Timkins, this is off topic but I think worth addressing. I've seen a number of comments recently by you about OLO which I read as suggesting that the site is anti-male. Is this your intent?

I've seen very little sign of editorial interference by OLO staff as a contributor.

Have you ever had posts blocked (other than for those common limits of size or number of posts)?

Are you aware of articles which have been refused publication at OLO which you think may have been refused because they were pro-male?

There appears to be plenty of scope for a wide variety of views to be expressed freely. The type of response posters receive from other posters generally appears to bear some relation to the manner they approach the issue (not always). I've had some serious discussions with a number of other posters during my time on the site about some quite controversial issues, copped a little bit of name calling, tried not to get into it myself etc. Generally the experience has been a pleasant one with at times some really good discussion with people who hold differing views (I miss Ringtail's contributions).

I've been willing to try and understand others view points and some have shown a willingness to try and understand mine. There are some others who are just plain nasty (no names) or who show no sign of trying to understand so I try not to get into discussions with them, a waste of keystrokes.

There are good people who contribute to this site and I suspect good people involved in running it. Be thankfull that OLO exists and has such a hands off approach to posts, so different to the the talk back radio hosts who cut off dissenting views, be gratefull that you have such opportunity to put your views and be gratefull that so much of the discussion is relatively polite. Be gratefull for the times people commend you on posts that speak to them or which touch important aspects of issues.

Not many places like this in modern life.

Cheers
R0bert

RObert

Thank you for your insightful words. Much appreciated.

Dear Timkins: can you please stop your tyrade on women and the welfare system. Heaps of things are not fair. I got over it. Surely you can too?

It was not fair that I supported an alcoholic husband for 13 years - when he was sober, a wonderful person full of promises. So I lived day by day. My fault I guess.

It was not fair that he conned the system and that he gained a disability pension as a result.

It was not fair that the Family Court ruled, that because I was the breadwinner, that I had to pay him maintenance until re reached 65 years of age. That was in 1989.

I lost the family home - his only equity was $3,500, but I could not afford to pay him out.

I paid his maintenance for three years in advance. I have not heard from him since - though I know he went to gaol for 13 drink driving charges.

I do not generalise my bitter feelings towards this creep across all men. I like men. He was a rotten rat - that's it.

I have a great second marriage.

Timkins, I impore you. Open your heart. Life is too short.

Cheers
Kay

Timkins is not always anti-female I have found - see here
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=153
Women writers are acceptable if they say things he agrees with.

WhiteWombat
I understand what you are saying, but the problem is that allegations require money and resources to investigate, and it’s at the stage where so many allegations have been made about males, but eventually, nearly all are found to be false.

An example would be “drink spiking”. National campaigns with warning posters, newspaper ads etc, were organised to stamp out drink spiking, but now that the situation is being investigated, it is being found that the vast majority of women reporting that their drinks had been spiked, were actually drunk (often on exotic drinks with a high alcohol content), or had been mixing drinking alcohol with other forms of drug taking, such as marijuana smoking.

In the case of this article on Sex Slaves, there is minimal real evidence being provided, so how much money and resources have to be spent to investigate this allegation. I don’t like the idea of Sex Slaves, (or prostitution), but I think there needs more real evidence of Sex Slaves in this country, than what is in this article.

Robert,
You can check through the archives of OLO, and you will find very few articles that have been positive of a male, or positive of the male gender. The opposite is usually the case. That is typical of most media now, and it starts to represent serious discrimination of a gender. Any disadvantage or hardships occurring to a male or the male gender is now often overlooked, and many people may even think it deserved. This situation begins to occur in nearly all types of discrimination.

Kalweb,
I have posted many links to articles by female authors, but first I check their articles for accuracy. If they seem accurate, I link to their articles.

Women now give out enormous amounts of criticism of men, and they can expect some criticism themselves.

From what I can understand about Sex Slavery in Australia, this article is not accurate, or is grossly exaggerated, and by far the greatest amount of imposed slavery in Australia is actually occurring to men through the “capacity to earn” system.

Timkins, I'm very much in agreement that there are a number of issues where the portrayal of those issues in public campaigns and in the media is grossly dishonest and misleading. DV and child protection being the classic cases. I suspect that there are a small number of activists deliberately involved as they push particlar agenda's which they think are aided by negative images of men and planty of others who have just not put the pieces together. They have been taught that women are victims and that men are the agressors and the evidence which shows that both genders get it wrong fly by unnoticed. That does not mean that all or even most feminists are out to hurt men or are seeking unfair advantage, it just means that most of us operate best in the sphere we understand best.

On the off topic subject of content on OLO a perceived imbalance does not imply editorial bias. It may suggest that more articles of a suitable length and style are being written by those pushing womens interests etc, it might suggest that you see some articles as male maligining which are really just touching on one part of the story and not exploring the "on the other hand bit" - some of Daniels articles appear to be in that category to me. Yes I would like to see more good articles looking into some of the issues where men are being hurt badly in the current system.

Having said that I have not yet worked up the confidence or put the effort in to write and submit an article myself.

My earlier questions went unanswered. Do you know of articles which have been refused publication on OLO which you believe were refused publication because thay were pro male? Have you been censored by the OLO staff for pro-male (or perceived anti-female comments) in your posts?

If not then you might want to consider the fairness of your maligning of the OLO staff with the ongoing suggestions of editorial sexism.

R0bert

Robert
There are over 3,000 articles in OLO archives, and you can look through those articles to find those that are positive of a male, or of the male gender (eg http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/feature.asp). It is a fact that very few are, and because of sheer number of articles in OLO, one would have to suspect editorial bias, and the general environment of OLO is anti-male / pro-female, and this constitutes the majority of feminism also.

It could be part of a social system, where it is deemed socially acceptable to blame a male for some problem, but considered socially unacceptable to blame or even implicate a female. This is a protective mechanism for the female gender, but often it leads to myths or false beliefs being developed, as females are often to blame, or are equally implicated. DV, and child abuse are ready examples; Prostitution and Sex Slavery are probably others.

I have heard of one article being rejected by OLO, (on CSA), but the exact details I am unsure of, but there is a considerable amount of flaming and name calling from some posters, and many of their posts have very little or nothing to do with the topic. I would suspect the forum moderation is bias also, as such posts are outside of forum rules.

I see the allegation of Sex Slavery as just one more allegation being directed at males. Many of these allegations seem to fit a pattern. Someone makes the allegation originally, then others make that allegation also (like spreading a rumour). Eventually the allegation becomes widespread, but some time latter a researcher is granted money to investigate the allegation. Invariably it is found false, a half-truth, or the female gender is equally implicated (eg Drink Spiking). But by that time, the allegation is imbedded into people’s thinking as being true, and only males are implicated or to blame. In the mean time, a new allegation is started, but investigation is always one step behind the allegation. The overall intent is general demonisation of the male gender, and this has now become widespread within many societies.