Reason,
You have just used parts of No 3 on the feminist “loop” as described at
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2466#14759

IE
3/ Portray women as being perpetually oppressed:-
- Always portray women as being forever victims of men.
- Attempt to use anecdotal evidence only, and infer that it is always representative of the whole.

Your “I have asked around a few of my female friends/colleagues” is basically using anecdotal evidence, and that type of evidence has no reliability or scientific basis at all, yet feminist text and feminist books are filled with it.

Lets run the world on anecdotal evidence.
Is the earth round or flat -> I’ll just ask amongst my group of friends.
Is inflation going up or down -> I’ll just ask amongst my group of friends.

It appears that so many feminists are now totally addicted to anecdotal evidence, but if feminism wants to be taken seriously, (and not just regarded as being a total rort:- filled with lies, bias, deceit, double standards, half-truths, misinformation, brainwashing and hypocrisy) then probably anecdotal evidence is one of the first things that will have to go.

But big ask for "progressive" feminists I think.

Timkins

I guess I share some of your frustrations. I would also like feminists to provide succinct: definitions. philosophies, policies and the like. Even so, I think that you are pushing it up hill to get it here. From my observations, people on OLO seem to be conservative in their views - albeit quite insulting at times. This is hardly the forum to get your wishes - sorry.

If you read back to my earlier posts you will see that I have studied feminism at university level. But I also made it clear that I hold some feminist values and many traditional values. I don't see any reason to run on one bandwaggon and not the other. I enjoy balancing my views and leaving myself open for change. For me that is life - on going learning and change.

Cheers
Kay

Timkins,
I was not responding to any of your comments. You have become very tedious and boring. Please note, these are not feminist words. They exist in the real world…but I can see the loop coming on anyway.

I don’t think you have it in you to be anything remotely resembling moderate on this issue. I am predicting the usual pointless rant from you (thankyou for denigrating/insulting/blah blah blah…).

If you so chose to find some sensible things to discuss instead of revealing your inner anger (thankyou for your unsubstantiated blah blah blah…) I’d be happy to chat further. As it is, I don’t need my Psych degree to see you have some real issues left over from a bad run in with a woman in the past (thankyou again… unsubstantiated…blah blah..)

And you portray all men as victims of the feminist extremism of the world. Your portrayal of this situation is over-inflated and based on your anecdotal (i.e. personal experience). I’d guess you won’t tell us what it was as it would simply confirm what most of the posters believe is fact: you had a bad time of it and blame feminist (thankyou… unsubstantiated.. blah… blah.. blah…)

What the heck. Sorry Tim, so I see no point in spending any more time responding to you.

Long live women and men in equality and mutual respect. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Timken, I admire your persistence.

But then, do I perceive you sit back reading the posts of others with a wry smile? Do I perceive that you're a bit of a naughty man leading the others around a merry-go-round from which there is no escape, teasing and taunting them to stay on and to have the last word over you?

Yes, I believe I do. Good luck to you mate. It's always best to have a good chuckle at the other fellow's expense - especially when he doesn't even know it's happening. That's a class act. It simply goes to prove, we're not at all equal and the presumption of human equality could only be entertained by fools - or feminists.

Reason,
You say you have a Psychology Degree. Congratulations, but was it a special “feminist” Psychology Degree, or just an ordinary Psychology Degree, and did it teach you to automatically believe without question, anything someone else says?

Many “feminists” seem to want other people to call themselves “feminist” as well, (like some type of cult), but any careful person would want to learn much about “feminism”, before they commit to calling themselves a “feminist” also.

I have been trying to be very polite to feminists, and I have thanked them whenever they have called me maligning names, and I have thanked them whenever they have made unsubstantiated, (or made up), inferences about me also. So I thank you for calling me so many maligning names in the past, (eg “tedious”, “boring” etc), and for making so many unsubstantiated inferences about me in so many posts (eg “you had a bad time of it” etc). You seem a very well practised feminist (and a degree in Psychology as well).

However:- still no feminist has provided specific details about their “ism” called feminism, and I think they are simply following Step 2 in the feminist procedure loop.

IE
2/ If asked questions about feminism:-
- State that feminism is “progressive”, and means “equality” and “democracy”, but provide no elaboration, specific details or feminist policies.
- Immediately attempt to silence anyone who asks questions about feminism, (eg. call them maligning names, state that they are trying to “send women back to the 1950’s” etc).
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2466#14759

Continuous failure to answer specific question about “feminism”, only makes “feminism” even more suspect.

Maximus
I tend to think that feminists are becoming universally predictable. (see the procedure loop at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2466#14759 and the list of techniques at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=2940#883)

At present I think most feminists would be no better than the “Spin Sisters” involved in so much of women’s media. http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=12885

The Spin Sisters within women’s media, and the Spin Sisters within feminism, seem to operate very much the same.

Lol. 'Special Feminist' psycology degree. Timkins, you are an endless source of entertainment.

The fact that the term 'feminist' cannot be clearly defined is not because it is some sort of 'rort', silly. It's because it's a vague term. It can be applied to reasonable people and to maniacs. You're arguing against the maniacs, others here are defending the reasonable people.

Do you see what I mean? Timkins has such a different idea of what feminism is, he is in fact arguing against a completely different thing that others are defending, rendering the whole debate rather pointless.

Timkins, it's just a vague term, ok? That doesn't make it bad. It just makes it vague. It's all about the context in which it's used, like so much of our crazy english language.

I consider the term to mean nothing more than someone who believes in equality. Others consider it to mean other things. Fine. But Timkins, if you believe in equality, as far as I am concerned you are a feminist.

It's not about a power struggle, it's about not worrying about things like struggling for power!

But we all have to have something to hate, right? Timkins hates feminists. BOAZ hates Islam. Perseus hates marijuana. Philo and Grey hate science.

I'm tired of hate. Pointless. Chill out everyone, it's the weekend!

I
Love
EVERYONE!

Seeyas monday