Just a thought....

waverley,
what stood out for me was the comments section, which was largely respectful discussion of a topic of mutual interest.

How things have changed on OLO!

Phanto

<“In our media, discussion about men is monitored by, and largely written by, women.”

This is a rather unsubstantiated claim. How can such an argument be proven to be true?>

Exactly. To me, that's the fundamental flaw of the article. If you scrutinise most of the online newspaper sites or newspapers themselves, you find that many, many articles about men's issues and relationships (critical or otherwise) are written by men, especially in the lifestyle pages, weekend supplements and men's mags. And then of course there's sport!

The only areas that I can find, in which female journalists write about men in a critical way is on rape, domestic violence and workplace pay and attitudes.

So, frankly, as I can't accept the basic premise of the article itself, I'm inclined to see it more as reinforcing a 'moralistic mummy' cultural trope that views women as just wanting to be critical of men for its own sake.

Craig Minns

'I've given you some simple straightforward advice about how to improve your approach.'

WHOAH!! That's stepping WAY over the arrogance line, even for you. Why don't you also tell me to sit up straight or don't answer back, like a good little girl?

Look, unlike you, I'm not into psychobabbling people, as I see it as an invasion of people's psychological integrity and space. However, I'll make a notable exception in this case.

Craig ... you have some VERY SERIOUS control issues.

I refuse to pander to control freaks or their bullying behaviour, either online or in my personal life. In future, I'm adopting a DADE policy where you are concerned. Don't answer; don't engage.

Evidence for negative media images of men?

OK I'll say it again.
Macnamara is a media analyst and he codes media. That's what he does almost every day. His articles for OLO are based on a PhD and years of research. West's article leans naturally on the evidence he cites and also on Macnamara whom he references clearly.

So here is the evidence arranged for any thoughtful person to check:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/237629186_HOW_THE_MEDIA_PORTRAY_MEN_A_REVIEW_OF_JR_MCNAMARA'S_MEDIA_AND_MALE_IDENTITY

http://apps.westernsydney.edu.au/news_archive/index.php?act=view&story_id=1792

and finally-

https://theconversation.com/for-fathers-day-give-us-men-who-arent-shown-as-fools-and-clowns-31170

That should be enough I think

It's up to you Killarney, if you regard some well meant advice as some attempt to control you, it says a great deal more about you than me.

My kids used to have a similar reaction to being given advice. They've grown out of it now they're in their late teens.

Craig Minns:

Giving advice presumes that you know better. When you are advising kids it is often because you do know better simply because you are older but when you are talking to adults then you should be able to show how and why you do know better. Your 'advice' to Killarney just presumes that you know better. Why do you know better?

Waverley:

Who are you arguing with? There is plenty of evidence that men are often portrayed negatively in the media by both men and women. What is the point of emphasising the gender of the person who makes the criticism? What matters is the criticism itself and whether or not it is valid. Why would you do this unless you have some other agenda that needs to portray women in a bad light? If you have problems with women then you should address those in the appropriate time and at the appropriate place. Using this discussion to try and attack women is gutless. Presenting an argument in opposition to their opinions is the only reasonable behaviour to adopt in the forum.

Can't you distinguish between what is being said and the person saying it? Was Madam Curie wrong because she was a woman?

No Phanto, it doesn't assume I "know better". In this case it simply means that I've observed a pattern of behaviour that seems to be working counterproductively and I've pointed it out.

I'm not saying "you must", I'm simply saying "I suggest".

It's unfortunate that some people are unable to accept even suggestions without getting worked up. In young teens it's reasonable, in adults it's sad.

Just a suggestion. Perhaps some of you who write so assiduously could write your own article and submit to OLO or The Conversation or Crikey.
That might be satisfying for you, perhaps.
Just saying.....

Craig Minns:

“In this case it simply means that I've observed a pattern of behaviour that seems to be working counterproductively and I've pointed it out.”

You could have done that but you went further and issued advice. Why do you feel the need to give advice? The only thing that is relevant are the arguments put forth. The point of the forum is to discuss ideas not to give advice to other posters about their ‘approach’. If you feel the need to advice people then you should do it somewhere else more appropriate.

If you do not like their approach then you do not have to engage with them. The fact that you do give advice is obviously an attempt to meet some personal need you have since there can be no other logical reason for doing so. It is reasonable to put up with their approach if you want to engage with their arguments. It is also reasonable to not engage with them at all. It is not reasonable to give them advice since that is not the point of these forums.

sheesh phanto, of course I offered advice, why on earth would I not?

It's in her gift to accept or not, all I can do is offer.

Why on earth would you unless you were arrogant? No one asked for your advice nor is this the place where people come for advice on their 'approach'. You abuse the forums for your own personal needs. There is absolutely no logical reason why you would give advice to someone else about how they conduct themselves on these forums.

If there is a good reason then tell us all why you think you should give advice to people on how they should behave in these forums?

You haven't been able to do that.

Because I'm helpful?

well lets talk anout Tostee another dubious male specimen.

I believe when that girl was begging in terror to be allowed to go home.

She knew he was going to kill her. That the type of thing I think most people would say to a serial killer when they know they'll never see the people they love again

Its isnt a plea to go home its a plea for her lfe.
Just listen to the absolute hopeless, terror in her voice.
She was throwing things at him to stop him doing what he threatened,to throw her off the balcony

Too much of a coincidence, that he threatens to throw her off the balocny and thats where she ends up hanging, off the balcony rail.

He locked that balcony door later in my belief.
She wanted to go home, so why didnt he simply call a taxi and let her go home,
why was he keeping her there.
He says he locked her out there because she was attacking him, really? have a look at the size of that skinny little girl to him. He could have held her off with one hand.

This is haunting me, because the only thing that is obviously factual is the pitiful
terror in her voice as she asks to be allowed to go home. Anything he says cant be proven. Why does he decide to take a recording of this without showing what happened previously to make this girl so terrified and hysterical trying to escape from him. It was calculated to make her look guilty of her own death. He throws in the physco bitch thing. Why the hell do you grab a phone and start recording this when all you have to do is call a taxi and let the girl go home.
The one thing,that doesnt and cant lie in this, is the piteous plea from this girl to be allowed to go home. The terror in her voice is real. Anything he says or does afterwards cant be proven to be real, it is only his version of what happened.

Phanto

CM is clearly showing that he will not back down from his self-appointed righteousness. He's clearly stepped out of line, not only in his arrogance and personal abusiveness of me, but in his MO to keep upping the ante when he is called out on his behaviour and asked to stop.

Unfortunately, as an online control mechanism, sustained personal abuse actually does achieve what it sets out to do. The other feminist-oriented posters - Poirot, Foxy and Susonline - have left the board, for similar reasons, so the OLO gender threads are now little more than a platform to disseminate MRA disinformation, disguised as 'research' (and I've done a lot of 'debunk' posting about this previously), and to share anecdotes to reinforce their negative attitudes to women.

As I'm the only one left, it's really not worth the effort anymore. Graham does try to keep a good balance of progressive and conservative views in the articles, but the general commentariat is overwhelmingly dominated by reactionary, obnoxious misogynists and right-wingers, who are more interested in bullying anyone who does not share their worldview than actual discussion. CM's behaviour is a symptom of this dysfunctionality, not its cause.

//If you feel the need to advice people then you should do it somewhere else more appropriate.

If you do not like their approach then you do not have to engage with them...It is reasonable to put up with their approach if you want to engage with their arguments. It is also reasonable to not engage with them at all. It is not reasonable to give them advice since that is not the point of these forums.//

Don't look now phanto, but you're giving advice XD

Waverley

This is the abstract to the research study you link to:

‘Does it matter if there are negative images of men everywhere? Jim Macnamara's book says it does. Overwhelmingly, men are shown on TV and other media as fools, clowns, murders and rapists. Generalisations made about men are often made inaccurately (e.g. "men have all the power") but nobody points out the lack of logic. West supports Macnamara and suggests that it's important to critique these misapprehensions. Men need support and guidance in order to become better men. And boys need strong role models if they are to grow into good, thoughtful men who can in turn become good fathers for their children. We need thoughtful models of both men and women in order to have a balanced, harmonious society.’

Yes, (although overstated) men are often shown as ‘fools, clowns, murderers and rapists’, but there are infinitely more counterbalancing portrayals of men. For example: in film and TV: the cop who nails a serial killer, the good guy whose undying love gives a damaged woman a new start, a corrupt official who finally is brought to justice (by the committed actions of other men), male superheroes who save the world from evil, and on it goes …

And, yes, boys need strong role models. But they also need male role models who do not see women as their inferior servants and playthings. They need male role models who do not view porn’s degradation of women as ‘a male thing’. They need male role models who do not counterproductively over-react to genuine analyses of entrenched, toxic male behaviours, like war glorification.

Much of the rhetoric about boys without male role models is driven by conservative concerns about the breakdown of the nuclear family and the massive increase in single-mother households. However, this should be tempered by the need to ask what is wrong with traditional marriage? Most men do not want to face up to the fact that marriage is a zero-sum game for most women. (But I’m running out of word length. So that’s a topic for another discussion.)

Tony Lavis

Oh, c'mon! You're just doing doing petty tit-for-tat.

CHERFUL

WTF? I understand what you are saying, but are you posting to the right thread?

Killarney

Yes probably posted the Tostee post to the wrong discussion.

sorry.

Tony Lavis:

I am not advising him. I am making an argument as to why his giving advice is illogical. I am saying that if it is not an appropriate thing to do here then obviously it is appropriate somewhere else. If he wants to give advice then it would be logical to do it where it is appropriate.

I am not trying to change his 'approach' but simply pointing out how illogical it is. I am appealing to his sense of reason. Who does not want to be reasonable?

Killarney,
Thanks for a great post.

There are many examples of stereotyping on both sides of the gender cultural divide.

I don't accept your proposition that marriage is a zero-sum game for women. If that is how they view it, then inevitably it will become that, but there's absolutely no need for that to be the case. Most conflict is not violent, yet it can be debilitating for all concerned.

I think we need to work out some way of helping both women and men learn how to negotiate toward best-case outcomes and improve the game a little so outcomes don't sum to zero.

That was a weird non-sequitur in the middle there, it was part of a lengthier paragraph that I deleted. Ignore it.

//Tony Lavis

Oh, c'mon! You're just doing doing petty tit-for-tat.//

No, Kyllarnei, Y was genuyneli so amused bi the notyon of avdysyng somebodi not to gyve advyce that Y felt yt worthi of a comment and an XD. Y don't award XD's lyghlti iou know.

//Who does not want to be reasonable?//

Jesus, have you read some of the posts around here phanto?

Toni Lavis

Arent these spell checkers irritating.
I had to laugh at the simmozzle it made of your last post.

I found a setting that I thought should have turned the darn thing off
but it continues to rearrange my words even when I know I have spelt them right.

Funny how we can put a man on the moon but spell checker settings remain
illusive.

//I found a setting that I thought should have turned the darn thing off but it continues to rearrange my words even when I know I have spelt them right.//

The altered spelling was for Killarney's benefit, as she seems to confuse her i's and y's. I don't have sex daily.... sorry, dyslexia. Although I did mis-spell something: 'lyghlti' should of course have been 'lyghtli'.

Well it's been an energetic discussion

We're lucky to live in a country that allows us free expression. Every single one of us has the right to disagree with what someone else says.
And it's back to work for most of us.
Cheers to all

Tony Lavis

You don't seem to distinguish between constructive and destructive advice. CM's 'advice' was destructive advice - it was deliberately condescending, personally abusive and obnoxious, designed to intimidate, not to help (as he repeatedly insists).

Telling people they are angry and bitter for giving an opinion is destructive advice. Telling people that they are thin-skinned when they (repeatedly) ask not to be attacked personally is destructive advice. Telling people that their teenagers are more mature than they are is destructive advice. Telling people to change their commenting style and content in order to prevent being subject to further personal attacks is destructive advice.

Phanto, on the other hand, was constructively advising CM on the destructiveness of the 'advice' he was giving.

Oh really Killarney? It got one decent post out of you before you went back to your old abusive ways.

Here's some more advice for you: if you want people to engage with you constructively, demonstrate you're capable of acting well. If you want people to think usefully about the things you say, make them worth thinking about.

Just a thought dear.

Craig Minns:

Why do you have such a need to give advice? If another poster does not have the right attitude or approach then why not simply ignore them and move on to engaging with those who do? This would be the logical thing to do. The fact that you cannot do this suggests that you have a neurotic need to advise people in order to prop up your own insecurities. You need to feel superior to other people.

Or perhaps you have a neurotic need to feel helpful? Giving help when someone has told you they do not want help is a sure fire sign that you are serving your own needs rather than anyone else's. You do not know how to take 'no' for an answer and your 'help' is actually harrassment.

The fact that you need to pat yourself on the back for your supposed part in changing Killarney's perceived approach shows how desperately you want to deny your harrassment and convince yourself how helpful you really are. If you had influenced another to behave in the way you want them to then you would not need to 'crow' about it - you would simply accept the change and then move on.

Phanto,
I actually think that feminism deserves to be represented more effectively. The rubbish that some people spout is counterproductive to that.

Perhaps, if you wish to improve the conversation, you could try to add to it rather than derailing it? Oh no, there I go again with that pesky advice thing; I just can't help giving into my need for archetypical expression of my entitlement as a representative of the Patriarchy...

"I actually think that feminism deserves to be represented more effectively. The rubbish that some people spout is counterproductive to that."

Why do you think that is your problem such that you are prepared to harrass feminists into being more productive? Surely that is up to them? They might not care for productivity.

"Perhaps, if you wish to improve the conversation, you could try to add to it rather than derailing it?"

I am not trying to do either. I am trying to stop people like you from abusing these forums for their own neurotic needs.

It's my problem because I am a person who has a view on feminism. Why are you so determined that I should not express my point of view?

"Help help, I'm being repressed."