Timkins, “I would think unsubstantiated terms such as “religious nutters” can be regarded as flaming”. Either you are religious, blind or both. A quick look at the world situation will give you all the substantiation you need as to the mental nut cases that make up religion.

We can all see how they view equality between men and women, they express it very well in their actions, attitudes and posts. Luckily they are so programed, that they can't fail to reveal their true intent, even though they try to disguise it.

To see both genders as being other than equal in opportunity just gives ammunition to those that wish to remain in the dark ages. I don't see an difference between the zealots of all ideological persuasions. But I do see that the vast majority of people are really happy that we can all deal with life together, in a harmonious way. You will never change the nutters no matter what their cause, thats life. But we can make sure that their mental aberrations don't' control us.

I feel that we are close to being able to do that as both men and women see that gender is not the problem, but radical ideologies that are so inadequate that they have to try and control everything to support their unsupportable fantasies, are a big worry to our positive evolution.

Timkins you have very good points to make, but constant ranting only alienates those that can see some of the rational you speak off. The inequalities that effect us all, can only be overcome when we all work together to contain and treat the radical, nutters of this world, not support their illogical illusions.

Timkins

R0bert's questions were straight forward and fundamental

Do you think women and men should get equal pay for equal work?
- Do you think women should have the same rights under law as men?
- Do you think that women and men should be allowed the same opportunities based on their ability rather than gender?

Requiring simple YES/NO answers you have attempted to obfuscate and qualify your responses - thus you have not answered his questions.

Alchemist

Appreciate your comments. In many threads on this forum Timkins has valid and well reasoned contributions to make. However on the subject of women and equality he loses the plot all the time. His contribution would be appreciated however he fails to realise that not all feminists are extremists and paints all women as greedy, ineffectual and manipulative. Many posters, male and female, find his comments offensive and insulting.

Xena

Love the quotes - you go girl.

Trinity, I'm was hoping that if we got some clear agreement about the basic's of what I think most feminists are about (my rough attempt to distill it to a short list) we could move on to two key issues
- addressing the areas where those objectives have not been met
- addressing those area's where those objectives have been passed by and become active discrimination against men.

My impression is that Timkins is so focussed on the second that it's hard for him to focus on the first. I don't recall Timkins ever posting anything that says he dislikes actual equality.

BD has previously made his views clear on the issue and they are in my view fairly consistent with common interpretations of the bible even if not helpful to women wishing to explore their potential.

The worry for feminsists is that if some of the excesses are not wound back there may be a swing to far in the opposite direction by way of backlash.

Keep up the interesting posts.

R0bert

Thanks R0bert (this is getting to be a habit)

I believe that the uberfeminist to be in the minority just like other extremists are the minority of the population.

However, I believe that this thread alone highlights the fact of backlash against even moderate feminists like myself. We don't need to get radical to be accused of conspiracy or manipulation of the system. Timkins won't come out and directly say he is against equality - but he won't say that he is in favour of it either. He prefers to qualify everything such as his demands for responses on his terms eg asking for "female" type politicians - this is why I asked him for "male" type politicians - equally absurd.

But hey, in the mean time we are engaging in interesting discussion - and that is great.

Cheers

When I visited this thread a few days ago and the comments had reached 38 in total, I felt that everything had pretty much been said and that was probably the end of it. To my surprise, looking again today I see the comments numbering 68 and rising fast!

What could possibly have happened to have made the discussion continue?

Well from reading, absolutely nothing has changed. Writers were simply going around in circles still argueing over the same points. Struth! And so the sex war continues.

And it will continue until people wake up to all the rubbish and propaganda that surrounds it. That is slowly happening and it's been called "backlash". Of course it isn't a backlash at all, rather a straightening up of life's values to bring about a peaceful end to the war. It's called backlash, because those who promote the war want any arguement against their "progressive" [sic] movement to sound "regressive", which it is not. The so-called backlash is simply a representation for justice, reason and decency. Simply, feminism is hurting, corrupting and even destroying children's lives daily and by that, it is seen by many, including myself as unjust, unreasoned and indecent. But if backlash is what the Marxists want to call it, then so be it.

"Backlash" is alive and well and growing constantly with many women joining the ranks against feminism - a branch of Marxism, designed to destroy traditional families and it was hoped, capitalism with it (Marx manifesto, 1848). That's where this great cry for equality came from and the myth of class oppression of women.

The only oppression suffered by women over the past millenniums has been from their own biology and from that they were "liberated" in the 60s by the contraceptive pill - and feminism had nothing to do with it. It was done by men.

And just as my good comrade Timken has pointed out numerous times in reply to the so-called women's struggle to overcome inequality, that they already have it and more.

Good luck to you Timken, respect!

Zena,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated remarks (eg “puerile” etc). You’ve called many posters many names, and I haven't yet found any evidence to suggest that name-calling and male vilification isn’t an essential part of modern feminism.

I haven’t heard your “jokes” before, but there would be a major difference between them and the male discriminatory comments regularly made by the highly educated feminist Dr Susan Maushart PhD, who is paid taxpayer’s money to be associated with the Curtain University, and whose articles appear weekly in a major national newspaper, and whose works have been recommended by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner.

If researched, you will also find considerable historical connections between Feminism and Marxism and Nazism.

TheAlchemist,
I have no religious affiliations, but calling religious people “nutters” would constitute flaming.

Robert,
If the situation is studied objectively, I cannot find many areas where women don’t have fewer rights than men in our society. Most of the time they have more, as detailed in previous posts.

So many professional feminists must now make their living through continually demonising males, and continually portraying females as being perpetually “oppressed”. They must do this to continue to earn money to pay their bills, so no matter what is done, they will eventually want more, and this has become the situation in Sweden.

Feminists have also trained many women, (and some men), to continuously disparage males, marriage, fathers, children etc, but remove those things from women’s lives, and what is left for many women is just the workplace, and perhaps women’s media.

Unfortunately women’s media is mostly artificial, and there isn’t much satisfaction or fulfilment to be found within many workplaces either. As Susan Maushart PhD has acknowledged upon self-reflection, “I’m as F—ked up as ever”. She has been a long time, self-declared “feminist”, but has achieved minimal life satisfaction or self fulfilment it would appear.

And of course, her works have been recommended by the non-gender biased, but all female Sex Discrimination Commission. The feminist’s version of “equality” is clear enough.

Maximus,
I fully agree with your analysis of modern feminism.