Speaking only for myself, i have learnt over the years that lieing is simply part and parcel of the feminist thing. I always read female academics with the assumption that they have relied on advocacy research or falsehoods most people are too nice to question. That is why i have decided to be 'nasty', because to be nice is most likely to be trapped in the feminist strategy. feminists have lowered the ehical standards for the entire human race. Child abuse is symptomatic of how creepy humans can be but at the same time woman getting away with murdering children and you don't hear the femos screaming aout it.

Posted by Hedgepig, Tuesday, 26 September 2006 2:32:01 PM
"Actually, female abuse of children fits quite well into our patriarchal model. You know, man kicks woman, woman kicks child, child kicks dog."

Yes that fits very nicely - if men are violent that is men's fault - if women are violent that is men's fault too. So, whenever anything anywhere is wrong - blame men - yeah, that seems pretty much the feminist position. In fact the figures show that women are not only more likely to initiate violence against children than men they are more likely to initiate violence against men than men are to initiate violence against them. Check out the just released Personal Safety Survey by the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

"What is most amazing about what I'm reading around here is how much power and influence you all seem to think feminists have. If only! Haven't any of you noticed the government we've had for the past ten years?"

Yeah, I have. It set up an Office for the Status of Women. It empowered the "Equal Rights Commissioner" Pru Goward - one of the most rampant misandrists in Australia and every university in the country has a department of Women's Studies. Men have no equivalent lobby groups.

Your comments simply show a complete lack of appreciation of what it is like to be an ordinary man in the modern world. I dont mean high flying CEO's or PM's I mean being an ordinary guy in Australian in 2006

Citizen said: "Speaking only for myself, i have learnt over the years that lieing is simply part and parcel of the feminist thing."

Well said and many women and men would agree with you.

People get very frustrated with radical feminists' disregard for the truth and their continual concoction of 'facts'- which they fiercely defend even when proven to be lies.

Radical feminism was and is always about rhetoric - a zone where truth is flexible. To a feminist a person with ethics is a fool. It is a game of bullying and bluff.

In Lewis Carrol's Through The Looking Glass, Humpty Dumpty says "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean--neither more nor less." Humpty Dumpty could easily have been a feminist.

You cannot deal in good faith with feminists because they refuse to act in good faith.

Rob513264 wrote: It(The Howard Government) set up an Office for the Status of Women. It empowered the "Equal Rights Commissioner" Pru Goward - one of the most rampant misandrists in Australia

If you can find feminism in this government, we really must be inhabiting parallel universes.

Rob513264 wrote: Your comments simply show a complete lack of appreciation of what it is like to be an ordinary man in the modern world. I dont mean high flying CEO's or PM's I mean being an ordinary guy in Australian in 2006

Isn't it a bit odd to blame the troubles of the ordinary man on ordinary women who just want a bit of equality, instead of blaming those troubles on the the people with actual power such as those "high-flying CEOs or PMs"? Or is it just easier and safer to blame a group of people who don't have a lot of money and influence? (And if you come up with some statistics now that prove that women actually get paid far more than men for equivalent work and that all the major players in the world are actually women disguised as men I really..well, actually I really won't be very surprised).

Good on you, hedgepig, but you have entered the club of blokes who use "feminist" sometimes with the epithet "radical" attached to attack any and all attempts to point out that women may have suffered and in some instances may continue to suffer from an endemic imbalance of power. Part of the evidence of this is that any and all examples of women holding any power (office of status of women- absorbed by this govt into the office of that well known feminist sympathiser the PM) over their own fate are seen as dastardly plots aimed at cutting off all men's balls. Like some of the religious who seem terrified of any alternative points of view, this desperate defensiveness would appear to indicate that some men's balls are very fragile appendages indeed.
Barbara's article seemed reasonable enough to me. After reading her books, it is hardly surprising she might have a rather heightened suspicion of powerful men in the legal profession. Nowhere did I see her claim that all men are abusers, she did suggest many men may have a harder time understanding the fears and feelings of the abused than women. Given some of the responses above, I'd say they have certainly helped support her case.

Erin Pizzey wrote that she wasn't seeing social workers graduate from universites but political activists.

Eeva Sohdi wrote about what she saw as activist judges.
http://www.fathersforlife.org/Sodhi/remarks_McLachlin1.htm

"Both McLachlin and L'Heureux-Dubé are self-confessed feminists. In a just society no law can be applied according to the personal agenda or perception of a judge, especially if that judge openly embraces such radical ideology as feminism. We could hardly tolerate a member of the Aryan Nation to deliver a verdict concerning racial tolerance.

If our judges and law enforcement agencies are, indeed, trained by an organization which bases its dogma on partial truths and outright lies, as shown..., then they can be seen to be participants in the effort to subvert justice."