How ironic Timkins should start quoting Animal Farm. For many years now and in this very forum, men have been telling women that we are already equal – to a limited extent, provided we acknowledge that having periods and being so much more physically weaker than all other men does limit us to particular 'roles' - but of course some are more equal than others. Well we’re still in the barnyard while the ‘boys’ are still dominating the big house (politics/business/religion).

Please note that the majority of men are just as powerless as women to the ‘boys in the big house’ – it has been said in other forums that men have more to fear from other men than from women. There is a vested interest by those currently in power to maintain the status quo. By hey why let reality get in the way of the Great Feminist World Domination Conspiracy.

Timkins has yet to provide proof of this ‘conspiracy’ he rants on so much about. Providing links to extremists no more proves his claims than do links to the KKK prove that all Christians are out for world domination.
He continues to ask for “female” type policies, apparently oblivious to the fact that issues that are of great importance to women in the Sudan differ from those to women in China, Indonesia and here in good old Australia. But it sounds like Timkins is saying something meaningful to rant on about this.

It was only just over 22 years I still would’ve had to seek permission from my estranged husband for overseas travel – the officer processing my passport and visa informed me that if I had applied only a few weeks earlier in the year of 1983 I would have had to go to my control freak of an ex to ask his permission to travel.

Yeah, we’ve come a long way, baby.

Boaz
I think the definition of gender differences, is open to interpretation, particularly by progressive feminists.

In the Violence Against Women Act in the US, there is an amendment being proposed from feminist organisations that women can not be asked to undertake a polygraph test (but males can). The reason for this appears to be founded on the belief that women can not lie (but males can).

That appears to be an important version of the differences between the genders.

The Justice Department in the US has also been asked to better define Domestic Violence and abuse. They have stated that it can include "name-calling and constant criticizing, insulting, and belittling the victim,"

All sounds very similar to the University academic feminist when she writes about men, fathers, ex-husbands etc, in her weekly column in The Weekend Australian. But her remarks are mostly about males, so it does appear to constitute abuse, and no other academic has ever objected to my knowledge. That appears to be another important difference.

Trinity,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated maligning remarks (eg “rants” etc). You and other feminists have now called me many names (eg “childish”, “foolish”, “the big t” etc), and it now definitely appear that name calling is a very important part of progressive feminism.

So could you please supply a list of maligning names you would to be called.

Timkins, has it occurred to you that people get frustrated with you and end up "maligning" you because you seem to:
a) deliberately misinterpret people's meanings
b) deliberately derail discussions
c) deliberately look on the negative side, particuarly in regards to discussions where men and women are the 'topic'.

Now please note that I have said "seem to". I do not know how 'deep down real Timkins' feels about issues, only your online persona, which can be rather frustrating to 'talk' to.

Laurie,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated accusations(eg you seem to: “deliberately misinterpret people's meanings,”, “deliberately derail discussions”, ”deliberately look on the negative side”, etc). No examples or elaboration provided.

But I am trying to gain a full understanding of this thing called “feminism”, so I am trying to get a definition of feminism, and detailed list of feminist policies, and also a list of names I can call people who consider themselves feminist (similar to the names they have called other people).

Knowledge about any “ism” becomes important, as many people who have formed “isms”, have often tended to think of themselves as being “more equal” than others, and then they tend to disadvantage or mistreat other people that they regarded as being “less equal”.

In fact, last century, people who belonged to various “isms” killed many millions of other people, because those people were thought “less equal”.

I have been called a whole series of maligning names by various supporters of this “ism” called “feminism”, so I must be regarded as being “less equal”, or “less progressive” than they are. So to become “equal” and “progressive”, I would probably have to say that I am a “feminist” also. This would likely please “feminists”, although no one seems to be able to provide an acceptable definition of what feminism is, or provide a detailed list of progressive feminist policies.

I hope this does not seem confusing, like articles written by the professional academic feminist and male maligner, Dr Susan Maushart PhD.

Timkins,
I am a male (a guy, a man, a bloke – just so you get that) and you appear to me to be a woman-hater. You can’t seem to get off the topic that all women must be feminist supremist or that all feminists want to degrade and hate men.

Now, before you jump up and down, thanking me (!) for calling you names and asking for proof that you ever espoused something like this, it’s not just in your direct statements but it’s in your avoiding answering questions yourself or saying anything remotely positive about women.

I asked you a number of questions. You claim to have answered them. Where? I went back through the thread and all you have done is claim there is a conspiracy to put women on top. You answered the question R0bert put to you by stating a few ‘facts’ about things that had happened about the world but you did not state what your own beliefs were with respect to those things. Try that. What do you think about:

- Women having equal rights to men
- Women having equal opportunity to do what they wish (to the extent that man does)
- Women being equally capable of leading and decision making as men

Just for now, forget the abuses of the system by extreme feminists (no, not forget altogether, just for a moment). Just answer with your opinions on these questions. Then we can take the matter further – I know you can, because you have said some quite lucid and intelligent things on other threads.

Timkins, I ask you to take a moment to calm and consider the questions I have posed.

REASON....

name calling ? :) (delusional. dumb) May blessing be heaped upon you.

Lets subject your comment about 'female of the species' and defending the young.

Hmm.. I answer that with one word "RAPE".. i.e. some men, through their superior (deliberate use of that word here ) physical strength, often rape women. That is evidence that without male protection, no amount of 'wanting to' from the women will be able to protect themsel es and infants from marauding soldiers. So clearly, my statements about the male protecting, stand validated.

I'm not surprised you picked up on the apparent inconsistency about 'male leadership' of town village etc and my mention of Maggie Thatcher (don't forget Deborah in the Old Testament).

At a national level in 'today's social historical conditions', it is quite true that a female can lead as M.T. did, It was also quite true of the Old patriarchal period. I don't think that invalidates my assertion that in a typical village situation, it will be the guys out front. If a female demonstrated some classy ideas about strategy etc, I see no reason not to consider them. After all, its really teamwork mate. But teams have full fowards who kick goals, and full backs who prevent them. If everyone wants to be Full Forward.. will the team win ?

On you question to the Big T "Do women have equal opportunity" ?
It is the wrong question. Opportunities should reflect our gender differences.

Extreme Religious Stupidity ? (more names ? :)

The observation that Homophobia and Sexism are invented political terms is quite well documented and stands substantiated.

I might invent one now, "Christphobia" .