I love the post about Timkins being a loop post with a few added words to fool us all.
Having given him my definition of feminism about 100 posts ago, what his oft repeated question really means is until you give him a definition of feminism he is prepared to accept, you haven't given him one.
There is a definition in the dictionary, and here it is, from Websters Dictionary.
Feminism: the principle that women should have political, economic and social rights equal to those of men. Direct quote, Timkins, does that qualify as a definition? Or do you reject the dictionary? Not superior to, equal to, do you disagree with that? If you don't, you're a feminist.
And, as I've pointed out before, Susan Maushart is a satirist, its meant to be funny. Don't you ever crack a laugh at your own gender's expense, Timkins? I laugh at women all the time, including myself. Life's a great deal more pleasant when you do.

I believe men can, and should, also be feminists. Anyone with a good grasp of history can see that women HAVE been, and in many countries still ARE shockingly discriminated against. Hurrah for modern Aussie society where this is no longer the case!

Also, heh. Timkins as a text recognition loop. I like the idea. Makes the repetitiveness easier to deal with!

Timkins, I'll have a go (how I treat the topic). Sorry to those of you who know what you are talking about if I've got it wrong.

*a definition of feminism
- A belief that men and women should be treated equally with responsibility and opportunity based on our individual ability rather than our gender. I think that most gender differences (apart from the yummy physical ones) represent a perceived mean on a curve. The curves overlap so saying that one gender is better at something than the other does not represent individual abilities.

* a detailed list of feminist policies,
- No such thing, everything gets tested against the previous core goal in the definition. At most there may be lists of target areas of concern.

* 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
- I'm not much into censorship and tend to base my reading my view of the usefulness of material. I read for recreation, reinforcement, to know my enemy and to test my own thinking against others.

* a list of feminists I should regard as being “extremist”, and a list of feminists I should regard as being “non-extremist”
- Test what they say and do against the core value of equality. If they demonstrate a drive for supremacy and win lose situations they are extremists. Does Dr Maushart make jokes about feminist women as often as she makes jokes about men? Individuals will change over time and depending on the subject (eg you and I are more intense about family law than on most other topics).

*a list of maligning names people can call feminists, (similar to the many maligning names feminists have called other people).
- There is no acceptable list. Individuals within any grouping will exhibit a variety of behaviours. There are plenty of other ways of being rude even without name calling etc. Some practice regularly, for others it is the exception.

cheers
R0bert.

Reason,
Keep re-reading my earlier posts and links. You seem very confused regards the rights of a male, and the rights of a “feminist” (IE. “I cannot be [a feminist] because I am a male”). Does that say anything to you?

Enaj
Finally, you’ve given a definition of “feminism”. Unfortunately, there are 100’s of “isms”.

Eg
Absolutism:- doctrine of government by a single absolute ruler
Absurdism:- doctrine that we live in an irrational universe
Academicism:- doctrine that nothing can be known etc,

What’s so special about the “ism” called “feminism”.

You say Dr Susan Maushart PhD is a “satirist”, (although she’s won major writer’s awards, and has been recommended by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner). Dr Susan Maushart PhD has made the most discriminatory remarks about males, fathers, children etc, with no objection shown from academics or politicians, although there has been much objection to comments made by people such as Fraser, Brogden, Abbot etc. I wonder why the difference?

So, apart from a definition of “feminism”, I would still need to know the following:-

*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).

And now

*a list of feminists who are satirists (and can make discriminatory remarks), and a list of feminists who are not satirists (and cannot make highly discriminatory remarks).

Robert,
Mao Tse-Tung’s core philosophy (or propaganda) was based on “equality”. He killed many millions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

“You seem very confused regards the rights of a male, and the rights of a “feminist” (IE. “I cannot be [a feminist] because I am a male”). Does that say anything to you?”

No Timkins, I am not confused regarding the rights of men and the rights of feminists – they are the same thing. It was just that I had my own idea about what feminism was – which is different things to different people. Though I am happy and proud to be included as a feminist by reasonable females.

And you have not answered the questions. How do I get through to you? I read all of your posts. You make statements and voice opinions regarding aspects of feminism you dislike and their agenda but you make no discernable statement with respect to the very simple questions I asked.

Instead of redirecting me, why not take a very small moment to write a simple yes or no beside the question. Here, I’ll paste it in again….
- Do you think that women should have equal rights to men?
- Do you think women should have an equal opportunity to do what they wish (to the extent that man does)?
- Do you think women are equally capable of leading and decision making as men?

Should be easy now…

Reason - your persistence is awesome and your patience beyond compare.

In the next exciting post.....

Will Timkins give a simple 'Yes' or 'No'.

Will he ask again for a definition of feminism?

Can he make a post without mentioning Susan Maushart?

Will Timkins ever answer my request for a definition of male politics?

May be he really is stuck on a perpetual loop.

Stayed tuned folks....