Geez Timkins. Way to prove my point.

*goes off to join the dance craze sweeping the forum: Its Not Worth It*

BD,
Sure, rape happens. Some men are capable of committing it through shear strength, some aren’t - they use weapons and stealth. But in plenty of cases women have been strong and willing enough to win. I know of a number events where women have fought off (and in one incident, detained) the offender. It isn't as rare as you would believe.

Further, in many ancient communities (and let’s avoid your good book – not exactly objective), women were a part of defending the town/village and warriors in war and games – for example Egypt, Celts, Romans – the list is quite long. Your comments regarding “no amount of ‘wanting to’ from the women” [being able to defend themselves I assume] are narrow minded and wrong.

I think it safe to say that women don’t ‘need’ men so much as both need each other.

“If a female demonstrated some classy ideas about strategy etc, I see no reason not to consider them.” – Just how patronising is that? “If” for a start. So, you propose that women can’t really be expected to get their head around strategy or the like?

As to the teamwork idea, I actually agree – but if a person is suitable for a job, based on skill, they get the nod – regardless of gender.

As to the opportunity being the wrong question – no it’s not. Role has nothing to do with ability or talent. Blatant sexism is wrong (and archaic) and should in no way affect opportunity.

And just explain how a homosexual being bashed is political? Are you saying the violence and discrimination perpetrated against homosexuals is a political stunt? That those things never happened? Or just that they were justified?

Feel free to invent ‘Christophobia’. It might give you an insight into how others feel for being judged by their difference. Do you now see the flaws in your thinking?

As to the name calling. Thanks for the blessings. Sounds remarkably like some other belief system. You don’t want to get too close to that. You might start seeing similarities!

Reason,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated name-calling (eg “a woman-hater” etc). I will add that to the long list of maligning names I have been called by various feminist supporters.

I have previously answered your questions, (and others like them), in earlier posts, but for me to become a “feminist”, I would really need some specifics:-
* a definition of feminism
* a detailed list of feminist policies,
* a list of web-sites and texts I would be permitted to read as a feminist, and a list of web-sites and texts I would not be permitted to read as a feminist (eg. Could I look at this http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm or look at this, http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php )
* a list of feminists I should regard as being “extremist”, and a list of feminists I should regard as being “non-extremist” (eg would Dr Susan Maushart PhD be an “extremist” feminist, or a “non-extremist” feminist, as no academic has objected to her male maligning comments, and she has also been recommended by the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner).

As well, I would probably need a list of maligning names I can call feminists, (similar to the many maligning names feminists have called me).

If the above were provided, it might convert me into feminism, but until then I will remain totally sceptical of any political or social “ism”, as so many have become totally corrupted in time, by individuals who inevitably regard themselves as being “more equal” than the rest, and from what I see, feminism is now well down that track.

BD, your post, “BOAZ_David, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 9:37:22 PM “, after discussion with others we understand your reply, however, we all believe I should stick to my post, The alchemist, Tuesday, 30 August 2005 1:32:38 PM .

“The only thing you proved with your post is how desperate you appear to be to lock me into some convenient little stereotype from your own bigoted mind (and I really mean 'bigoted' not an insult, an observation)”

No one can lock you into anything Bd, your attitudes, veracity of beliefs, and the self righteous approach you have, is the place you lock yourself into. As we all do.

"Christphobia" :- Definition, those that act with logical reason and understanding to the realities of life and the illusional fallacies of religion.

The true definition of a leader, which I learnt from a military instructor. “The true leader, guides the group to where the group want to go, via the best path and using the best method to reach their goal. Follow this approach and you will always have success for yourself and those that you lead. Other forms of leadership, (religious and political) are designed to increase the power and control desired by the leader. History shows us that these type of leaders, in the end, always fail.”

Reason and others, you will never get those of BD's and Timkins ilk, to see the reality of life, they are fixed into the narrow blindness and fear of losing the thing that sustains them, illusion.

We should humbly accept these facts and pass beyond them, so that we can grow this debate in reason and learning. I believe, we are all on the right track to understanding our gender differences, that in itself is enhancing all our lives, giving us more abilities to work and love together.

O f course there will always be the fanatics, but they also help us keep real, for they show us what we should not be. Isn't that so good, to have such wonderful negative knowledge thrust upon us.

Well at worst, its a good laugh.

Alchemist

Thank you for your down to earth comments. It has been entertaining if rather predictable - on the part of some posters.

I too am optimistic that men and women will continue to grow together. As you have suggested it is the extremists that keep us real. It is too easy to become complacent. As they say for freedom, so too the price of equality is constant viligance.

LOL

The Alchemist,
Thankyou for your unsubstantiated, generalised accusations (eg “fixed into the narrow blindness and fear of losing the thing that sustains them, illusion.”)

But instead of such accusations, you, (or any other feminist), would be better to provide some specific details about feminism, as such details would help ensure that people do not have any illusions about feminism (and no “equality” feminist would ever want that)

Those details would include:-
*a definition of feminism
* a detailed list of feminist policies,
* a list of web-sites and texts I would be permitted to read as a feminist, and a list of web-sites and texts I would not be permitted to read as a feminist (eg. Could I look at this http://www.womynkind.org/scum.htm or look at this, http://www.ifeminists.net/index.php )
* a list of feminists I should regard as being “extremist”, and a list of feminists I should regard as being “non-extremist” (eg would Dr Susan Maushart PhD be an “extremist” feminist, or a “non-extremist” feminist, as no academic has objected to her male maligning comments, and she has also been recommended by the current Sex Discrimination Commissioner).
*a list of maligning names people can call feminists, (similar to the many maligning names feminists have called other people).

I await to be freed from any illusions about feminism, by receiving such details.

Dr Paul
Some interesting recent articles on Day Care Centres and Motherhood.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16470895%255E28737,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,16470905%255E28737,00.html

Perhaps if such information was made more available, (and not hidden or suppressed), then it would result in people being able to give more informed opinions than at present.