The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > How to scare and confound men > Comments

How to scare and confound men : Comments

By Mark Christensen, published 27/2/2006

Of course feminism’s a sham and an indulgence!

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All
Robert and Hamlet.
You both can have an agreeable talk together. Nobody else will talk with you. I wonder ?
Posted by Sarah10, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 11:22:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Scout, you may be correct in that assessment. I've tended to see Seeker as being more focussed on Family Law issues rather than a full scale attack on women but did not manage to spot anything positive about women in a quick scan of his posts.

Still left with the feeling that his posts are more targetted to specific issues than Sarah10's but that may reflect my own biases.

I'd like to know what all the anger is about, that can make it easier to communicate.

Thanks for your post.

Cheers
R0bert
Posted by R0bert, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 11:52:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Here we go again! Using the EXTREMES of what is collectively known as 'feminism' to argue your case. Your only defense comes in the form of attack and so I can only assume you feel threatened.

Since you like talking in extremes, let me give you an extreme example of my own:

In reaction to your 'all sex is rape' contribution to this forum I shall reply with the 'masculine' version: 'All rape is legitimate', 'sexual harassment is a myth', and 'it is the man's God given right to take sex when he pleases'. Believe me I have known a couple. Their wives wear no shoes and clean up the filth after domineering, egoistic men. But then, I am looking at extreme examples, right?

It's a shame that most of you guys feel this way about women, since we all subscribe to feminism to some degree.
Posted by tubley, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 4:58:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
tubley

Did you miss these line?

"The goals of feminism are incredibly valuable and should be supported. The underlying doctrine however basically implies that the concept of the family should be destroyed. What is needed is a new doctrine, not new goals."

I hope to see in my lifetime at least one female Prime Minister, at least half of the Judges in this country to be women. I would like to see a woman as head of the armed forces and many more women in positions of power and influence in business.

In my work place the entire management team is female. I do not find that threatening, because they have achieved those positions by their talents and abilities. I do not believe in ‘affirmative action’, but I do believe in equal opportunity, so that a whether a person gets a job or gets a promotion, has nothing to do with gender (or culture, or age, or disability or any other factor apart from talent and the ability to do the job).

As I have said, the goals of feminism are incredibly valuable and important:

However I would not like to see the basic nature of our society change without the possible outcomes being examined.

Does the current concept of family deserve to survive? From the way that families are dysfunctional now I really doubt it. The future of families and the ideals of feminism are inextricably linked. As is the role of makes in society.

If the ultimate goals of feminism go to their conclusion there will be no place in the world for males. 'Are Males Necessary?' In one version of the feminist world, probably not, to other women who ascribe to some versions of feminism it would probably be nice for men to be around.

Speaking for myself, I see that a society without males would be a utopia - less crime, no rape, less violence. I would probably predict that in ten generations the human male will be extinct, and it will be a good thing.
Posted by Hamlet, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 7:01:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have a lot of time for Hamlet and R0bert but in this case feel they have slightly overreacted to what Sahah10 had to say. Unlike Hamlet’s “Men are scumbags” dissertation which rang so true, Sarah10’s anachronous commentary about the beautiful nurturing nature of modern woman made me wonder whether she had in fact overmedicated or simply overmeditated during those halcyon 60’s and 70’s. Just where did all that flower power and free love dissipate Sarah10?

As for Scout placing me in the same league as Maximus, while flattering, is hardly deserved.

And did I mention that I had issues with Family Law? For one, it works totally against all notions of equality. A concept I readily embraced, but one now considered seriously flawed and totally devoid of credible evidence. I have children of both genders with good reason to worry equally about their futures.

Hamlet, I’m still trying to decipher that last paragraph of that last post of yours.
Posted by Seeker, Wednesday, 8 March 2006 8:39:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Seeker, there is nothing to decipher there, it says what it says.

Increasingly there will be no place for the human male in society, as we know it. “Families” use to be the building blocks of societies, now it is increasingly just individuals. People, of all genders, are putting what they see as their own interests above the interests of the people in their ‘family’. A classic example being the way that both men and women treat children.

Children are seen vicariously as a way of the parents’ success, either in sport, academia or other areas.

But more damagingly is that there is so much evidence that parents simply do not love their children. I have heard a Supreme Court Justice – an eminent man – tell class of schoolboys that if they do law to avoid family law, because of the way that children are used by parents against each other.

This is also clear, both from observing men who in a number of cases won’t pay decent child support, and from women who in their bitterness don’t see that their children are not just THEIR children, but that they need the input of both parents.

The ‘institution’ of the family has largely failed in the light of individualism. This changes the role of men from being husbands and fathers to that of being sperm donors and financial providers.

Love is not seen as an option, in that love involves sacrifice: putting someone else’s interests before your own. This is now out of fashion due to the drive for self-actualisation. Self-actualisation, by all genders, is the enemy of the family, so the family cannot survive. Love cannot survive: some people think that love is a feeling, instead, love is a duty.

And if the family does not survive the only biological imperative for the human species, that is reproduction, will not require actual males’, only sperm, which technology will also increasing mean that force fusion cloning – using the genetic material from two women, will take the place of any requirement for the male at all.
Posted by Hamlet, Thursday, 9 March 2006 8:17:38 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. Page 8
  10. 9
  11. 10
  12. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy