Surprisingly I now realise that I am a male post-feminist. I believe in equal rights for all people, that everyone should have enough to eat and a roof over their head etc. My problem is basically I cannot envisage anyone begrudging a fellow human being these rights. It may be that I am more compassionate than most because I am an identical twin, who shares the physiology but not the psycology of my twin. As hard as he is, I am soft, and so on like to sides of a coin we will never agree.

Anyone who champions unequal rights, that people should starve, not have shelter, discrimination, not only do I not agree with them I can't imagine how it is that they reach those conclusions, to me they are living in another dimension of reality to the one that I occupy. Today's society in Australia seems to be based on greed and selfishness the fact that last year our overseas debt was 75 billion dollars would confirm that, we used to have an Australian identity, of helping your mates [male or female] wasn't important, wasn't charged for, we were simply a humanitarian country. I believe we still are deep down. However since consumerism was inherited it has festered like an infected wound to our identity, sometimes I wish we as a society could return to the 60's however my dear departed old Dad would say "pee in one hand mate, and wish in the other, and see which one gets filled first" even these Aussie expressions have been hijacked

Cireena Simcox makes some excellent points about the complex nature of feminism. I agree with the general sentiment she conveys; but I think her article could have been stronger in two respects.

First, it is simplistic to argue, as she does, that the reasons for the inflammatory rhetoric against feminists and feminisim "could probably be ascribed mainly to complete misunderstanding or indeed widespread ignorance". While I agree that misunderstanding and ignorance are very common, in my opinion it is more important to acknowledge that a lot of the hostility stems from the threat to men whose positions of power and relative privilege would require 'adjustment' if feminist principles were enacted in practice. If power - and all that accompanies it - is to be shared more equally, the more power some women gain, the more power some men lose. That's an uncomfortable scenario for many men to contemplate, so they rationalise their fear in the rhetoric of 'hairy armpits' or 'naturalistic' assertions about female characteristics.

Second, in attempting to correct the limited definition of feminism, I think Cireena Simcox is in danger of muddying the concept - "a feminist is anyone who thinks that every person - regardless of gender, age or ethnicity - has the right to follow their own dreams". If you're going to include age and ethnicity, why not race, religion, socio-economic status (class) and all the other indicators of inequalities?

In its earlier forms, feminists tended to focus too narrowly on the rights and opportunities of a narrow stratum of women; and it is right and proper that they now see the important connections between gender and other determinants of inequality. But in essence, feminism remains an issue about gender equality (for males and females).

I can tell you what a feminist is not, it's not Germaine Greer, or those like her.

They are racists (I'll explain why in a moment) who have simply hijacked the debate, and use it to attack white males - who have given them more rights than any coloured man ever has.

They are racists because, from the early '70's onwards, they adopted post-colonialist, multiculturalist, policy, which skewered their reasoning, and made them argue points such as female genital mutilation is acceptable in certain African and Muslim cultures.

Germaine Greer herself is on record stating that FGM is alright for Muslim women.

This is racism, since she would never allow such barbarity to occur to her, her daughters, or those she cares about.

They are simply protecting misoginists in Muslim nations when they say this, but what it really says is that women from such cultures aren't as important to them as women from the west.

A feminist should be one that cares for women, full stop. Not just women who are white.

Thanks for a great read. There's a number of people on this forum who I hope pay close attention to this article, as the term is far too often thrown around and misused without a proper understanding of the meaning.

I speak of all extremes:
* Conservatives (generally males) who say "but duh, men and women are different! And women have babies so they should stay home!"
* grrl power advocates who think feminism means the right to wear tinsy skirts, and
* angry confused tomboys who think feminism means blaming men for everything wrong in the world.

Maybe its more difficult to grasp for some people, and this is where the confusion comes from, but to me it's quite simple: feminism means the right for both males and females to live their lives and pursue their dreams how they choose without being restricted by gender. And if the message in this article gets through to just one person, the author can be proud.

Awsome.

Signed,
A young male who is both a feminist, and still in touch with his own masculinity...

So the author says we should listen to the superficial spin and not drill beneath? That is not likely when feminist academics and bureaucrats are beavering away influencing youth and politicians. For instance, it matters to mothers that boys may be treated as defective girls in school.

There are core beliefs of Western feminism that are nutty and nasty and reflect the lesbian, Marxist academics who tout them. Mind you, they are less forthcoming in public about their beliefs, such as their desired State control of our daily lives.

Many women are offended by the ad hominem arguments of modern feminists: men, boys and masculinity are guilty of all sorts of awful things, conspiring against women to hold them in servitude. What a load of tosh! Radical and gender feminists have taken anti-male bias to breathtaking limits.

Feminism is a political movement. It is fine to argue when it suits that feminism is a broad church and maybe one should just accept the extremists, but the central tenets are usually the same and some have nasty connotations for society, with nothing viable offered in return, other than the belief that socialism will fix all things.

Rather than admonish people for criticising feminism, we should be encouraging frank and fearless debate of Western feminist philosophy and its goals and strategies. Who gains from secrecy and lack of scrutiny?

The author has been a journalist for twenty years and she would have encountered politicians and other ‘knobs’ who are wont to say ‘Never you mind’ and ‘Trust me’. She would have seen them act miffed and offended to avoid uncomfortable questions. Why then should we accept the same behaviour from feminists who claim to represent women’s interests? If it is all good and clean why not let it hang out on the line for all to see?

With the greatest respect to the author, this article reminds me of the (late) Joh Bjelke Peterson 'feeding the chooks'.

Cireena Simcox says this: “Issues such as the defeat of the Equal Rights Amendments Bill in America illuminate how little headway feminism has made as a political force in recent years.” And she then pears the victory off, with this: “For this reason modern feminists (sometimes rather confusingly referred to as post-feminists) both male and female, have returned more to their humanist roots than their political ones.’

And then she says:

“Today a feminist in the social context is simply a person, once again male or female, who is concerned about injustice and the rights of those who are under-represented such as certain groups of women, minority and ethnic groups, those living under oppressive regimes and children.”

And then proceeds to split the ‘Rights’ logic by saying: “Although the movement has spawned off-shoots both more and less political, more and less radical and more and less visible, post-modern feminism most certainly is not about hating men, envying men or wanting equality with men.”; but only if they are less equal in their rights.

Simcox follows on with Marxologist perspectives (the Material Dialectic):

A feminist is not a woman with hairy armpits and a chip on her shoulder. For those with no wish to plough through hundreds of books detailing the convoluted history of the movement until the present day: a feminist is anyone who thinks that every person - regardless of gender, age or ethnicity - has the right to follow their own dreams.'

Cont’d:

Simcox adds her political cleavage in the same form as above, through these 3 concluding sentences:

“The right for either a man or a woman to stay at home and raise a family is a feminist imperative. The necessity for every woman, regardless of inclination or aptitude to follow a proscribed direction either as a homemaker or a career person, is not.”

“The right for either a man or a woman to reach their career goals, be it as a florist, nanny or CEO, is also a feminist imperative. The need for every working woman to ape her male counterparts is not.”

“Feminists do not believe that all women are caring, sharing and empathetic. They don’t believe that all men are violent. Neither do they believe that the way to correct the wrongs in a patriarchal society is to turn it into a matriarchal one.”

And then Simcox finishes by telling all us men that we can just P-O:
“So go on, people. Fight your gender wars, vilify each other, stick on labels, generalise and be hateful to your heart’s content. Just leave feminists out of it.”

I argue that the Feminist propaganda has never been more convoluted and obscure, than in the example we see in this article. It is unlikely that it will change anytime in the near future; even though Clinton and Gillard are set to rock the Leftist Feminist political scene in the most profound way history has yet to see in the modern era.

I was born in 1940, so experienced many forms of inequality. I saw myself as feminine although I had to work for my father as his head stockman. I saw myself as my husband's equal, when we married and bought a farm, although I devoted a large portion of my time to raising five children, feeding workers, doing all the book-keeping, doing all the housekeeping and cooking, plus assisting with farm work.
So I was horrified during a census in the 1960's when I wasn't allowed to declare my occupation as a 'farmer'. I was told by the collecter of these forms that I must call myself a housewife. Playing the bush lawyer I objected so vociferously that I was finally allowed to claim to be a paid housekeeper and paid piggery attendant.
It was about this period that Merle Thornton and a friend chained themselves to a Brisbane bar and demanded the right to be served lemonade. The Australian Womens'Weekly offered money for similar inequality stories. Other writers received payment of five pounds, but as the best story to be published, I received ten pounds.
I am still, as I approach the age of 67, encountering inequality issues. As women, we can never give up this fight. I despair sometimes when I see young girls take the rights won by their grandmothers for granted.
As a more recent story, I presented to a young female receptionist to register to see a doctor. When asked my occupation, I replied, "I'm a farmer."
She giggled and said, "Will I write farmeress?"
"Not unless I'm going to see the doctoress!" I snapped.

Cireena Simcox asks why feminism provokes such negative reactions. She answers that people imagine there was a utopian past and that they need a scapegoat to explain its loss.

Can I provide an alternative explanation? The mainstream of feminism is based on the theory of patriarchy. According to this theory, what makes us human is our power to enact our will. Women, observe the patriarchy theorists, have less formal power in society (political and economic). Therefore, they inhabit a system which makes them less human than men.

Why would this occur? Patriarchy theorists can't answer that different social roles reflect natural differences between men and women as (by the logic of their argument) this would make women naturally inferior to men. Therefore patriarchy theorists are committed to the idea that gender difference is socially constructed.

So why the power differential? The answer given by patriarchy theorists is that men have organised a power grab at the expense of women, and that society is organised to maintain a male dominance. Therefore, marriage, family life, sexuality, domestic violence and romantic love are all equally aspects of an oppressive patriarchy.

The problem is that having accepted this theoretical framework, feminism became highly disruptive to normal relationships between men and women. First, it made feminist women think of men as a hostile oppressor group. Second, it placed emphasis on women competing for economic and political power, and downgraded the importance of family life. Third, it denied the real status of gender difference, seeing masculinity and femininity instead as oppressive social constructs to be overthrown.

There is a whole generation now which has had to cope with the derailment of normal patterns of family formation. There are lots of reluctant bachelors and spinsters and many women saddened by an unnecessary childlessness.

This has undoubtedly placed feminists on the back foot. Whilst I'm glad that Cireena Simcox is arguing for a less radical version of feminism, it would help if women like her would acknowledge the more negative effects of mainstream feminism - effects which flow logically from feminist political theory.

White Feather Feminism

"By 1914, sexual issues permeated the literature and propaganda of virtually every suffrage organization. Prostitution and venereal disease were the favored topics employed to illustrate the condition of women in a male-controlled society (Kent 159). As the influence of the Pankhurst’s WSPU (Women’s Social and Political Union) increased, so did the sexualized nature of the feminist struggle play out in the public forum. On the eve of Britain’s war with Germany, the domestic war between the sexes was already in full force."

The author states; " The advantage of choosing feminism as the scapegoat factor is that, to date, no feminists have claimed responsibility for either blowing something up, shooting anyone or taking hostages. They are relatively safe protagonists."

Erin Pizzey writes: "Biba was bombed because the women's movement thought it was a capitalist enterprise devoted to sexualising women's bodies."

Others such as researchers, Gelles, Steinmetz have been subjected to bomb and death threats. Erin Pizzey has even had bullets fired at her premises.

Erin Pizzey, Gelles and Steinmetz have all experienced censorship of their work.

The author writes about inflammatory rhetoric, yet a lot of the dialogue in the past has been inflammatory rhetoric from feminists.

Mark Richardson, a nice try, but too glib by far. The claim that different social roles reflect what you call "natural" (magic word) differences and make women naturally inferior to men is illogical. You may prefer it to be the case, but difference need not be synonymous with some notion of merit or a relativity of inferiority/superiority.

Your construction of feminism or feminist political theory then is deeply flawed and the social dislocations that you desribe sounds like masculine sour grapes.

Part I: Learning War No More?

The Context: development of the warrior is an integral part of Human culture -- war as essential human activity

"...the arrival of the Normans represented a quite new force on the scene, the coming of a people distinguished, above all, by military prowess -- ...

"Part of the change was towards a new cruelty, brutality and blood-thirstiness, for savagery was as important a part of the images as vigour and valour."

In this culture, the place of the female is subordinate, being a non-warrior. She, when conquered, is merely plunder, a commodity, rather than a human being (nowadays, trophy girlfriend or wife,i.e. sans mind, sans words):

"...what is 'phallocracy'? Literally meaning 'power of the phallus,'
it is a cultural system symbolized by the image of the male reproductive organ...It is marked by, but is far more particular than, the dominance of men over women in the public sphere...the concept denotes a successful claim by a male elite to general power, buttressed by a display of the phallus less as an organ of union or of mutual pleasure than as a kind of weapon: a spear or war club, and a scepter of sovereignty. In sexual terms, phallocracy takes such forms as rape, disregard of the sexual satisfaction of women, and access to the bodies of prostitutes who are literally enslaved or allowed no other means of support. In the political sphere, it spells imperialism and patriarchal behavior in civil affairs."

Contraculture:the Bible

Gal 3:28:

There is neither Jew nor Greek...bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

Micah 4:3:

and they shall beat their swords into plowhares...nation shall not lift up a sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more.

Beating up on women physically, psychologically, in the public sphere -- extruding femininine traits from the warrior personality -- is learning war. The question is, when does incorporating the learning of war begin to create a zero-sum game for the entire planet i.e. nuclear, chemical, biological wars which demolish the species?

FrankGol, you misunderstood. I was describing the internal logic of patriarchy theory, not my own views.

It is feminists who argued themselves into the position that gender difference made women inferior. They did so by accepting the idea that our humanity is contingent and that we only become human through an act of creating who we are through our own reason and will.

Since the female role was seen to be more based on the emotions rather than reason, and since women had less formal economic and political power, feminists then thought that women were less human as things stood.

Hence the determination to believe that traditional gender qualities and roles were oppressive social constructs which could be overturned.

My view is that feminists were wrong to accept the initial assumption about what makes us human. They were wrong to see our humanity as being contingent on acts of power or on an autonomous reason unimpeded by biology or the emotions.

What if, for instance, our particular loves and attachments helped to define our humanity? Then men and women could be distinct in their gender qualities and social roles, but still consider themselves to be equal in their human status and their participation in the essential human experiences.

FrankGol, it's inadequate to dismiss a complaint about a lost generation as "masculine sour grapes". Something like 30 to 40% of tertiary educated women have ended up childless. That adds up to a lot of feminine misery. We ought to care about such things as they are what really matter most to people and cut most deeply at a personal level.

So what are the feminists with hairy armpits and chips
on their shoulders then ? :)

Simcox tries to 'spin' that feminists are rather safe protagonists.

Suffragettes existed long before modern day hairy armed feminist's.

Christine Stolba in 'Lying In a Room of Ones Own' categorised three areas where feminist textbooks miseducate students."Errors of Interpretation," "Errors of Fact," and "Sins of Omission."

During the 'Burning times' where witches were burnt at the stake, it comes as a surprise to find that it was not only women who were murdered this way.

"The Malleus Maleficarum" It served as a guidebook for Inquisitors during the Inquisition, and was designed to aid them in the identification, prosecution, and dispatching of Witches.

During this time, a glance, a gesture taken the wrong way could result in an accusation of witchcraft. The modern day version is a look or gesture results in accusations of sexual harrasement.

"The Tyranny of Tolerance: A Sitting Judge Breaks the Code of Silence to Expose the Liberal Judicial Assault"

"I have witnessed liberal totalitarianism on many fronts as both a lawyer and a judge, but it is fair to say that I probably would not have written this book if I had not had my own, very direct run-in with the tyrants of tolerance."

In fact rather than conducting their war in the public sphere, many feminists have become much more active in covert operations. Researchers into domestic violence have had threats of having their funding cut because they are not toeing the party line.

"The feminist movement started as a political society based on humanism."

Humanism did predate the current feminist movement. However humanism did not build it's house of cards on vilifying men and many of the earlier feminists based feminism on Marxism.

For men who struggle to understand feminists and their writing (usually sweet and nice), and then struggle to try and match that with their acts (usually disruptive to destructive)... a understanding of the fundamental nature of women is needed... and I am talking of what is common and usual, and accept that variations in smaller percentages exist.

A women needs to see herself as a member of a group of women... and this need goes into psychosomatic level too eg... a group of women together will start synchronizing their periods if they live together. Its important feature to understand as the group she relies on will determine what she will think, say and act...
- eg what one of them thinks is not valid until she has discussed with the group and been validated...
- security is important and it comes from being an accepted member of the group, so even if she disagrees with the group she will abide, as being rejected by the group is like death itself...
- common behaviour is another one, they are more comfortable with following the usual 'female created plan' than a original path of their choice, eg having the so called 'family and home'... comes with intrinsic details of how to behave and treat the 'made depended ones' including us men etc

Feminism was an attempt to unify mass numbers of women into one group and to a large extent succeeded until they became 'the pigs in animal farm' and in 'more equal', and now facing the rejection...

Now as men you will note how dramatically this contrasts with us, so message is if you want to understand a women you need to understand her group, and dont compare them to yourself, but as a unique entity by itself...

Sam
Ps~Cornflower is excluded, if she is a woman, she has shown admirable strength to fight to be a balanced individual, which is very hard thing to do and survive among women, and a feature of an evolved soul

Indeed. Cornflower is a credit to womanhood and humanity in general. Pity we are in such short supply of role models like her. Nothing but respect and admiration from me.

Happy Australia Day.

Trouble is the article auther used a definition of convenience and revised history and made a groupist statement in implyng that all feminists "don’t believe that all men are violent ... Neither do they believe that the way to correct the wrongs in a patriarchal society is to turn it into a matriarchal one" ect. What about the feminist Marilyn French who said "All men are rapists and thats all they are"? A major sector of the feminist movment took this up.

Feminist is another brand of zeolot wallowing in the world of self serving ideological pretention. Like all ideolgues, having an outstanding ability to deny their exclusionary tendencies and a wounderful expanse of intellectual constructs and fuzzy notions to justify, justify, justify. They cant agree on what it is that defines them. There are 100s of definitions of the term. Which is dubious, at best.

When are we going to get past the inherent sexism of a movement that begins with its name and come up with something thats truely inclusive? Starting with a name that doesnt omit by inference. Sans the back peddling revisions of definition that include men in rhetoric only.

Oh yeah, and there was not any whinging nor whining in that article. Not at all. Not even a veiled, implied, hint.

No lies or misrepresentations either. Yep those suffragettes didnt burn or bomb any buildings way back when. Oh thats right it wasnt a night watchman who died in one of those torched buildings. That's right, an honourable legacy, devoid of the inherently malignant tendencies of the male sex. Ok, now lets quibble over semantics, that'll make it all good again.

Vapidly true to form, we are now, according to a revised definition/interpretation/extrapolation/fuzzy logic, ALL what the writer says we are. Bwahahahahahahahahahardly.

Marvel, at the complexcated complexity of wildly contrived, uhm, complexity. If hactivists cannot make it easy to understand then there is a MAJOR problem inherent to their position. Actually, l think you confuse complexity for confusion. They aint the same thing, they look similar tho.

How anyone can still be bothered deconstructing the littany of half truths, distortions and agenda driven qualificatins that underpin ideological puff pieces like that article is beyond me. They certainly have enormous energy and that deserves respect.

"a feminist is anyone who thinks that every person... has the right to follow their own dreams". ahahahahahahahahaha. So a mens rights extremist zeolot dreamer who advocates repealing womens right to vote is, according to this definition, a feminist. Ahahahahahahahahahaha. Can you see the credibility issues here, at all?

Trade215 formulated a great summary of many of the hysterically belligerent anti-feminsist responses to this article.

Quote: "Bwahahahahahahahahahardly...ahahahahahahahahaha...complexcated complexity".

I couldn't have put it better myself, old boy!

"They [feminists] are relatively safe protagonists." Then in another stroke of the keyboard soon after, a seriously angry ultimatum - "So go on, people. Fight your gender wars, vilify each other, stick on labels, generalise and be hateful to your heart's content. Just leave feminists out of it."

Go check it!

But hang on a minute, gender wars, vilification, sticking labels, generalising, being hateful? How can you leave feminists out of that? It was feminists who got that ball rolling in the first place.

And with respect to the labels of misogynists and feminists, the opposite of misogynist is misandrist and the opposite of feminist is masculinist. The first pair are haters, the second pair are sexist supremacists. There is a literary difference. In truth though they are interchangeable to some extent. All four are off-centre extremists suffering some "serious anger issues". Just go ask Leslie Cannold, who expresses this very phrase often lately.

Odd isn't it? Because she's one who seems happy to wear the label of feminist herself. There seems to be a lot of contradiction going on around this feminism business. Enough to make you think that there's something duplicitous about it.

of well, frank, when in rome...

"hysterically belligerent"... feminists...

couldnt have put it better myself, old girl?

Its great how anyone who speaks about the failing of an ideological position is brand anti. Its like criticising Isreali policies, you're branded anti-semite, even isrealis who speak up get the tag.

This tendency really defines the nature of the ideological beast.

Sad, it is.

White Feather Feminism

"Although the initial recruitment efforts of women were deemed patriotic, the realities of war and the often nasty manner in which this method was executed was eventually deemed, at the very least, in extremely poor taste. As the carnage was calculated, people took pains to distance themselves from any participation in recruitment efforts."

Perhaps some feminists are now trying to distance themselves from the more radical members of their organisation and the gender bias of feminist movement.

Country girl:

I can see youve had a rough time of it with discrimmination and all.

Did you have to go in the draft?

Don't you just love them? The misandrist wafflers that fill these pages and others of similar vein. What really busts the crank right out of my V12 diesel is the wholesale turn around by formerly rabid foaming at the mouth man haters of 20 - 25 yrs ago who now have grandchildren affected by the Child Support and Family Court rulings.

Laws and regulations brought into play because of the activism, policy shifting and collusion effected through the Wimmins Movement(s). Funding diverted which could have been more effectively utilised in a real and human approach to the children and now grandchildren affected by their hatred and seething, festered over many years.

"Oh what did we do...?" they are heard to cry, "Woe am I and my daughter/son and those children of the relationship..."

I have said it on previous threads - they are now being hoist upon their own petards and do not like it.

You wimmin had your cakes and ate them, and payback is a bitch hey!

And just for the record I am a Sole parent Dad of 14 yrs, who fought (and still fights) the Feminazis and won!

Please, those wimmin who will fire up at this post - get your facts right before you blast me for not understanding the "wimmins perspective" as I have experienced most, if not all, of the so called breaches perpetrated most often by men against wimmin.

You didactic feminists who like to illustrate. Please, please, please, take stock of what you have done to our children - it will, and is coming back to haunt you.

I think that this is a good, objective article but it has however, created a lot of emotional and subjective response. What I would like to see from some posters is the recognition that like religion and other theories, for example Marxism, the theory is very different from what happens in practice. This article looks more at feminist theory not so much feminism in practice. The same could be said about Marxism - it is very different in theory than when analysed in practice.

However,from reading other responses it amazes me how much power feminism is supposed to have! But how about something new? The same old responses are regurgitated at every threat to the status quo that feminism poses, ie that feminism has taken over education and family law.

If we want to continue the subjective response to threats that feminism has created in society, why not look at the financial positions of many women. Their work is still undervalued and "natural" women's work such as nursing and teaching is still underpaid and how much does mothering pay?

From a subjective viewpoint I not in a powerful position as a older woman who spent most of my life looking after children and now have no superannuation and the prospect of the aged pension at 65 instead of 60? Are today's young women going to be in a different position than me when they are my age? A resounding "no".

If women want to care for children or older people for that matter, they will forgo superannuation and well paid employment. Part time and casual work does not contribute to superannuation. A market economy does not recognise the monetary worth of "women's work" despite gender neutral policies and the impression that feminism has worked and now men and women are equal.

l think the term feminazi is very amusing but way over the top. Its reactionary. l prefer... feminasty. Its very appropriate in light of the responses of that brand of ideological fundy.

Albie makes some farily self evident observations, which l think can be summed up with the following cliches...

... they made their beds, sleep in them.
... reaping what they sow.
... sow the wind, reap the whirlwind.

And finally, dont blame us, we dont like it all either, we are just messangers, dont shoot us.

Mothering pays about the same as fathering, prolly a bit more.

Not that l can even begin to comprehend why l should be paid, or heaven forbid 'valued' for providing, protecting, raising and caring for my own kids. l inherenly appreciate the value of my self worth and dont need it to be measured nor validated. Or heck, putting a dollar value on the cooking and cleaning l do for myself (family included). Truelly baffling.

That mode of thinking, in my view, above all else, demonstrates the thoroughy skewed and disconnected (from basics of humanity) perception that ideology fosters.

Womens low paid work strikes me as being a bit above mens low paid work and the working conditions seem to generally be better. l know of men who work six day weeks 10-12hrs a day, in physically difficult jobs, for about $450 wk cash, no benefits, no super, no nothing. Most days they look like truely defeated humans, spirits broken. Family is prolly one of the few things that keeps them going.

It strikes me as a bit disengenuous when the fundies compare something like nursing to being a ceo. Then again there are male nurses and female CEOs. Its quite easy to pick examples that fit the theory. Thats very much agenda driven.

Where does it get us? Nowhere really. Certainly deeper in the hole.

The trouble is that we live in a market driven society where both the worth of men and women is measured by their income, in other words how much they contribute to society financially.

Take for example tax cuts that are given to people in the highest tax bracket to reward them for excellence (these are the PMs words). This attitude makes the assumption that a mother or father whether they are employed or unemployed, or a labourer, cleaner etc does not do an excellent job and should not therefore be rewarded.

When we are looking at policy (and it affects all of us), it is the continued devaluation of certain jobs that is still (notwithstanding the alleged powerful influence of feminism) resulting in a polarised society. The way the economy works, if women (and yes, it is still primarily women) take time off from paid employment to have children and care for them themselves, they are disadvantaged in society because the superannuation framework cannot address the fact that women have always, and still do, undertake the majority of unpaid domestic and caring work.

The superannuation framework is based on an outdated assumption that people work full-time for 40 years. Yes, this framework is also outdated for a lot of men, but the point I am trying to make is, if feminism is so powerful, then why are policies being implemented that still obviously disadvantage women? And please do not answer this question by going on again about it disadvantaging some men too because I acknowledge that.

I finally got around to reading this article and the expected round of posts.

I like Cireena's version of feminism but as other posters have pointed out she may be ignoring some of what happens in the real world.

A couple of comments stand out "Feminists do not believe that all women are caring, sharing and empathetic. They don’t believe that all men are violent." and "to date, no feminists have claimed responsibility for either blowing something up, shooting anyone or taking hostages.".

Both are to the best of my knowledge technically true but also misleading.

Feminists have all too often supported and lead the ongoing generisation of DV and child abuse reporting despite clear evidence that DV and child abuse are not significantly genderised (individual components may be but overall as the author says some men and women are bad and some are good).

Annecdotal evidence suggests that some feminists have been involved in a pattern of threats against researchers who dare to question the proposition that men perpetrate the overwhelming majority of DV. There are exceptions, authors such as Patricia Pearson being one feminist writer who dares to speak out as a feminist against an issue that harms men, women and children.

I think for many feminists that particular issue is such a core belief that they will not consider the possibility that it is built on lies and see no need to examine the evidence.

Part of the angst against feminism is in my view a result of the apparent association between feminism and gender lies.

R0bert

A useful thing to remember is that anything tagged with "ism" on the end of it is only a doctrine - just like GWB's pre-emptive strike doctrine as well as feminism or any other.

It's just a matter of time before we'll see all of them floating past dead in the river.

The reality is that women in the West only have the freedoms they have because we live in wealthy societies and the men have given in and allowed them those freedoms.

It has been a trend throughout history that the women of the wealthiest societies have been the most pampered and indulged by their men.

When the Soviet Union collapsed, and jobs became scarce according to one documentary I was watching, the men took any available jobs and the women were forced out .
In other words when things got really tough the men took back any economic power that was to be had.

Also the pill has played the biggest role in female freedom. When the wealth of a country collapses the pill becomes a luxury that is often no longer available. Child care is also very expensive and would become nonexistent in a poor country. These two factors alone would have a huge impact on the the freedoms of women to live and work like men.

When armed men ride in and take control of countries then whether or not women have freedoms is decided by them unless the women can persuade them otherwise as they have done in the West . I’m not arguing that this is a good thing I’m just saying it’s the way things are. In fact I think world peace would be more quickly achieved by setting up family planning cum medical clinics for women all over the world so they can limit their families and ensure the survival of the children they do have.
Women can only persuade with reason because physically (strength wise) the men rule

Feminism(today)is a mirror designed by a few women so that all women will know how they ought to look. Men, they proclaim. If they are ever to step out of their social Neanderthalism. Ought to look just like this new perfect woman.

Woman unhappy with her lot having attained equality now presumes to change all man so he can be equally happy too.

It's interesting to note that the women who most want to change men didn't really want one before the change and can't abide the poor sod after.

Changed, changed utterly.

Hilarious. Everyone is arguing for or against little more than their own interpretation of the word. If you interpret the word in a negative light, then you're going to respond negatively to it.

I'm sure most rational people agree that both women and men should have equal rights and freedoms, yeah? Because I'm quite sure that is the fundamental definition. If you consider it to mean something else, and there are many who do, then argue away, but realise that you're arguing about something else, whether you use the word 'feminism' or not.

I was thinking best to leave this topic alone but I searched for Helen Garner and no mention so I will quote from "The First Stone"

"If you don't take certain positions these days you're 'not a feminist'. Dear God if I
know anything I know there are ten thousand ways to be a feminist"

other essential reading of Garner is "Joe Cinque's Consolation". Then you will understand Helen's line

"It's not a dialogue, it's a f* war"

and you will understand feminism

It's like everything in life, if you want to understand something you go to the experts [and I note she does not mention Greer once in 2 books]

Divorce Doctor, you quote Helen Garner:

"Dear God if I know anything I know there are ten thousand ways to be a feminist." Then you quote her again: "It's not a dialogue, it's a f* war" and you conclude that having read Garner: "you will understand feminism".

Why am I now confused? I got lost between "ten thousand ways to be a feminist" and reading two books by Garner and then being in a position to "understand feminism".

I was another who was not even going to bother - 'till I realised what's going on in this particular thread and, when I looked back, others: people are harking back to an era when the average modern feminist wasn't even born!

Puzzled by the reference to Germaine Greer I looked her up. The woman was born in 1939 !. Helen Garner, whom we are told will tell us what feminism is all about, was born in 1942!

Marilyn French who one contributor keeps trotting out to prove his point, first saw light of day in 1929! Yeah, agree that her quote was pretty off, but: - her daughter had just been raped, and Judges and lawyers were advising her to drop the case because, back then, women who got raped were "asking for it". So, maybe not excusable, but in the context, understandable.

I have also picked up that the many of the people who take the "anti" stand are middle aged or elderly. Some lived through the days when rock n' roll music was said to be inspired by the devil, young girls were told using tampons would rob them of their virginity and smoking was 'cool'.

O.k., I'm sure the feminists of the '60's, 70's and 80's really rocked your boats.But fight fair. If it is legitimate to damn feminists because of old stereotypes, then it would be legitimate to damn men because of old stereotypes. And stereotyping is a large reason these threads become so lengthy: feminists are nasty, hairy, foaming at the mouth, men are uncaring, arrogant and violent. And neither this article nor anything said to the contrary will ever convince anyone differently.

Go to the library; get hold of books that were written by to-days feminists; talk to some of them - more importantly -Listen to some of them; watch interviews; tune in to Triple J even - and then base your arguments in terms of today and not yesterday.

A feminist is...

whatever a feminist says a feminist is.

Yeah, right rom.

l suppose that those who are say christian should discount the word of jesus b/c he was around 2000 yrs ago. Instead take the advice of someone born, hmmm, 20 yrs ago? Or better still, following your logic to its absurdist end, we should wait until a kid can talk and look no further.

You gotta be joking. That logic is so utterly specious it defies sanity.

Not to mention the unpalatable truth that you so astutely hide from...

what we have today is THE LEGACY of the still alive people you tell us to ignore. Concocting these deflections speaks to the depths of your agenda and exposes your disingenuous nature. Its just a way to keep pushing down the same old path laid by the people you tell us to ignore. Its the very thing that gets people's back's up, because you pass yourself of as reasonable, but you are just a liar. The worst kind of half truth advocating liar who believes your own hype.

Shame on you.

You really do defy your own pretentions to scholarly insight. Sheesh, what library do you shop at?

Yeesh, calm down trade, its just an opinion. You seriously want someone to feel ashamed because of their opinion?

Your christian analogy is a little skewed. Maybe christians shouldn't be listening to the words from 2000 years ago, and rather operate the way they feel is right today, as what is right today quite often differs from that 2000 years ago.

Basically you're saying a philosophy must be unchangeable no matter what...that it can't adapt and grow and change with the climate of the current world. Thus, I put it to you that it is in fact YOUR reasoning that is specious.

I'm curious as to what agenda you think Rom is pushing, cause I cant see one. Perhaps you're seeing something that I'm not seeing. Or perhaps you're seeing something that only you can see. Wanna help me out here?

Frank said:
Why am I now confused? I got lost "

Thank you Frank for your perfect example of Helen's point. Your Freudian Slip is SHOWING

Using democratic logical argument, the answer is you would first need to READ the books before becoming "unlost"

Helen was a feminist of the type that used logic to argue equality in tangible issues eg wages [whereas Greer was based upon 4 words "lady, love your c*"], and Helen did a lot of good work to GET equality

In Stone she is blowing whistle on the young feminists who have piggybacked on her work and have gone way over the top [loosly aligned to lady love your c-word] wanting nothing less than total power in the gender/money war, and doing it by throwing logic overboard

Helen is providing evidence in a logical way as to how this is done with the help of a complient govt seeking the feminist vote. We see, inter alia, where after bloke won the famous "Hairy Legged Lesbian case" in the Equal Opportunity Tribunal, Howard obliged by axing the whole Tribunal, and appointing Pru as Sex/Discrimination Commiss

As example of this power grab, we see that the girls seeking power in Stone want the law changed so that next time they can wear whatever provocative clothes [or none at all] to the Xmas party and once in court the man they accuse of molesting them is not allowed to lead any evidence at all regarding such clothing, or lack of

In other words back to the kangaroo court system in Nazi Germany in late 1930s

well Howard has not so far allowed THAT draconian legislation in full but if I had more space I would explain his Final Solution, but the chilling association, in conclusion, is that ALL of his devices are based upon his adoption of the principle used by Nazis:

"What good fortune for governments that the people do not think"
Adolf Hitler

And Frank, you are the perfect example of WHY the Rodent finds every abuse of democracy so dead easy in his Final Solution

I did not think their were too many feminist left. Natasha is now home being a mum and nobody takes Germaine serious anymore. After 50 years of indocrination most women want to be women and men men. Why don't we ask 'what is a maleist? Nothing has changed. Women in non Christian nations are still as oppressed as they ever were and the women of the West enjoy great freedom except in parts of Sydney where multiculturalism has shown itself hostile to women.

The recent White Feathering (Ribbon) campaign whilst it was about ending violence against women, it was also about bullying men. It employed some emotive manipulative techniques.

If one only studies feminist research, then of course only women are victims of violence, because in fact feminist research does not ask men if they are the victims of domestic violence, feminist research assumes that men are only perpetrators.

When Lenore Weitzman published her findings that men gained from divorce this was accepted as fact, because it matched public perception, even when her research and public perception were wrong and men gaining from divorce.

Christine Stolba wrote in "Lying in a Room of ones own" about Errors of interpretation, Sins of Ommission and Errors of Fact. Whilst examing feminist texts used in women's studies.

More recently Myrna Blythe wrote 'Spin Sister' which is about how the editors of womens magazines sell unhappiness to women.

today the message to the most privileged and wealthy women in history is that the battle hasn't begun, or that they must be constantly on their guard against any perceived loss of rights etc.

Feminists in Canada even put out a proposal that mens groups be monitored and it be made a criminal offence to critize women (feminist groups). Nowhere in the proposal did it consider making it a criminal offence to critize men.

The internet has forever changed the landscape, where it is easier than ever before to check out facts and figures, without relying on the media or waiting for books to be published.

For example living in Australia one can order books which are not imported into this country e.g. 'Heterophobia' "The sexchange Society' etc

Bernard Chapin mentioned in a recent blog that many men who once supported feminism, nolonger support it.

John Gardiner of Kittennews wrote "beware the man loving feminist".

There is a parable about a fox taking a scorpion across a river and the scorpion stings him.

"It has nothing to do with logic," the drowning scorpion sadly replied. "It's just my character."

Divorce Doctor, your post was unhelpful because not only were your assumptions false but you got the facts wrong. Despite your patronising attitude, I have read the Garner books you recommended to me (and lots more). It wasn't Helen who lost me - it was your strange contradictory quotations from her work.

Moreover, you misconstrue or misrepresent "The First Stone". I think you'll find that what got up Helen Garner's nose was that the young women refused to be used as literary fodder by Helen who thought she had some divine right to interview them for her book having already written sympathetically to the respondent, Dr Gregory. She couldn't understand why the young women (not girls) wouldn't submit to her inquisition and why they wouldn't listen to her telling them what really happened at Ormond College.

The issue in the Ormond College case had nix to do with provocative clothing - the allegations against Dr Gregory were of a quite different nature. Are you deliberately distorting the facts or have you not read the book (and the actual transcripts related to the case? And if you rely on "The First Stone" for your understanding of the Ormond case, remember that Helen Garner did not gain access to sources from both sides of the dispute.

Your rant about "the Equal Opportunity Tribunal" (surely you mean the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission?), and "Howard axing the whole Tribunal, and appointing Pru as Sex/Discrimination Commissioner" is ill-informed and plain weird. As is your rant about "the kangaroo court system in Nazi Germany in late 1930s" and the "Final Solution"

As for the quotation from Hitler, "What good fortune for governments that the people do not think", maybe on that point we may share the concern that some people do not think clearly enough - and maybe don't read well enough - and that is dangerous in a democracy.

Trade old buddy, you just stepped over the line. I have no agenda whatsoever and I thank Spendo for pointing this out. This is a forum for debate and I have never used it to insult, vilify, defame or slander so I do not excuse your unwarranted post.

More than anything however, I take grave exception to being labelled a liar. You may have freedom of speech, but you also have the responsibilities, enshrined in law, that go with that - as do each one of us.

I have had just about everything else taken away from me in this life (so I also certainly have no pretensions) but my honesty is one thing I have clung on to. I may, like most people, at times be in error or mistaken but I have never, never said anything I do not believe to be true. Right now I am so damn angry on so many levels - and you better believe that's the truth!

Hell's teeth, man, get a grip

Trade, Romany does have a point. You went for a personal attack rather than discussing the issues. There is plenty of material out there to support some of your concerns, instead of making a personal attack on Romany provide her with some links to places where feminist organisations are still perpetuating falsehoods and pushing extremes. We've covered the DV and child abuse issues fairly well in a variety of threads but you could talk about some of the other false perceptions that some of feminism's ideas are built on.

You might have a look at http://www.argate.net/~liz/ to see some of what is being said by some feminists today, some good some bad.

R0bert

Simply pointing out the illogical premise that something is of lesser value because its old (the reverse is also illogical), in my not unusually blunt, emotional, pretentious, self righteous, sanctimonious, patronising, condescending, passive/aggressive, verbose, politically incorrect and retarded way.

Ah, self awarness and truth, they're a bitc. ooops, l mean basta.., ok, they just is.

Thanx for understanding.

The nature of lying is that it becomes so ingrained, via neat little smoke screens like ideology, that the liar cannot see their lies. Its a case of believing the hype. Faced with confronting the truth, they sulk, in its myriad forms. The louder the wailing the deeper the exposed lies.

l understand what it is to be mired in lies, l see them all the time and work very hard to challenge my own lies. It sets me off when people do it, seemingly oblivious and almost serene about it. But wot the hey, that's my hangup.

No doubt you realise that arguement/debate ('discussion' if you like) is essentially redundant - a very satisfying waste of time.

Its just projection of egocentric insecurity (subject matter, modus and stylistic affectations notwithstanding). On that score l agree with the Bhuddists.

The world of internet forum 'discussion' is a wounderful delusion. We can pretend to be 'discussing' when in fact we are argueing with ourselves, at one another's expense.

This l accept as tacitly SELF EVIDENT.

Compounding the illusion of arguement with the deep seated delusions of ideology is just too potent a sideshow to pass up.

As far as ideologies go, feminism is built upon, littered with and proceeds on the basis of some fantastically irrational, deluded and retarded notions, adding another layer of non-sense. Plus yet another layer of the 'nature of man/woman' stereotypical dribble that makes the fun positively addictive. Layer upon layer upon layer. Almost as good as apple struddle.

For the moment, some of roms thinking aloud is intruding upon a weak willed aspect of my own egocentric insecurity, so, her WORDS be a useful muse... for projecting. lm sure you understand.

To Spendo and similarly championing chorts, you havent said anything specific, in any of your posts, that has grabbed me as a useful device for starting a substantive arguement with myself. But if you wanna piggy back off others, kewl, knock yourself out.

l am more than happy for you to argue with yourself at my expense. Attributing your opinion by misrepresenting mine and compounding the facade by hiding behind question marks... oddly such banality l find quite entertaining. It is a net forum after all. Good stuff, do continue.

Its all good. l do enjoy regularly escaping mundane truths and taking the blue pill, or maybe its the red one (l can never remember).

So, whats the point, as many ask incessantly. Simple. The point to this dynamic is that... there is no point.

Its a proxy for... living.

lm not gonna explain anymore of this stuff to ya, that would take all the fun out of it.

:-)

ps. lm a comfortably irredemable smart arse (hmmm, lies ?) and beyond things like 1+1=2, you'll never be able to convince me of anything.

Sorry Frank for assuming you had not read Garner. How could I be so stupid, as THAT is your day job Frank, what Howard pays you to do. In my defence I had not read any of the replies as I don't have the time as a non eco warrior for justice, going forward, but later I went to the top and there you were Frank as number 2 doing your firewall duty to say, firstly women have never REACHED equality, and therefore, secondly, can't be accused of "doing an Oliver" and going way OVER the top, because they never MADE it at step one. Neat Frank, but don't hold water as it is a porky.

But Frank, we need go no further than your job to prove the point. To attract feminist vote Howard gives $2.3 billion pa in taxpayer dollars, to be spent on a propaganda war from, inter alia ANU, AIFS etc and of course Legal Aid. Bloke vote is simple, Rodent simply dons the yellow scarf, goes to footy and sings Advance Australia Oye Oye Oye

But just to maintain "equality" he gave blokes a lousy once off $16.4 million for "secret men's business", and to make it "fairer" he put it under control of Kay Patterson who was also the "Minister advising the Rodent on the Status of Women". Well, there WAS no similar position for "Status of Men" [as they don't HAVE any] so how could you blame him? Getting the picture yet Frank about equality?

But little old me the Divorce Doctor beavering away like Helen for justice, used my rights as a citizen [even a male one] and Patterson got SACKED for Pork Barrelling [and inventing the derogatory/pejorative term "toxic masculinity"]

One small step for man Frank? - guess you'll never know, unless you retract head from the "Latham place" where the sun don't shine

Hey Doctor, what can I say in response to your question: "How could I be so stupid?"

You say you know what I do for a day job: "what Howard pays you to do", as you put it. Sad to say, Mr Howard had never paid my salary nor has any other politician. Mistaken identity?

You say, "I went to the top and there you were Frank as number 2... Frank, we need go no further than your job to prove the point". I've no idea what you're talking about. For your information I am self-employed and have been for some nine years.

I'd like to make some response to the rest of your posting but I find it is simply incomprehensible. So I can't answer your question, "How could I be so stupid?"

A feminist is a genderist no matter how much spin Cireena or her “post-modernist” sisters, apply to recent developments. The question of “how do I look?”, pales in comparison to the article’s Q&A – but surprise, surprise - no apparent logic. More smoke, magic mirrors, and besides those, still one gender’s oppression inflicted by the other.

Cireena’s bottom line: “I look hot!”. And if you don’t accept me as I claim to be today, there are lots of other fish on bikes.

The problem for men which Cireena seems oblivious to, is not about women competing with them in the workplace, or having equality in the home. No. You already have both of those nailed. Not only do men feel no support from feminists (as Cireena claims we should), but feel reluctant to actively invest in gender feminism’s inherent threats of recklessness.

So many men are saying they don’t like feminism because they see it as a barrier to family formation, while the “modern” feminist seems to respond with a shallow ill considered “why would you even think that, since we do all the work and make all the sacrifices?”. We should be so lucky.

That is what we think of feminism. Gender-based self-interest with an unmistakable whiff of denial, false competition and for good measure, mixed with a liberal dose of responsibility avoidance.

Oh dear, was my face red! Trade, I did read your subsequent posts and even went back to some other threads. So now I do understand completely where you are coming from and am very embarrassed that I got so fuddy-duddy and cross.

Not to worry, lovey, there are lots of other people out there exactly the same as you. Although, (and this is just a little word of caution) I don't think it can be too good for you to let yourself get so hot and bothered as you sometimes do. Besides, if everyone else got themselves so worked up and said naughty things the world would be in a right old pickle wouldn't it?

So, no harm done dear, I quite understand - and silly old me for taking things so seriously, eh?

And hey, cheer up, chicken!

I have a lot more respect for you now trade. Great little rant.

I haven't said anything specific because I have nothing specific to say. On topics like this one, my indulgence is to watch others ramble, and throw in occasional commentary that may or may not incite more rambling.

As far as my opinion on feminism, I merely see it as equality, and as I believe in equality, I take no issue with feminism. I'm amused by the extremists on both sides, those who give feminism a bad name, and those who give arguing against it a bad name - but to me its no more meaningful a debate than 'is it called soccer or football' and of very little consequence. What's important is the values that are applied to the term...but it is still just a term, to me.

yes I agree, the popular face of feminism, ie the Adel Horin dirty socks, gender war gig is boring BUT is necessary red herring wise to hide the nasty side from the mushrooms, eg the Mens Groups. Starting with just financial the alliance of fems and lawyers extract $20 billion from bloke pa in fam court ["our court" as fems call it]. On life threatening side thousands of murders of kid by mum are blamed on SIDS when MBP [Munchhaussen By Proxy] is culprit - a mother only disease, so covered up by Industry

The reason Garner [and myself] are so hated is that we see right through the red herrings and see the evil behind, but moreso Garner as, being female, she relates it by ref to her own "girlie hackles" which says she sees red herrings, she calls a Shenanigans.

First Stone was about the "false accusation" Industry and how easy femo/lawyer can rob a man of everything, but Joe Cinque was about a woman with BPD [Borderline Personality Disorder] and NOT wearing her regulation CowBell was assisted by a mob of law students to slip a mickey on a poor engineering student and then slowly kill him by heroin injection over the weekend till he drowned in his own spewed black blood

Of course Anu Singh got off under diminished responsibility [and no jury under some legal technicality], but a year after trial Garner goes back to Canberra to interview judge just to see if she can possibly ease her mind and understand "justice" and judge told her it was easy as the witnesses were all law students. Like hey man, they were all high on drugs and selling drugs as well [even sold her the heroin used for murder] but.. And these are the Murray Gleesons of tomorrow. As Dylan sang "bury the rag deep in your face, now is the time for your tears"

that is the nasty side hidden by red herrings

Divorce Doctor,

Are you saying that we have become so guilt-ridden by our collective male “dirty socks” that we happily forfeit $20bn pa and throw our children overboard in shark-infested waters clouded by red herrings?

If so, how can you help?

While I like the Dylan quotation, I can also see merit in Trade’s “Dancing with my self”.

Divorce doctor wrote " On life threatening side thousands of murders of kid by mum are blamed on SIDS when MBP [Munchhaussen By Proxy] is culprit - a mother only disease, so covered up by Industry"

Before this gets out of hand, what is being referred to here is a dead baby is found, question of how did the baby die, with the mother claiming sids (sudden infant death syndrome- where the baby suddenly stops breathing) or is it death by suffocation ie murder, a good forensic pathologist can tell the difference from lung biopsy, in the first you get normal lung tissue, in the second you get contused lung tissue from babies struggle to breathe...

It is a question that has troubled doctors, police and society for a while which is if mothers who murder babies have been getting away without justice by manipulating the system (sids is a new 'disease' created by a lack of explanation to cause of death...or where the forensic pathologist has failed to see the diagnostic signs), and working on sympathy for herself to get supported afterwards, and if law has been failing to address this area sufficiently to get to the facts including the real motive...

Sam

I was talking to MBP [MSP in USA] specifically, not smothering etc

do a google to understand, but my own senses were alerted when I simply "mentioned it" in a case in Family Court and whole court went ballistic, as lawyers of course agree to not bring it up, particularly as the "case" is always about FALSE accusations re dad

"MSP is an extremely violent form of child abuse, often going on for years before it is detected. The perpetrators are usually very intelligent and resourceful, and are commonly acquainted with sophisticated medical practices. Characteristic in these cases is an early history of emotional and physical abuse of the caregiver, identity problems, intense feelings, inadequate impulse control, a deficient sense of reality, brief psychotic episodes, and unstable interpersonal relationships.

The caregiver basks in the attention given to them. They stay by the sick child's bed day and night, become involved with hospital staff, and sometimes even gain recognition outside the hospital. Kathleen Bush, whose daughter Jennifer, had 200 hospitalizations and 40 surgeries in her first 8 years of life, was lauded by Hillary Clinton in 1994 at a White House rally. Another woman later found to have MSP, Yvonne Eldridge, was named national "Mother of the Year" in 1988 by Nancy Reagan."

as a good Yippee on this whole subject see Falling Down with Michael Douglas, Robert Duval in 1990 - highly recommended

It was promoted simply as a Ralph Nader type "comsumer rights" rant, eg the hilarious Whammy Burger scene "ever heard the expression the customer is always right?" "that's not our policy" [until the AK47 came out!]

But it was far more cunning than that as it was seen by blokes as the ultimate rant on "father's/deadbeat dad's rights", hence there was a "false" backlash by femos to have it "banned" on that "ground".

But the real reason for femo reaction was the movie hinted very skillfully at the Tuesday Weld character [wife of Duval] having killed their little girl via MBP and blamed on "Sudden Infant Death -- Syndrome" as Duval kept saying, but then saying things like "but very strange because .." So it was a very minor subplot but got the same reaction as I saw in Family Court

THAT was the real reason the fems wanted the film banned because they feared the mushrooms might finally see the light - mushrooms never do, they like dark corners and being fed on bs, so they had nothing to worry about

Gosh, 27 hours and no reply from Adel/Pru/Germaine

Holy Mother of God [etc] has The Doc had the last word on Hairy Legged Lesbian business?

Have the nasties been silenced?

DD,

Bettina Arndt wrote something like;

"We're not comfortable being shown in our true colours."

In 'Why going for the money is the natural thing.'

You know guys, if I used the argument that Hitler, Stalin, Genghis Khan, Pol Pot, Mao etc were all men , and that then "proved" men were cruel and incapable of ruling - yes, all men, as represented by the few mentioned here - you would, rightly, be up in arms at my prejudice and stereotyping. Yet, a few of you seem to be saying that because some women are abusive and terrible to their children via Munchausens Syndrome by Proxy, or whatever, all women should therefore shut up about domestic violence et al.
It seems to me that both men and women have the propensity for violence within them. Feminism argues that women - because of their relative lack of power and lack of strength and size - have more often been the victims of men than the other way around. No doubt children - for precisely the same reasons - have been the victims of both men and women. Feminism rejects violence. Some suffragettes blew up property once, more than 100 years ago, but they did not kill a sentient being. One feminist killed herself by throwing herself under the king's racehorse, but that is the sum total of politically inspired deaths in support of women's rights. Some of you will bring up abortion, no doubt in this context. But abortion existed long before feminism and is practiced by many who would never claim to be feminist. Feminists supports a womans right to refuse to be a lousy parent AND a woman's right to have her child regardless of what society may say. But feminism, of all the isms, has never started a war or preached violence - except, for a very short while - against property. The fact that there are stupid and repulsive feminists no more damns feminists than the fact that there are stupid and repulsive men damns all men.

Pass the tissues please. I think I might cry.

Yeah I know that, that is being sarcastic.

Hitler, Khan et al are fortunately all dead.

No it is not a nice feeling having your gendered maligned, welcome to the club.

Ena your 'ism' is showing.

"Feminism rejects violence" CRAP! There was the SCUM manifesto, even today there are calls to castrate alleged rapists and child molestors, some even support the death penalty.

Erin Pizzey founder of the first female refuge has been subjected to death threats, bomb threats and has even had a bullet fired at her house, her dogs have been killed.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=430702&in_page_id=1770&in_page_id=1770&expand=true

I know a few feminists and if I had a dollar for every time they threatened or talked about hitting men, I'd be very very rich. When they start talking I learnt very quickly if you dont agree with them, then it is better and safer to shut up.

One thing I have learnt is just how critical and judgemental members of your gender actually are, sometimes it takes a good ear to detect it.

This gender war has outlasted the 'cold war'.

"Yet, a few of you seem to be saying that because some women are abusive and terrible to their children via Munchausens Syndrome by Proxy, or whatever, all women should therefore shut up about domestic violence et al."

Whats MSP got to do with DV?

A farmer goes to a livestock dealer and buys an anvil, a bucket, two chickens and a goose.
The farmer looks at his purchases and says, "Damn, I walked here. How am I gonna carry all this stuff home?
The livestock dealer said, "Why don't you put the anvil in the bucket, carry the bucket in one hand, put a chicken under each arm and carry the goose in your other hand?"
"Hey thanks!" the farmer said, and off he went.
While walking home he met a little old lady who told him she was lost. She asked, "Can you tell me how to get to Mockingbird Lane?"
The farmer said, "Well, as a matter of fact, I live just down the road from there. Let's take my short cut and go down this alley. We'll be there in no time."
The little old lady said, "I'm a lonely widow without a husband to defend me. How do I know that when we get in the alley, you won't hold me against the wall, pull up my skirt and ravage me?"
The farmer said, "Holy smokes lady! I'm carrying a bucket, an anvil, two chickens and a goose. How in the world could I possibly hold you against the wall and do that?"
She replied, "Set the goose down, cover him with the bucket, put the anvil on top of the bucket... and I'll hold the chickens."

Now that's todays feminism. Victim and aggressor.

aqvarivs,

that is an excellent summary of the matter.

Biting the hand BEFORE it even gets a chance to feed. It works both ways, the gender war has made folks very cynical.

lts just easier to shutup or dole out the facade of agreement. Silence has a way of being taken as agreement, so its a good little ruse.

Then people wounder why they're alone, cant attract a commitment from commitment phobes and so on.

Anyway, its a great day out, lm off to visit some friends, have a bevvy and see if l cant get their kids all wild and excited. hehe.

I'm a feminist and NOBODY"S victim. That's the whole point to being a feminist, you take responsibility for your own life and fate.
I have never hit anyone - I did smack my daughter once and was horrified by it - and I have never been hit. If I am seen as aggressive (by some) it is in putting my point of view and standing up for myself and my beliefs - that's one way you stop being a victim. You refuse to be bullied or ridiculed or threatened into silence.
There are, however, many people who are victims, men and women and children. Feminism aims to model the behaviour that helps people to reject their own victimhood and walk away from the situation and/ or people or societies or religions who are making them miserable and telling them who they should be and how they must behave.
Some feminists may have threatened violence, but there are crazy loons in all movements. Once again, you miss the point of my argument. Do you do so deliberately or do you fail to understand it?

Ena, we get your point - we just don’t agree. In a “post-feminist” world, old feminists in retirement homes will be distinguishable only by their extra neediness.

It may have seemed like a good idea at some point, and it may have even achieved something worthwhile, sometime. But these days it is better known for its narcissism than for its benevolence.

Daphne Patai 'Road to Heterophobia' wrote;

"They claim it's a misrepresentation of feminism, but it's not a misrepresentation. As someone who spent 10 years in women's studies, I know that male bashing has always been a very important part of feminism."

"Feminism aims to model the behaviour that helps people to reject their own victimhood"

WOW this must be a new type of feminism that I haven't heard of yet. It sounds more like humanism.

Firstly we were told that feminims was about achieving equality for men and women and freeing us from the social constraints of our gender roles.

Well I still waiting!

Having read numerous volumes of feminist texts and books, I started wondering 'do feminists have anything positive to say about men?'

Some of the logic just gave me a splitting headache trying to read it and understanding was next to impossible. I think quantum physics might have been easier on the neurons.

The twists and turns, the convulated agruements.

Daphne Patai taught me a new word.

'Sophistry'

Mired in all the rethoric, defeating the best and worst efforts of so few. Is human nature. Some people are selfish and self centered beleiving the world revolves around them. Fortunately for us there are others who are not so self consumed.

Toby Green wrote;

"Stay put when she comes back with ‘You’re being overly sensitive. I was only joking.’ Most women have a harder time being wrong than men because they actually think they’re better people. Be prepared for her saying, ‘Now you’ve really made me feel bad.’ which may be true but it’s also an attempt at being the victim of this conversation."

As can be seen from my earlier contribution I saw the author's article as a plea (or maybe a thinly disguised demand) not to criticise feminism. That demand is unsatisfactory and unrealistic for many reasons, not the least being that it calls for censorship of free speech.

As I see it, this remains the issue at hand (that feminism somehow should be 'above' criticism) and I am reminded of it by the mention of Daphne Patai whose essay Will the Real Feminists in Academe Please Stand Up? is well worth reading and could in itself be the best answer to the OLO author’s rhetoric. Here is the link: http://daphnepatai.com

I think the previous respondent’s (JamesH) reference to sophistry is a good call when referring to the rhetoric of gender feminists. Sophistry and collectivism just about sums them up.

"So go on, people. Fight your gender wars, vilify each other, stick on labels, generalise and be hateful to your heart’s content. Just leave feminists out of it."

You are right Cornflour.

For the last thirty or fourty years as not only Daphne Patai points out 'male bashing has been an important aspect of the feminist movement.'

Now I think, mainly due to the influence of the internet. Information which was once previously carefully engineered and disseminated through restricted sources. The internet bypasses these mechanisms of censorship and propaganda.

For example books written by Daphne Patai or Melaine Phillips are not imported into Australia. Now all one has to do is order over the internet.

Suddenly people can compare notes and share information like never before, when someone writes and article about feminism today. It doesnt matter if it is in America or the UK, I can read that same article the day that it was posted on the internet.

Suddenly the emotive scaremongering is loosing it's effectiveness. for example the 'Super bull sunday.'

Research papers are falling apart.

For decades men have been "vilified, had labels stuck on them, generalise and be hateful" by feminists.

The caring and sharing feminists by their very silence supported this vilification and male bashing. They do not even recognise their own 'misandry' because it has become such an accepted part of society.

Yes it is uncomfortable experience just as Don Quixote found out when a mirror is held up to show his reflection.

It is not villifying men to stand up for women, yet this seems to be offensive to some people.
Men are like any group with more power, they find it hard to see that they have it. This is understandable, when you have something you often only notice it when it is threatened or goes.
Many of you will howl with outrage that I claim men - as a group - have more power than women, but on any objective measure, that is so. They control more of the world's wealth, run virtually all the world's governments and major businesses and institutions, they own most of the world's land, earn more of the world's wages. This situation cannot be glossed over or argued away. Women, certainly western women anyway, are starting to chip slowly away at this power imbalance. Is this why feminists have become so villified, because they are a threat? This recognition of reality is not a villification of individual men, if women one day are the major power holders they will be just as blind, and just as vigorous in defending what they have. That is human nature. I don't blame men, or think they are villains for wanting to keep what they have. Indeed, I admire, deeply, those men who recognise the injustice of the situation and actively encourage women to more fully participate and join them. But, as a woman and as the mother of daughters, I will not sit in silence when I am told women have nothing to complain of, or that we are not entitled to claim our seat at the table.

ena
You can have your seat at the table anytime. Go out into the world, do what it is that drives you to be you, create, contribute, begin any enterprise. Bring your own seat to the table and you will be accepted as an equal and room will be made for you. But to promote social sexual divisions, proclaim feminine ideology the only correct thinking, politically position women to usurp a mans chair at that table. No sister. Your wrong. Every generation unto itself. Todays man does not owe you his chair at that table. Woman is not entitled to run another fellows business or be the CEO. And yesterday is not an excuse for womans feminist actions today.
If your going to be a housewife be a housewife. If your going to be a business woman be a business woman. You can not be the worlds best Mom and the worlds best business woman. Men sacrifice greatly to have the stations they aspire to hold. It is not a free ride in the male world.
Honest women know the beating one takes getting to the top of any endeavour. Dishonest women who had not the fortitude nor requisite skills blame men for their lack of success. Just because you decided to show up doesn't mean that you now take control as a right. And that's what men find offensive. TODAY.

ena, can I suggest that you have a read of William Farrells book "The Myth of Male Power". There are aspects that I don't like, in my view he writes like too many advocates, taking worst cases as examples to prove his point and he may be misusing statistics. Critics also refer to a playboy interview from many years ago where he appears to have suggested that there may be a positive side to incest. The book is still worth a read because much of what he has to say is spot on and are issues I've rarely heard in discussions.

If men have all the power why do we have a smaller proportion of the vote in most western countries (we are generally outnumbered), why do we get killed on the job at far higher rates than women, why do we die in wars in overwhelmingly larger numbers than women, why do men make up the vast bulk of the employee's in most of the wrost jobs? Why do we face the kind of pressures which lead to us suiciding at far higher rates than women, why is our life expectancy significantly lower than womens (although the gap appears to be decreasing in recent years)?

When in history have the powerful been the ones expected to stand and hold the door for the oppressed, to do the dirty and dangerous jobs the oppressed are unwilling to do, to give up their seat for the oppressed, to place their lives at risk to defend the oppressed against an attacker? Compare the traditional behavious associated with being a gentleman and the behaviours required of servants and slaves and the power/oppressed model gets a bit shakey.

I think that the much of the basis for the belief in male power has been built on a selective look at historical roles and stereotypes and has ignored aspects which should be considered to give a fairer understanding.

R0bert

"It is not villifying men to stand up for women, yet this seems to be offensive to some people."

The issue is not about standing up for women.

The problem is 'how' it is done and often this is by vivifying men either individually or as a group.

Ena you write about men as a group having more power than women and it is men who do not see.

It then it is equally true that because women do not see the power that they have, that women as a group and individually have an enormous amount of power and privilege.

One possible reason for example, that there are more male politicans, is that there are more men going for a very limited number of positions than women.

You are right when you say that people sacrifice a lot to get to being politicans and CEO's etc.

"If men have all the power? How women make the rules?"
http://www.menweb.org/ifmenhav.htm

In the near future it is expected that female billionaires and millionaires will out number the males. This will occur mostly because women out live men so most of the wealth will be inherited.

Bettina Arndt wrote an article that in Australia the men who are least likely to ever get married or to have a partner, are men who are low wage earners. I cant remember the exact percentage.

Traditionally it is because women married up.
http://www.cooltools4men.com/2007/01/more-girls-at-university.html#links

James, "Bettina Arndt wrote an article that in Australia the men who are least likely to ever get married or to have a partner, are men who are low wage earners. I cant remember the exact percentage." - fair call but a similar criticism could be leveled at men over the physical beauty thing.

I saw some of the cricket awards on TV this morning, mostly shots of cricketers and their thin beautiful blond partners. Just as the incomes of the cricketers are above average the physical beauty of their partners is above average.

Just as it is fair to ask women to move on from valuing men for earning capacity (and then devaluing those very men because they are always working, are too agressive etc) men need to start valuing women more for who they are rather than how they look.

R0bert

Sign me up for the MBP/MSP diagnosis.

Can I get a sweet little job in Centrelink or Office of Wimmins Affairs aka Secret Wimmins Business as a single Dad? I do so really understand your plight ladies, honest...truly there are nasty men folk out there who are so unscrupulous in their dealings. Tut, tut, tut. *Waggles finger excessively in general direction*

Just as nasty and mean and brutish as the wimmin who love to make the rules and now can't hack the heat in the kitchen, for they stoked the stove too full of firewood.

As another poster put it - the chooks have come home to roost!
And so again I say... the children have always been the ones who suffer from it most...so sad and unnecessary.

Cornflower and JamesH - I have read and re-read both the article and your responses. Where does the article admonish people for criticising feminism? Or advise one to listen to superficial spin etc? Where is there mention of secret agendas, secrecy, calls for lack of scrutiny?

James says the "how" of feminism is a problem because vilifying men either singly or as a group is a problem. The article states that taking personal opinions and applying them to an entire gender is wrong, too. "To do so in the name of feminism is wrong". So there you are both in agreement, surely?

It further states that "feminists don't believe all men are violent" or that "all women are caring and sharing". Once again, you're in agtreement. When it states that turning a patriarchy into a matriarchy is not an aim surely this echoes your own views that its a terrible idea to label men bad and feminists as good and to want to take over society on that premise.

As to "go ahead and villify and put nasty labels" etc. that is specifically a call for those who want to continue the gender wars. I see it as a call for the honesty and transparency Cornflower wants: i.e. don't muddy the waters by using the words "feminist" when you mean "women" or "Mysoginist" when you mean "men". Come out and say you don't like one particular gender and that you count them responsible for all the woes of the world - and don't hide behind semantics (or sophistry).A stratagem you deplore according to your comments on Patel.

I'm glad you have now found Patel and cite her: you now obviously see all feminists except one as bad. If you can concede that Patel is none of the things you ascribe to feminists, then, as I have repeatedly said, read a little more widely and you'll find lots more. And you'll probably read the article differently.

“The caring and sharing feminists by their very silence supported this vilification and male bashing. They do not even recognise their own 'misandry' because it has become such an accepted part of society.”

Who says women don’t recognise their power or hatred? It is acknowledgement that’s lacking, not recognition.

I should have known this since the time a “caring and sharing” feminist in her weak/malicious moment, pointed out to me that boys never pick up girls. It really is the other way around, but very unsophist to let it look so.

My initial scepticism may have encouraged me to pursue further exposure to the more advanced feminist lessons such as the incredible mismatch between male reproductive rights and responsibilities, then onto paternity fraud, social fathering and ultimately, family court and child support. Now I hear the sophists are busy again, rebranding the whole thing, and making it all nice again. Whoopee! The war must be truly over!

Romany, the last sentence is

" So go on, people. Fight your gender wars, vilify each other, stick on labels, generalise and be hateful to your heart’s content. Just leave feminists out of it."

Now Bronwyn Winters in 'women see red on white ribbon day' wrote;

"Its initiators wanted to take responsibility as men, collectively, to “never commit, condone, or be silent” about male violence again"

So basically if sharing, caring feminists do not speak agianst male vilification by the more radical elements, then by omission they are supporting the male vilification.

And if you have read Patai, then you will know that she actually asks the question why heterosexual feminists remained silent on all the misandric male bashing.

and if you have bothered to read some of my previous posts, I have quoted Sommers, Stolba, Phillips, McElroy, Pizzey et al.

I think I am very fortunate in that they articulate much of what I understand, much better than I can. Plus reading their books and articles has increased my level of understanding and awareness. Whether you want to beleive this or not.

The anti-feminists above try to make out that the feminists are the ones with the problem in relation to behaviour towards others of different opinions. Well I (still) hold a differing opinion to you anti-feminists.

Basically, for this difference I was thought to be a "retarded-woman-posing-as-man"; accused of "helping evil women like yourself"; or "making the mistake Chamberlain made at the start of WWII by appeasing the Nazi aggressor"; it was said that "you and feminists like you" are comparable to nazis.

It was also said that "you love WRD". This was somehow linked to "Hitler sign[ing] the treaty stating there would be no hostility without hesitation".

You will also most likely be thought of and called (depending on whether they are trying to portray themselves as tough guys or reasonable folk) "retard", "ridiculous", "whipped", "bully", "liar," (not to mention post that the moderators deleted where from memory the group’s slag merchant also waffled on about hairy-armpits and red-faced lesbians) - all the while the very people who decry this from feminists had nothing to say indeed some even jumped in to try an rationalise this nonsense and add a little salt.

Well to be a feminist, according to the above article’s author you must tend to be a humanist but it seems to be a anti-feminist judging by their dysfunctional approach above you can be as selective as you wish. And you label others hypocrites.

Christina Hoff Sommers "Who Stole Feminism?"

"Students are quick to learn that open criticism of the feminist classroom will not win them support.... Conformity is the safest practice it."

"The traditional, classically liberal, 'humanistic' feminism that was initiated more than 150 years ago was very different" (When compared to feminism today.)

"Misandrism (hostility to men, the counterpart to misogyny) was not a notable feature of the women's movement until our own times."

Christine Stolba, published 'Lying in a Room of One's Own" which is a critical study of feminist textbooks used to miseducate students. She divides her book into three categories;

Errors of fact!

Errors of interpretation!

Sins of Omission!

(The "Errors of Interpretation" occur in large part because the textbooks construe every study, statistic, or piece of evidence to mean that women are miserable and oppressed, and that men are privileged oppressors. Among the "truths" that the textbooks tell us are: women are under siege from virtually all sectors of society; little has changed for women in the past three decades; believing that women have achieved equality is "modern sexism"; and most women are not naturally attracted to men but are the victims of "compulsory heterosexuality" maintained through (male) "social control." )

Mary Wollstonecraft said in 1792: "…I here throw down my gauntlet, and deny the existence of sexual virtues, not excepting modesty. For man and woman, truth, if I understand the meaning of the word, must be the same; yet the fanciful female character, so prettily drawn by poets and novelists, demanding sacrifice of truth and sincerity, virtue becomes a relative idea, having no other foundation than utility, and of that utility men pretend to arbitrarily judge, shaping it to their own convenience.

Women, I allow, may have different duties to fulfil; but they are human duties, and the principles that should regulate the discharge of them, I sturdily maintain, must be the same.

To become respectable, the exercise of their understanding is necessary, there is no other foundation for independence of character; I mean explicitly to say that they must only bow to the authority of reason, instead of being modest slaves of opinion.”

Now take this in context of the 1792 and her intro para: " To account for, and excuse the tyranny of man, many ingenious arguments have been brought forward to prove, that the two sexes, in the argument of virtue ought to aim at attaining a very different character: or to speak explicitly, women are not allowed to have sufficient strength of mind to acquire what really deserves the same virtue. Yet it would seem, allowing them to have souls, that there is but one way appointed by Providence to lead mankind to either virtue or happiness.”

She goes on to point out that women have been coerced into behaving in a particular way to afford the “protection of man”.

What a miserable way to live? Thank God for feminists.

Two hundred years later it’s still being implied that students who agree with feminists, must lack the “strength of mind” to see other perspectives (see posts above for that underlying belief in the inability of mostly female students to think for themselves).

Of course, if you’re a woman who colludes with male expectations, especially conservatives like Sommers et al, then, you’re a real Princess.

Ronnie, "She goes on to point out that women have been coerced into behaving in a particular way to afford the “protection of man”." - not just the women coerced into that one.

Protection of (and providing for) women is something advocated by both men and women.

It's not a conspiracy by men or women but rather a pattern that is so deeply ingrained that many see it as a core value.

It has had a biological role in the past that has little place in our current society (a shortage of men does not currently make polygamy socially acceptable).

Patriarchs and feminists have pushed for laws and implementation of laws which treat women as less able to make adult choices, less responsible for themselves. Where families split feminists and patriarchs want the state to be a substitute protector and provider for women.

Some feminists have spoken against this recognising the harm it does to women (something I wish James and others would get their heads around) but all to often the belief is not addressed clearly enough to be rejected. The protected will always have a different set of freedoms and responsibilities to the protectors.

Many women continue to see themselves as victim and therefore see the special treatment as redressing those wrongs rather than perpetuating a protected status.

Ena wrote a great response earlier regarding options for men unhappy with their sex lives within marriage, what she says there applies for many of the complaints by feminists about their lot as well.

Feminists have played a vital role in moving past the restrictions of traditional roles for women and men, there is an ongoing need to continue to to move forward on issues where womens and mens freedom to make real choices are limited by perceptions about their gender rather than by the abilities of the individual.

R0bert

Re: “protection of man”. RObert once again you ignore context (and content) and jump without considering the whole. I share some responsibility here because I thought it was clear that in (1792) men had great deal of control over women and I summarised (curse the word limit). You though glossed over that Mary Wollstonecraft wrote this in 1792 when women were victims of male ignorance and convenience and ignored that women back then were coerced and forced into certain behaviours. MV went on to say: “If then women are not a swarm of ephemeron triflers, why should they be kept in ignorance under specious name of innocence? Men complain, and with reason, of the follies and caprices of our sex, when they do not keenly satirize our headstrong passions and grovelling vices. – Behold, I should answer, the natural effect of ignorance! The mind will ever be unstable that has only prejudices to rest on, and the current will run with destructive fury when there are no barriers to break its force. Women, are told from their infancy, and taught by the example of their mothers, that a little knowledge of human weakness, justly termed cunning, softness of temper, outward obedience, and scrupulous attention to a puerile kind of propriety, will obtain for them the protection of man; and should they be beautiful, every thing else is needless, at least, twenty years of their lives.”

So, for Wollstonecraft , the power structure disabled women. Indeed it was such that women perpetrated their own disempowerment. Feminists, like Wollstonecraft, are still trying to enable women by correcting oppressive unfair power structures.

Hence, in part, through the efforts of feminists, the state provides an option to escape from a controlling income earner and abusive situations. Some women (and men) are for a while victims until they take positive action. I think it is morally and ethically correct for the state to help dependant women or men through a marriage split - for the state to be “ substitute protector and provider for women” (more precisely dependent spouses) until they find their feet.
continued

18th century Britain was under going a huge economic and social change. Prior to the industrial revolution, Britain had a very rigid social structure system.

Throughout the industrial revolution and Victorian era there were men and women working for the improvement of living standards for the large numbers of poor people.

Were they feminists or humanists?

All it took during the industrial revolution was one industrial accident and a family would go from working class poor to abject poverty in an instant. There was no social security.

The victorian era is seen as a time of rigidity, yet more recently letters are starting to appear which put a different spin to common perception of this era which has been influence by the published literature of the time.

RObert do you want a 1792- ake-it-or–else-girl situation?

I think a dependant spouse has every right to seek “special treatment” to redress “those wrongs rather than perpetuating a protected status” especially if the provider spouse uses that protection to control the other or if the dynamic is that that MW posits. You are arguing to take away the choice for a dependant to move out of a damaging or unfulfilling relationship if you take away state assistance – back to 1792 situation.

RObert I didn’t talk of conspiracy. And victimlike you grab at things to bring attention to your male - centred problems. Gee that’s annoying –write your own article (: Concede it must be frustrating trying to get people to listen and see.

You say: “…to move forward on issues where womens and mens freedom to make real choices are limited by perceptions about their gender rather than by the abilities of the individual.” What happens if the dependant spouse’s individual abilities are limited because they are and have been the primary carer of the children? While suggesting others lack insight (“limited by perceptions about their gender”), you display an almost tragic (and genderised) understanding of a dependant spouse’s predicament.

What you’re argument suggests RObert is that you want to trap dependant partners into staying in a bad marriage. Your belief that state assistance in a crisis will “perpetrate a protected status” suggests you think women are innately dependant and helpless beings. This seems uncharacteristic?

RE: victimhood. Current orthodoxies aside - being a victim is not a crime. Remaining one is unhealthy though.

RObert seems to say that coercion is bad, then goes on to advocate it for dependant spouses, but only if that coercion is societal and personal (by denying state assistance in crisis). For some reason though this personal coercion which denies choice is, for RObert, good – but state assistance which allows a choice and ought to help pull someone out of victim hood is bad but, illogically, for the same reasons that personal coercion is, for RObert, good . Your position is not reasonable.

ronnie peters

You go girl. Your socialism is that last vestige of feminism. All the real fems left the cause once they got what was necessary, balance. Now feminism is socialism by another name and a holdover of The Womanfirsters Club. There are already so many woman only organization out there waiting to lunge in at the first female burp that there isn't enough money to keep them all afloat. Your victims of male dependency are already well covered by society and tax dollars. They have there own homes for recovery, tax paid education courses for employment, and a judicial system that will make sure that awful man supports her.
Here's a question for you. How come you and your fems want to pass a law that prohibits fathers from getting a DNA paternity test with out the mothers consent?

Ronnie, I'm hoping that you have misunderstood my point.

"So, for Wollstonecraft , the power structure disabled women. Indeed it was such that women perpetrated their own disempowerment."

- My view is that in most cases this is more about roles than power as such. There will be exceptions but the guys who went down a coal mine and died young coughing their lungs out don't seem like a good supporting case for those men holding power. If there was power it was the power of someone with responsibility for anothers welfare distorted by social convention.
- I believe that the roles placed on women and men and perpetuated by both have disabled both. With power and freedom come responsibility (and sometimes visa versa). With the freedom to choose to stay or go comes the responsibility of living with the consequences.

Societies responsibility is not to protect individuals from the consequences of their choices but to ensure that the consequences faced are fair (I don't like that word in this context but it's the best I can think of at the moment). The kind of society I support will add some compassion in there to help people move on from poor choices but not give freedom with no responsibility.

I agreed with Ena's post on the Womens Work thread although it made no mention of the practical issues facing an individual. Both men and women find themselves trapped in relationships, not just "dependent spouses". Both can suffer serious emotional and financial hardship from a choice to leave (or stay).

Those who continue to perpetuate the role of men as protector and provider rather than partner perpetuate the limitation of women and men to be the best they can be.

R0bert

Interesting thing this 'economic coercion.'

Research shows that married men are the highest income earners, it must be economic coercion.

Having and raising children is not cheap, I think that has something to do with economic coercion.

Bettina Arndt wrote an article that the men least likely to get married or to have a partner are those on the low economic scale. Even today it appears that women still want men who earn more than they do.

Melaine Phillips in "Saying the Unsayable"
http://www.melaniephillips.com/articles-new/?p=471
Looks at examines the welfare state in Great Britain.

Carey Roberts in "The Feminization of poverty"
http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/roberts/061003
"Far too many women are stuck in the cycle of poverty from which there is no escape."

"During my life I've traveled far and wide, visiting some of the most poverty-stricken regions of the world. And I've never seen anything that resembles a sex-based imbalance of poverty.

When economist Victor Fuchs of the National Bureau of Economic Research combed through the figures from the 1970s, he concluded: "Statistical decomposition of the changes shows that an increase in the proportion of women in households without men was the principal source of feminization of poverty."

Translation: Divorce places a woman at risk of becoming impoverished."
Fuchs went on to note, "between 1979 and 1984 poverty rates rose for both men and women, but they rose relatively more rapidly for men." So according to Dr. Fuchs, the real crisis was the masculinization, not feminization, of poverty.

A few years ago sociologist Martha Gimenez sagely observed that the feminization of poverty myth only serves to fuel "conflict between men and women, young and old, and white and nonwhite."

As Robert has pointed out particularly western governments have stepped in a become the de facto protector and provider. Although the role of the protector is rather redundant these days.

Now in an ideal situation this only last for a period of time until as Ronnie puts it "women find their feet."

Research shows however neither men or women gain economically from divorce as both experience a fall in the standard of living.

It was man as protector and provider that gave feminism legs. Not sure who designed the shoes.

the lawyers my friend, the lawyers

Take the biggest part of Feminism Made Flesh, the Family Law Industry which runs at $20 billion pa [that's each, to the lawyers and ladies]

It follows perfectly the laws of marketing/sales - the marketing sows the seeds, the sales reaps the harvest

a perfect marketing platform by lawyers [based on female desire for power and greed, and blokes ruled by dicks, hence swallow all the red herrings you people are talking to , ie gender war] and a huge sales force of women, hence 50% of married blokes become victims

JamesH You sly old dog, you. I have just found out where the content of your posts comes from. Word for word in many instances. You simply rip huge swathes of other peoples opinions from various partisan web-sites and pass them off as your own, don't you, you cunning old monkey? Not even Australian web-sites in the main.

Your rather huffy reply to my fervent plea for you to get a balanced idea of what feminism (uh, especially feminism as it effects people in Australia. Australian men and women)was to provide the names of other anti-fems. like yourself you'd grabbed off the web. Well, of course your views will seem like they were handed down through a burning bush if you only ever read people who agree with you. Hell's teeth, what on earth is the point of that?

Its a rather nasty and unpalatable fact of life that views other than one's own have merit. Debate, discussion and research are supposed to open our minds to the fact that we are neither omnipotent or omniscient. They are supposed to educate us and, yes, at times even humble us: part of the process that turns us into balanced individuals.

I do not have any particular agenda (except honesty?) to push for. I am only ..repeatedly, vainly, tiredly...calling for a balanced view because arguing from a position of biased ignorance with a closed mind is an insult to those once described as "..so noble in being.." (And that quote didn't come off any rabidly partisan web-site.)

Btw. ever heard of plagiarism? It's taking other people's work and passing it off as one's own. If you are going to assemble your posts from bits and bobs of second hand and unfounded quotes brush up on your punctuation. As it stands now a large part of "your" posts (see, the quotation marks denote irony because they are not yours at all) come from others. Better still, don't say anything more, just make your posts a series of web-site addresses we can take seriously or not as we desire. Jeez.

Dear Romany,

I put the persons name first and then quotation marks around what I cut and paste. Plus at times I also paste the link.

I might add for example Erin Pizzey wrote.

As far as I know that is not plagerism.

James - o.k.: - The para commencing: "When Victor Fuchs..." should begin with quotation marks because those are neither your words nor is it your knowledge.

A quote within a quote requires single Qt. marks e.g.: 'Statistical decomposition.. At the end of this quote within a quote finish with another single qt. mark:...poverty'.

Keep your original quotation marks open right until you begin to use your own voice. In this case you are quoting someone else all the way down to the word "non-white". As that also finished the Gimenez quote you close off her speech with a single mark, and then close off the whole piece with end quotes: ...and non-white.' ".

As you have it right now yes, mate, it does indeed constitute plagiarism. The most lenient thing one could say is that it is misleading.

Romany, you sly ol' dog you. The sharpness of your blade is proof of the hours you have laboured over that grinding wheel. No agenda indeed.

James, my son, you are banned from the men's room until you master punctuation. Not using sufficient quotations. Three weeks sitting down to pee ought to open your eyes to the angst you have brought to "Australian feminism". God. The list just keeps getting longer eh.
Material feminism
Equity feminism
Gender feminism
Cyberfeminism
Post-feminism
Hardline feminism
Third-world feminism
Cyborg feminism
Individualist feminism
Socialist feminism
Radical feminism
Black feminism
and last but not least, Womanism.

James have you read any of Warren Farrell's work?

Thanks for the lesson in grammer, I know it's not purfect.

However where are you references, I haven't noticed any.

"Debate, discussion and research are supposed to open our minds to the fact that we are neither omnipotent or omniscient. They are supposed to educate us and, yes, at times even humble us: part of the process that turns us into balanced individuals." Romany.

That is correct. Now apply it!

I find it to be extremely hypocritical when people say 'get a balanced view of feminism' when the view presented of men by feminists is anything but balanced.

It is true that there are many types of feminism. I found that out by reading Daphne Patai and Sommers who are not Australians.

Perhaps the author I got most of the 'click experience' from was Melaine Phillips.

In theory the fems say that they want equality, support human rights and social justice. I have yet to see those principles being applied equally to men.

"Oh yes, women are notorious for tugging on the emotions of their blokes in order to get their way."

"And while doing a bit of probing, I came across some facts that find this theory could indeed have scientific legs. "

"A study published in The Psychiatric Times found that women were more likely to use psychological pressure - such as verbal pleading and arguments, emotional blackmail and deception - than men."

"And don't we know it." Sam and the city, 2007.

I guess the real double standard applies in that women (fems) are allowed to critise men, but men are never allowed to critise feminists and in particular what is often passed off as research.

“Yet what baffles me the most about my newfound insight into the male brain (thanks to this column and the ever expanding number of emails hitting my inbox) is that it's not the men who judge us so profoundly. Instead, it's our own kind: it's our fellow femmes ...” Sam and the city

though made light and with twisted humor, this video piece on 'creating a cult' following on 'be-dumb' rang true in the fundamental sense, and similar to my experience in some church denominations over the years before I gave up looking for spiritual growth there...

http://www.be-dumb.com/
at "mind control made easy" - some crude language there and recommend older than 18's to view this site

At particularly, remove self identity, criticism of cult is criminal, produce mental breakdown while giving it nice names and supporting it as a good thing, all to break the individual and remake to what is wanted by the ones with the 'power and authority' etc

I wonder if women would be able to comment on how much of the inner workings of feminism resemble this, and to us men of how many of us as children have been affected by women.

Sam

aqvarivs, I'm working my way through "The Myth of Male Power" at the moment. There is plenty of good stuff in there but much of his writing looks like most a bit of the feminist writing I've read. My overall impression is that he uses techniques like comparing dissimilar situations, focussing on worst case scenarios etc. Not as bad as many others "gender" writers but I'd prefer a different approach.

The second half of the book looks better in this respect than the first so far.

His basic arguments are good, some of the material he uses to support them seem out of balance.

R0bert

so just more and more of gender war

and as Garner and myself tried to tell you - the fems are simply larfin all the way to the bank

but I'm out of this thread - cancel my email alert - mission complete, I was right re garner and Hitler was right re people dont think

catch yers

R0bert,
I thought this was a very good article considering the views and personal experiences on both sides.

http://archive.salon.com/mwt/mothers/2001/02/06/farrell/index.html

It's kind of an intro to Warren Farrell and his work for gender equality.

aqvarivs, I loved the closing comments of that article - thanks.

"Warren Farrell, masculinist, believes that there should never have been a women's movement that blamed men for the ills of society. There should not be a men's movement blaming women. There should only be a gender transitional movement that encompasses both genders. Sadly, he says, 30 years of feminism have made the men's movement necessary. 'But as soon as things get anywhere near balanced -- if I live that long -- when men start blaming women, I will be on their backs just as hard and as strong as I am now that it's the other way around.'"

I like that term "gender transitional movement" - that's what I support. Something that lets us all move onto a healthier balance, that does not take a simplistic view of the issues faced in the past but recognises that we are now equipped to move forward.

Thanks

R0bert

I have read all Farrells books, but I much prefer David Thomas's book.

http://www.ukmm.org.uk/issues/suppression/nl.htm
Neil Lyndon's case

Someone wrote that they thought that Christina Hoff Sommers book "Who Stole Feminism" was the scariest book written. However after reading Melaine Phillips "The Sex Change Society" I'd have to say that this is the scariest book I have read by far.

I have so far resisted temptation to buy and read "Women who make the world worse" Kate O’Beirne.

JAMES - until about 8 years ago my lived experience of mainstream Western culture was around zero to nil. (And before you start wondering aloud, yes I am white and anglo).

All I knew about feminism was what the sites you frequent say and what I'd heard from disgruntled blokes in bars.

Then 5 years ago I was researching for something else entirely but which necessitated a working knowledge of feminism.

Since then I have read literally hundreds of books and papers on the subject as my various bibliographies on different papers attests. I've gone up and down the country talking to people in everything from CWA meetings to High Schools to Rotary clubs about male suicide, mental health and feminism.

If you look at any of my posts you'll see I have never claimed to be a feminist (I have never claimed to be female either but someone here once "guessed" I was ). I do not - repeat NOT - have an agenda. All I have ever pushed for was that you read primary sources not secondary ones. In other words: not what other people say about feminism but what feminists say.

I thought that you were trying to do this when you started quoting Patel - and agreeing with her. (Yes, she is a feminist).

As to there being so many different kinds: well, hey, there are all different kinds of Christians too. Some are rabid, foaming-at-the- mouth zealots, some wreak havoc, some are saints, some do good. Some have changed the course of history for the better, some for the worse.

If this were a forum on Christianity as many people would be rubbishing it and pointing out the harm and the evil it has perpetuated as people getting hot under the collar in its defence. But they would all have knowledge of what they were talking about.

To extend the above comparison: arguing about feminism when familiar only with other people's opinions of it, could be likened to a Muslim with no knowledge of the Bible arguing about Christianity.

That's all.

Romany,

I too have read lots of papers and books.

The following are quotes from Daphne Patai books;

“As a result, students are likely to learn only what feminists say about these troubling and complex social issues. All other research is regarded as inherently biased”

“Some feminist writers even speak of ‘tending’ their anger,”

“Women’s studies faculty on the Women’s Studies e-mail list engaged in a long discussion of what to do about students’ sagging morale. Had they overdone their emphasis on the atrocities perpetrated against women?”

“They would like to retain the charge that rape is a terrible violation of human rights and, at the same time, stretch the legal definition of the crime beyond all reason.”

“Men are currently ‘set up’ for failure.”

“the problem is the general antagonism toward men that has been apart of feminism from its very beginning.”

“the sort of tool sexual harassment quickly became a means of controlling male expressions of sexuality,”

“Manginas” is what Patai describes male feminists and she says they are not pretty.

Cathy Young, Wendy McElroy, Chistina Stolba, Hoff Sommers, Melaine Phillips are just a few of the female authors I have read.

"All I have ever pushed for was that you read primary sources not secondary ones." Which I have done.

I work with feminist day in and day out and I find them to be hypocritical and highly judgmental who have no awareness of their own double standards. I have to force myself to go to work sometimes. Their favourite sport is male bashing and they regurgitate ad nausem the misinformation.

Beleive me, I sometimes envy the blokes whose lives end prematurely.

James H,
What a terribly sad last remark that was.
As I keep saying, and Romany too, there are heaps of lousy whinging pain in the butt feminists, indeed, you will be hard pressed to find a perfect one. But there are heaps of lousy whinging pain in the butt any other group you care to mention, and no perfect ones of them, either.
I have always worked in male dominated areas and male dominated workplaces. Among those men I have found some of my dearest friends and some gigantic pains. Some men, when they get into a group are just awful and the things they say about women have made my hair stand on end. Most of the men who don't like what they hear stay silent, but there is the occasional brave soul who speaks up. I have spoken up and been pilloried for it. If I were a bloke in a female dominated workplace, I'd probably have experienced the same thing from the other side. It ain't that men are good and women ( or even feminists) are bad, or vice versa, its that humans are flawed whatever their gender or beliefs, and humans of one type (all one gender, all one nationality, all one religion etc) are often the worst. It is hard to be an outsider of whatever group, but painting all the individuals in that group with one brush is just repeating the very behaviour you object to.
Cheer up, James H, we are nicer than you give us credit for, if you just lower your defences long enough to be able to see it.

Smile JamesH... the circumstances out there is changing very rapidly. The type of rabid women you work with are easily detected and no body want to be around them. If I was an employer, I am sure a judge would agree that they are disruptive to the work environment, with a few witnesses to evidence to conduct of this group.

The radar is out on the lower flying ones now, whom escape the detection, and are the ones we worry about. Crafty and include 'how to avoid consequences' early in the planning stage of injury to others for benefit, they enjoy so much. Hope thing improve soon in all things for you...

Sam

What is a feminist, eh?

A simple question, but one, which doesn't have a simple answer. Notwithstanding this wonderfully and gracious, politically correct declaration, I shall venture to opinionize, for all you good folks, the fundamental essence of the simple answer to that simple question of - what is a feminist?

A feminist is a gullible person, male or female, who has "bought the farm" of the Marxist notion that women were/are a socially constructed class oppressed by a conspiracy targeted intentionally against poor wickle women by another nasty, dastardly oppressive group of society called men.

Now of course nothing could be further from the truth, because REAL history records that both men and women (and their kids) have been EQUALLY oppressed by wicked nature, a few naughty and entitled people and, above all else, women's own reproductive biology.

Yep! That's what kept women in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant for hundreds of millenniums. It was the lack of birth control. Not a conspiracy by fearful men, not even a lack of television, not even alleged religious hatred, but women's very own fertility. Women were biological slaves to their own bodies and so too were their men folk - until the contraceptive pill for women arrived in the early nineteen-sixties. And that's a fact. Live with it. It's the truth. That's what "liberated" women. Feminism had nothing whatsoever to do with it. But feminism claimed the moral victory and went on a rampage of patriarchal destruction, which continues to this very day, destroying traditional families for the purposes of achieving the Marxist goal of eliminating patriarchal inheritance.

That's what feminists fight for and that's what feminists do, whether they know it or not. So, knowing that, what is a feminist? Try these simple answers -

A political idiot.
A sexist supremacist.
A paranoid and self fulfilling victim.
A dork.
A fool.
A danger to themselves, their children and all of society.
The enemy of all good men, women and children around the world.

So to put it bluntly, in my opinion you understand, a feminist is simply, a human disgrace.

Romany you wrote that you attended CWA meetings.

Patricia Shergis
Chairman – Social Issued Committee
CWA of NSW

"Fathers sometimes complain how hard it is to support two
groups of children from different families. It may sound harsh, but if they can’t afford two families don’t have them!!"
http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/prod/PARLMENT/Committee.nsf/v3ListSubmissions?open&ParentUNID=B07F0829FC2D2160CA2571EF00192777

There was a howl of protest over the Sheiks comments comparing women to uncover meat.

Yet absolute silence from the CWA about Patricia's comments.

So in effect men are very little more than sperm donors and pay packets. Whilst wives can divorce their husbands, husbands can never divorce their wives while they are 'contributing' to the costs of raising their children.

The CSA is busy using it's powers to deem income of the payer, yet as Barry Williams identified, CSA does not deem the income of the payee.

For example you can have two doctors the custodial mother can work part-time or not at all and her income is not deemed. However if the payer wishes to reduce working hours or seek a sea change CSA can deem his income.

As Melaine Phillips pointed out this about the transfer of wealth using the 'best interest of the children' as a smoke screen.

Basically if women want the same standard of living after divorce then they should have stayed married.

Maximus, you charmer you, trying to win the discussion with charm and witt.

I agree with part of your point, the historical roles have limited both women and men and have been more about practical issues (such as a lack of birth control and an ability to reproduce) than mens power.

You could then say that "a feminist is someone who supports the necessary removal of legal and social constraints on women following the need for those constraints passing". You might reasonably suggest that the balance has not always been right but there has been a need for advocates to push for change. Not fools, rather a necessary stage in societies development.

I'm hoping that we are at the point where we can move to the next stage, a gender transformation movement in which men and women work together to remove redundant constraints on women and men. Where both are free to exercise choice and responsibility.

R0bert

Y'know, Robert, I think we actually are moving on to that point - though one would never guess it from many of the posters here. I see it in my own work and research.

And then I recently read a report which commented on the fact that in a particular survey it was a marked factor that those who held opinions such as: - that many rape victims were "asking" for it through behaviour or dress; that rape statistics and reports were only reporting female rape; that feminists had not played any part in advancing change for the good; that Family Courts were in the grip of feminist manipulation; in fact many of the more earthily described opinions often to be seen here - were predominantly the 50+ age group.

And before anyone starts accusing me of ageism - the word used was "predominantly", not "exclusively". Other research has independently provided similar results.

What this means is that somehow or other we actually are moving forward, with the generations who will/are becoming the policy makers and who are/will provide the bulk of society having a more balanced and informed outlook on these matters than their predecessors.

The fact that, as a society, we are steadily increasing the kinds of understanding, empathy and tolerance that leads to gender equality gives hope that the horrific gender intolerance often illustrated here is already becoming a construct of a less enlightened historical period - like crimplene suits and lycra shorts.

Tranny led enlightenment? I don’t think so! Seems like more of the feminist instigated lunacy Maximus is describing.

For proof you needn’t go further than to recall the dismal rejection of SNAGs by the very women who thought they wanted them. Now please stop this talk of gender reassignment, transition, neutralisation, or whatever you have in mind!

Why do we never hear of feminism demanding change from women? Surely it is your turn to change - let’s have non-whining, all-doing, SNAFs please.

Romany

You say you should not be accused of ageism but why shouldn't you be, after all you have given people aged fifty and above and feminist or not, a solid sledging in your responses so far.

Maybe you protest too much and need to take a good dose of the medicine you prescribed to others - namely to go off and talk to people over fifty and read articles written by them. Perhaps you will be very surprised by the maturity, sensitivity, knowledge and life skills of those people over fifty that you seem to despise so much.

There is plenty of evidence around that people over fifty are not as washed up, silly and useless as you might think.

Cornflower - what is your problem with me?

I "sledge" and "despise" people over 50 and consider them "washed up, silly and useless". On what do you base this? Is it because I quoted an article that had noted that the majority of people were now more informed about sexual abuse than was common twenty years ago?

The inference there was that this generation was more knowlegable about such things than their predecessors which I saw as a good sign. That's sledging? That's showing I despise people?

This article is about modern feminism. Earlier on I pointed out that contemporary feminism ( like contemporary Christianity or contemporary psychology for example) has moved on. I highlighted the fact that to continue basing ideas on what feminists of another era did was unfair. Just like continuing to judge catholics on Vatican 2 would be unfair.

Quoting activists from the 60's and 70's did not adhere to the parameters of this debate.

Reading the work of to-days feminists who grew up in a different environment is relevant to an understanding of to-day's feminism.

From this you extrapolated that I consider anyone over 50 washed up or silly or useless?

And what part of "I have travelled up and down the country etc..." did you not understand? Do you imagine that all the members of such clubs as Rotary or CWA or Lions or Christian Churches or crisis centres or staff of secondary schools, or the homeless or the inhabitants of psychiatric wards etc. etc. are debutantes?

As for reading articles and books by people over 50? I teach at a University - therefore a vast percentage of the articles and books I read are written by people not only over 50 but who kicked the bucket centuries ago! Some of my colleagues are over even 70!

Do you continually malign me for no other reason than that I hold different opinions to you? In light of the fact that you have never acknowledged my apology nor provided quotes as proof of your accusations it begins to seem so.

A saying which I think has more than an element of truth is;

"At 20 if you are not a liberal you have no heart,
At 40 if you are not a conservative you got no brains."

So basically in theory as people age they gain life experience, which can lead to a greater understanding and insight. Well for some of them anyway. With age some people gain maturity.

"Quoting activists from the 60's and 70's did not adhere to the parameters of this debate.

Reading the work of to-days feminists who grew up in a different environment is relevant to an understanding of to-day's feminism."

Romany, sure today's young feminist grew up in a different enviroment, however this occured because of the ageing feminists.

Many of the ageing feminists were very anti-marriage seeing this as the way men keep women oppressed. Now women in their 30's 40's are saying that they cant find a man to commit or suddenly they are having great difficulty in getting pregnant.

It has been justified that because women have theoretically suffered thousands of years of oppression, then it's OK for men to cop it.

Selective examples of history have been used too justify the excesses of feminism and as to why women should have special treatment to make up for past injustices.

There may well be a new group of feminists emerging, but we only have your word for it. Words are meaningless without action to reinforce them and the old style feminist said they wanted equality, yet all their actions showed they wanted exclusivity and that they are sexist and biased.

The truth is that human behaviour is much much more complex that feminists care to portray.

As a feminist, I agree with maximus. Not his tone (rather smug, I think) but his analysis. He is quite right, male power was not a male conspiracy, it was a result of women having no control over their own fertility. While feminism started alongside humanism and anti-slavery as part of the Enlightenment in the 1700s (around time of French Rev), you can date the revolution in women's roles and status from the introduction of the contraceptive pill. Nor is it a male conspiracy that many men and women - particularly those brought up prior to the 1960s and 70s- have found this revolution threatening and hard to handle, it is human and completely understandable. Also, no group in human history has easily given up power once they've got it and it is unreasonable to expect anyone to both lose power and enjoy losing it. However, it is also unreasonable to expect more than 50% of the human race to stay meekly in their "supportive" roles, earning less, owning less and deciding less, and even more unreasonable to argue that it is justified - particularly if you are one of the half of the human race not constrained by biology. Its similar to arguing that blacks deserve to be second class because of the colour of their skin or shape of their nose, when you are smugly white.
As a feminist, I agree with R0bert (I often do), and I do not demonise either men or women or feminists. Humans are humans, no better, no worse than one another and this constant my gender's better than your gender is just childish.

James, do you recall the section in the last couple of pages of The Myth of Male Power where Farrell talks about adolescent feminism vs adult feminism. It seems that you and others are so focussed on the adolescent feminists that you refuse to acknowledge the posibility of adult ones (for those who've not read it the adolescent ones are into choice without responsibility, blame without understanding etc and the adult ones are calling for women to take on adult responsibilities as well as rights).

How about assuming that those who try and have a discussion with you are adult (or adult enough to be willing to listen) and see if that makes a difference. The adolescent ones will have a dummy spit and call you names when you make a case for something you don't like - they are rather obvious.

Ena, and Romary seem to be willing to discuss issues and listen. Time for some dialog.

R0bert

Gee, teenage feminism must be about the longest teenage period in history.

There are a few adult feminists who have exposed the myths surrounding DV, the glass ceiling, the wage gap myth etc.

But, by and large they are a very small minority.

Fortunately some of the matriarchs of the feminist movement have reconsidered their political position and others are now pushing up daisies.

"unreasonable to expect more than 50% of the human race to stay meekly in their "supportive" roles, earning less, owning less and deciding less, and even more unreasonable to argue that it is justified - particularly if you are one of the half of the human race not constrained by biology." ena

My paternal grandmother was anything but meek. She ruled! so don't give me that crap about meek women.

Research by Dr Sotirios Sarantakos showed that most homes were either Matriarchal or the power was shared.

Today I understand that wives control about 80% of the household budget and decide which house to buy, what car to drive. I wonder if that is deciding less?

I remember lessons from my older male relatives including my grandfather about not saying things which would be deemed to upset women and to do what they said.

I had permission to hit other boys if they hit me, but under no circumstances was it acceptable to hit a girl regardless, no matter what she did to you.

Even during WW1 the group who allegedly had all the power could be intimidated by the women of the white feather brigade into joining the armed services.

Fighting on the western front for men was more pleasant than staying safely at home. Gee the men had a lot of power didn't they?

Men have not lost any power due to the advent of feminism. "Men" never had any power. Prior to feminism there never was a social movement of masculinist empowerment. With out exception, men have always worked and fought for their lovers, their wives, their family, their community, their country.
A man will work in the most God awful environments, due most physically abusive labour, for hours, days, years on end. He will willingly give his life so that his wife will have nothing but the best he can afford.
Very damn few women are ever willing to endure such a menial existence for their lover or husband, or family. Never mind community or country. Todays woman of equal rights and feminine power is out the door and on to the next income earner before the ink is dry on the separation agreement. And that woman can be earning $100,000 dollars a year. It makes no difference.
There is no expectation that women will stay meekly in their supportive role. They haven't got a supportive role. If they had the realities of marriage and divorce would reflect it.
As for "earning less, owning less and deciding less, and even more unreasonable to argue that it is justified." It is justified in that men spend 20-30 years on their careers. Women spend the grand total of 5 to 10 years on their careers. "Owning less" Women "own" everything their man had or purchases in his life with them. What does a man walk out with? And please enough about what you get to decide. I haven't made an independent decision in I don't know how long. I don't even get to decide when to go to the bathroom. Nature does.
This is the 21st century. If women aren't going to take responsibility for their actions, the backlash will be that the responsibility will be taken from them. That is the essential bit about freedoms. You only have them for as long as you take responsibility for them. Take it from me, one of those all powerful men you aspire to be.

Ironically, feminism is opening a lot of men's eyes to how we can assert real power and control over our own lives.

The loss or compromising of personal power proceeds from attachment to various levers of social and emotional control... money, material, status, sex, procreation, children, institutions, religion, ideology, greed, love, hate, desire, envy, etc. Its an extremely difficult thing to detach the myriad means by which we disempower/oppress OURSELVES, tho it is possible to travel a subjective path of least resistence.

Feminism has very much liberated men from the social/moral/ethical obligation to to do what we've always done. We've always enjoyed a biological freedom. Now there is also a social freedom. With a bunch of technology on the horizon giving us real reproductive choices.

Men arent up against the same social stigma on this front.

Females seem to have a strong tendency to define themselves first and foremost on the basis of their reproductive biology and gender. If a man speaks ill of one woman, then most women seem to take offense and seek to correct one's thinking. Men, when confronted with same, dont seem to bother too much about it.

Modern day tendency of some men to get their backs up and take this stuff personally strikes me as an example of the feminisation of men... getting in touch with 'feminine side.' Shows how effective feminism has become as a way to influence (control?) men. Or maybe, pushing a mans emotional buttons has always been an effective control mechanism in the hands of woman and feminism is hardly likely to relinquish a potent proven technique.

A lot of guys are staying outta the trenches. There's much data to this effect out there. Prolly get worse too.

Majority of men are attached tho, but seemingly, over time develop an emotional detachment (a proxy), prolly driving married womens deep dissatisfaction, hence fact that 60-80% of divorce is initiated by women. Maybe also driving ongoing resentment as evidenced by some pretty ordinary behaviour towards their exes in divorce.

Soldier on... the Gender Snore and the Battle of the Exes.

peace.

I dont know guys...the theme is getting repetitive, which is women writing about 'feminism' and how now its a 'new feminism' without stating exactly in what acts is it 'new'... besides the fact that most of the women are still working as groups, and our worry is what now...

Not one woman has given a factual disclosure of their organized acts done in the 'name of feminism' but statistics abound of their effects from family court and child support agency corrupted to act in their benefit, and just general social knowledge of damage to good fathers and children by women eg stark difference in suicide rates in these groups...that now affected more people than not...

Men have been showing the lies and deceit of some of their words, and now we should develop on... some effort on what is actually going on in the womens mind and the hidden communication between each other( you will soon note that their communication is quite different to ours)... they most certainly wont tell you and if they do its probably to deceive but a bit of sherlock holmes and a lot of sharp observation and apply with street smart excellence... its in our nature to do this, like we would hunting in the jungle... before we know it we have more factual information gathering and then we move on to the next level which we need to...eg women are 'master image merchants' while we are toddlers at it...we can never compete unless we excel at the same game applying the same principles which is probably might be 'succeed over the sisterhood for the brotherhood'... which to us will be protect, defend and promote good fathers and good children, and of course mother earth...

Sam

When it comes to understanding a person, woman are like men on one incontravertible front...

...watch a person's actions.

Its very simple. Men and women stuff all sorts of things up in relationships because we proceed on the basis of hot air. Its natural l guess, to live in hope and trust people.

Its only a matter of time before one wakes up and realises talk is cheap. It becomes impossible to ignore the weighty evidence of TRUTH, in all its unvarnished and over-exposed repetition.

Technology (birth control) and feminism pushed out the time horizons for mating. Its easy to ignore the truth when hormones are raging. With men and women waiting until their 30s to commit, its much easier, compelling in fact, to think with the big head. Also you learn to trust your gut, because it NEVER lies.

Nnother, possibly unintended, benefit for the bicycles.

The biggest sellouts of feminism were women. They didnt like the warts and all nature of equality. Didnt want to give up many of the gender-centric priviledges that were a human history in the making, in fact systematically solidifiying that side of things.

They're very pragmatic and arent about to buy a bunch of words. Jobs, money and reproductive power (currently practically absolute) are all good, but doing the nasty, ugly side of a man's world is not ever gonna happen. Afterall, that's mens work. Ya know how it goes, men are responsible for all the crappy crappyness (mans world), so we gotta shoulder the responsibility for the mess and shouldnt expect any help from our sisters in redressing the millenial legacy of stuff we didnt do.

Gee thanx, for the help and here's to a better existence.

You see, equality is a VERY HARD ROAD to TRAVEL. Its the path least travelled and there's a reason for it... you cant blame anyone, you gotta shoulder the responsibilities, equally. Sans the word games, routines or campaigns.

l dont think you realise how easy it is to actually do.

But YOU gotta step up. If you dare.

What is feminism? Well in 1974, despite being the highest paid graduate in Australia I was unable to get a mortgage without a male going guarantor because I might get pregnant.
Up until January 1974 my mother was paid 66% of the male wage in a professional job, she was luckier than my grandmother in the 1920s who wasn't paid but her father paid all her bills. Can you imagine every month explaining to your dad that yes you purchased 30 tampons coz you used them all. [Well that's not realistic because tampons were first marketed in the 1930s]. Imagine explaining your alcohol, cigarette or Ecstasy purchases.

That Sam is what feminism means to me!

Billie

I have a male relative who was living in Canberra in 1975 and he was refused a mortgage because he was single. Apparently banks had an order of preference and single young men were low on the pecking order. The manager said that young men were less responsible.

He was an economics/commerce graduate who was a 'permanent' public servant with some years continuous service. He said he met the other criteria such as large deposit, good credit rating and loyalty with the bank, fit and healthy.

"particularly if you are one of the half of the human race not constrained by biology." ena

Well Ena as a bloke I simply do not have the technical and tactical advantages of your gender, so yes I am constrained by my biology.

I suppose the thousands of men who died in wars or had limbs blown off weren't constrained by their biology either.

Let's consider at least 4-5 men commit suicide every day in this country are not constrained by their biology. At least 98% of work place fatalities are male.

Male children under the age of 5, have a much higher chance of dying than female children.

I am pretty sure that when the male birth control pill appears, that many men will be taking it, so the 'accidental' pregnancy does not happen. It will be interesting to see what happens to the birth rate once this magic pill appears and becomes a popular method to use in birth control.

Dear James, how many women sent men off to war? I don't mean as grieving wives and mothers, I mean as Kings, Dukes, Presidents, Fuehrers and PM"S? Yes, Golda Mier did and Indira Ghandi and Thatcher and Elizabeth 1 and probably a few more, but as a percentage they wouldn't make 1% of those who have declared war.
You need to look to your own gender for that. By the way, its feminism that has pushed more women into the armed forces, because as R0bert points out, adult feminists - and I hope I can count myself as one - believe that with equal rights come equal responsibilities.
Indeed, many - if not most - individual men throughout history had little power, but, in most societies over the millennia the least powerful man was more powerful than the least powerful woman, and I suspect that remains the case. Feminism would like to see ordinary people, both men and women, have more individual control (or power, if you prefer) over how they shall live and who they shall be, rather than have it dictated to them by - the largely male dominated institutions of church and state.

The least powerful are about to die. There are many more multiples of men then women in this cohort.

ena

You asked how many women sent men off to war. In response I am sorry to report that in Australia alone thousands of women have done just that.

Women voted strongly for Australia's participation in Vietnam and over the years have been staunch supporters of governments that sent men to war.

It is true that mothers shed tears when their sons are maimed or killed, but there is something about women that they are not averse to sending their sone and those of other mothers at the merest mention of hostilities. It is something women do not want to discuss but it does need to be 'outed' if some honesty is to prevail.

As a side issue, women haven't taken a back seat in supporting such nasties as capital punishment, corporal punishment in schools (and in the home), stronger criminal punishments, mandatory sentencing and so on either.

In short, it is a nonsense to claim that women are necessarily the less violent sex as any trip to the local hypermarket will show through the number of women who brutally chastise small children through verbal and physical abuse.

Then there is Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS)- what woman is not aware of friends (and maybe herself) who abuses children daily through alienation of the father?

Frankly I would like to think that feminism could deliver equality but while the mantra is women good but men, children and families bad, I cannot see any reason shy men should be so stupid as to accept the usual assurances that only a few radicals give feminism bad press.

The question was about being constrained by biology. Not who sent who off to war.

Firstly I do not claim to be a historian.

Now I'll play.

Now there was Victoria, Elizabeth and Thatcher as far as I know 2 out of the three have sent men to war. So that is 66% of female rulers of England who have sent men to war. Compare that, to the percentage of male rulers who sent men to war.

Now a while ago I remembered a story about a man being sent a white feather and then joining up. So I did an internet search on "white feather."

During WW1 Admirald Fitzgerald founded the order of the White Feather, to enlist women into the crusade to 'encourage' recalitant men into becoming cannon fodder.

Even in Australia I understand men were sent or given "white feathers."

Apparently the tactic of shaming men into joining the armed services had been used in the past.

So even though more male rulers have sent men to war, women actually were involved in 'encouraging' men to join up.

Cornflower, I take offense at your latest post grouping all women together in your argument. I do not categorise myself as a 'feminist' but I do hold some strongly held beliefs that are labelled by some as feminist and I do not support your assertions. I would also like to go out on a limb and comment that some of the men that are posting on this thread appear to have had some very bad experiences with women that have tainted their viewpoint of all women and then blame it all on the feminist movement. I would also like to point out that not all women villify their exes, I have made a concerted effort to keep on friendly terms with mine for the sake of the children and for all concerned. I thought that I was doing a good job until he found another woman who objected to me having any contact with him at all. Rather than blame the woman, my children and I are bewildered that he can allow someone he has known for only a short time dictate the terms of their relationship. Perhaps what I am saying is all you men out there who hate women and blame them and feminism for all the wrongs in the world, perhaps you should look very carefully at your own decisions when you choose women who do the dirty on you.

I am not arguing women are naturally less aggressive or violent than men, I am arguing there has been far, far, far less of them in positions of power that made them able to express their violence or aggression on a mass scale, the way some men have been able to.
(Victoria doesn't count JamesH, she was a constitutional monarch and merely rubber stamped her governments (in an age where women could not vote) decisions to go to war. Elizabeth 1 (Tudor) does count because she was an absolute monarch and had the same power as her male counterparts. Indeed, her sister was called Bloody Mary due to her tendency to burn protestants, so I do not exclude women from natural human aggression, but I do argue that their relative lack of political power - at least until very recently - makes it rather extraordinary to try to shove the blame for war onto women.
I agree with Lizzie 4 that some of the posters on this thread make extreme statements about the supposed nature of women (something about the nature of women sending men off to war, was one, I think) that if said by a woman about men would send the same people into orbit, Imagine if I said (which I never have) that there is something about the nature of men that makes them enjoy hitting their wives, for example? People are people, neither wholly good nor wholly bad, whether male or female.

For all the girls,

If political women was really about equality, we wouldn't be having these discussions. We'd be working together to resolve issues of mankind and not focused on womans perceptual issues of self worth. If feminism was about any thing more than women acquiring power over men, relationships between men and women would be far more harmonious. It's time women stopped looking back for justification and began to take responsibility for their collective actions today and for the situations they manufacture when relating to men. Yes, men are bad, evil, nasty creatures but, contrary to the fable, women are not sugar and spice, and everything nice. Finger pointing is not going to lead to any resolution of any perceived injustice between the sexes.
And girls. life is a bit like golf. The forward momentum to drive the ball out over the fairway is collected during the back swing. Beware of the back swing inherent in feminism. Put the breaks on feminist empowerment and concentrate on honest equality and responsibility. The pendulum swings and like my Granny always said," Laughing always comes to crying."
This is my last post for this thread. Keep well. If I was to meet you on the street I'd have a big hug for ya. Well, not if that's sexual assault. :-)

Peace

Very easy to play this game.

Behind every man is a woman. As the dutch say, two women... his wife and his mother.

Mothers have ULTIMATE power over their sons.

Day care, creche, kinda, primary school, baby sitters... female dominated. These are positions of enormous power and influence. Ultimately women are responsible for the formative and ongoing socialisation of males, implictly responsible for everything a man ever did/does. Woe behold the poor woman who spawns a genocidal maniac.

Thus... mothers are ultimately to blame for everything their sons did/didnt/will/wont do.

Rubbish, like the opposite position spawning this line.

Maybe everything men and women do is to curry the favour of each other.

Going to war to secure resources and kill the competition is about making oneself useful (attractive) to women. Formenting mens aggressively acquisitive and paradoxically, destructive tendencies. Passing on, developing/exaggerating that tendency by mating this type of male, until it becomes a dominant trait.

Same idea in reverse, men select women against self reliance and physical stature... the competition makes him practically redundant. Further, his ego desires an image of woman, the idealised opposite of himself (dainty, pure, innocent, moral, weak, blah). Helpful for women to play to this illusion, maintaining/advancing their indirect power. Woman as the 'weaker/emotional/irrational/morally superior sex' = very useful ruse, behind which to wield extensive influence/power.

When men try to discuss how we too face much crap in this life, it is a two-fold appeal. Will you empathise, will you give and not take? (making it about about yourselves, passively/aggressively blaming men for their hardships).

Competing interests... NO ONE CARES about the other side.

Unfortunately, NOT CARING, is how it is these daze.

Reciprocal uncaring is the basic fuel of this pontless battle.

We shape behaviour to attract each other... survival instinct. Evolving in the projected image of one another. Behaviour is self serving, in the pursuit of each other, providing what the other needs/wants, with the delusions this symbiosis spawns.

Its no ones elses fault.

Until this basic truth is recognised we arent gonna get anywhere.

But it'll be fun argueing about it.

:-)

Ena and Romany,

I have written that human behaviour is very complex and it is true that not all members of the same gender will share the same political views or even the same life experiences.

"I agree with Lizzie 4 that some of the posters on this thread make extreme statements about the supposed nature of women."

In the past extreme statements have been and are still being made about men.

When we look back at history we are interpreting history from our viewpoint now and we read what others have written and their interpretation of events.

aqvarivs is right.

"If political women was really about equality, we wouldn't be having these discussions. We'd be working together to resolve issues of mankind."

No it's not nice feeling having your gender vilified. However this is a debate we need to have.

I think that women and women's groups are in some ways streets ahead in that you have already developed the language to express the issues that are seen to be important.

Men in general on the over hand have not by and large had the forum where issues, ideas etc can be explored.

Me, for example; for a long time I thought I was the only bloke who felt that some of the claims made by feminists did not feel right. Lo and behold thre are many men who feel the same way.

I think sometimes, what I don't find helpful in these type of topics, is when issues are raised about one group, another group says well what about us? I don't think that this type of rejoinder advances the debate at all and just leaves everyone frustrated. Maybe it is an indication of the "me" generation when people can only see issues that affect themselves. I said once before, that feminism did not happen in a vacuum. It developed as the result of perceived inequities. Like a lot of 'isms' it may have gone too far in some instances although I feel that it has not gone far enough when it comes to superannuation policy for example which is unable to deal with women's caring roles.
I must admit that I had no idea that feminism was still such a contentious topic. When you listen to the Prime Minister, feminism has achieved its purpose, women are now equal to men (which is an interesting point in itself as it sets men as the standard) so there is no need now for women to fight for their rights. Of course the recent article in the paper about women's jobs being hardest hit under the new workplace relations policy is just incidental.

Lizzie4,

You are correct in thinking that the superannuation policy could do with some more tweaking to ensure that women have adequate retirement savings. One step that was already taken in that direction is to raise the retirement age for women to 65. This adds another 5 years to potential contribution and to growth (not to mention deferred spending). Other recent improvements include incentives for contribution splitting and of course balance transfers at divorce time.

An area where super could be further improved for women in caring roles who may be taking extended periods of leave, is to raise the compulsory contributions to reflect those life choices. Raising contributions to 15% or higher for women who are likely to take time off in future would ensure they are not disadvantaged at retirement age. Their new contribution rate would ideally take into account their longer life expectancy.

One area of gender inequity for men (and I’m sure the sisterhood are already busy working out solutions to this), is family law. Currently it does not seem to account for fault/responsibility in marriage breakdown, making it very family unfriendly to men. It does not recognise post-feminist preference for marriages of average duration of 8-9 years. When it comes to fairness in child support, residency and access, men come distant last. When it comes to fertility and reproductive rights, men don’t count at all. It does not even acknowledge that half the women are prepared to lie about paternity if they became pregnant to another man but wished to remain in a marriage.

Yes, family friendly equity policies are worthy of discussion, but perhaps not just in the way you prefer.

I'm not sure Seeker, what you meant by your last statement. Family law is a difficult issue because it deals with human emotions, and the rights of people not involved in the dispute, in other words children.

I have a male friend who has been disadvantaged by divorcing his wife in terms of economics, the rights he has with his daughter to choose who she lives with, where she lives, where she goes to school etc. His girlfriend took out a family violence order against him because she asserted that he has the potential to do violence.

I do not approve of fathers not having a say in their children's upbringing and consider that fathers should want to, and have the right to have a greater say in their children's upbringing than they have particularly if the mother of the children just goes and moves in with another man. I do not support a system that can serve a man with a family violence order just on the say so of a woman.

I totally agree that family law has moved too much in favour of the mother in some cases. I agree that some women are using their children as tools to manipulate men. So rather than wait and see what the sisterhood are doing about the anomalies in family law, what are men doing about it (do we call them the brotherhood)? I get the impression sometimes that feminist theory has been hijacked by government as an excuse for some hardline policy approaches.

Lizzie4,

one of the problems is that there are issues which affect both genders for example DV. However because the focus has almost exclusively been on the female victim it becomes very hard to expand the debate to become gender inclusive and to see the problems which exist, more realistically and more truthfully.

Day by day there is more and more information which examines the manipulation of research by advcocy researchers, exposing this. There are authors appearing writing books which expands the critic of feminism.

For example 'women who make the world worse' which I do not really want to buy or read. Australia tends to follows the trends of America, usually about a decade later, although I do not know what effect the internet will have on the time lag.

"I get the impression sometimes that feminist theory has been hijacked by government as an excuse for some hardline policy approaches." Lizzie4

By now the graduates of the 70's 80's from 'womens studies' are now in the positions of power to drive government directions, there are a large number of 'female commissioners' and perhaps even larger numbers in the upper excutive of the public service. So this is why I suspect that it looks like the government has hijacked feminist theory.

In this thread we now have the term "feminists/women" and respondents directing their words at "girls", or "women" without even attempting to pretend these are anything other than gender wars that are playing out here.

Someone earlier was willing to grant that things may have changed re feminism but that they only had my word for it. But you have the author's word, you have Ena's...and all the feminist writers we keep begging you to go and explore. (NB: Wendy Mc., Erin Pizzey etc are NOT feminists. Patel IS ).

I pointed out to Aqvarius that if you typed Male Sexual Assault into Google 85 pages worth of sites came up:- he did not care to follow any of them up, but still maintains the methodology is flawed and corrupted by feminists. This would involve a worldwide conspiracy on the part of the FBI, CIA, Departments of Justice, practicing psychologists and psychiatrists,hundreds of male support groups etc.

Now feminists have infiltrated at all levels to skew the family law courts. Can't you see how irrational this sounds?

Yep, you, me, everyone who has ever had anything to do with the system knows it is iniquitous. But for every single case you can show me for a male who has suffered in this way I can provide case notes for a woman who has suffered equally.

What does this prove? Conspiracies? Evil machinations? Women taking over the world? No. It means we have a rotten bloody system that we should all be working to change. And most of all, it means, as I think we are at least all adult enough to grant, that kids - thousands, not hundreds - are suffering every day.

Whose to blame? Evil feminists? Misogynist men? No. All the people who sit around dwelling on the past and refusing to do something about the present until they can pin the blame on someone else!

It is time wasting, pointless and completely asinine to keep searching for who to blame rather than taking responsibility ourselves, male and female, for all the stuff-ups we are handing on.

Romany,

Admirable post-feminist huffing and puffing. Now provide us with credible evidence of maternity fraud committed by the father, aided by the state.

I thought I was done with this thread but, Romany wants to pull me back in with assumptions and dictate to what I have done.

Romany,"I pointed out to Aqvarius that if you typed Male Sexual Assault into Google 85 pages worth of sites came up:- he did not care to follow any of them up, but still maintains the methodology is flawed and corrupted by feminists."

None of this is true. It's an outright lie and needs immediate apology.
Nowhere in this thread have I said these thing and please let me say whether or not I followed up or did not. Such unmitigated arrogance.

Your defense of feminism is admirable but, is bordering on unthinkingly defensive. Feminism is all about a gender war. Nothing but. Now you want to blame that on men too. Take issue with words like girls, women, feminist? What? Only women or feminist can utter such lofty images?
You want the feminist opinion to go unchallenged but, not admit to being a feminist or a supporter of feminism ideals, or state whether or not your even female, and still want it to be accepted that you have no agenda. Right. I'd believe you if your own words didn't belie your assertions.

It's probably drifting off topic but I found a Family Court document that might be of interest to those involved in the most recent posts

http://www.familycourt.gov.au/presence/resources/file/eb000240ff79dc9/iijca2.pdf

It's a submission to the inquiry into joint custody run several years ago.

Figure 3, page 9 gives a chart of residence outcomes. As a single dad who has been through the mill (FMC rather than FC) I'd have to say that the difference in outcomes between consent orders and the courts is an indicator of just how bad things are when you deal with RA and friends rather than an endorsement of the courts lack of bias.

Actual parenting arrangements in place before and after seperation and the decisions which lead to a contested custody seem to have little real role in the process. Maternal bias is loud and clear but I tend to think Paternalists play as big a role as Feminists in that.

R0bert

Oh! dear a pesky conspiracy theory.

I suppose, only feminists are allowed to have conspiracy theories, now let me see;

1) marriage was a patiarchial constuct to keep women oppressed.

2) domestic violence is about power and control

3) backlash is about returning to the patriachial model

4) the glass ceiling

5) women must be on guard to protect hard won gains

6) women are still oppressed

I think I could come up with a few more.

Oh then there's the beauty myth.

I think it was Babette Francis who wrote an interesting piece on Gillard who if Labor wins the next election and she is deputy leader will be the most powerful woman in politics, and Gillards feminist credentials are impeccable to a feminist.

Interestingly Andrew Bolt wrote a piece "Law wears a skirt"

Eeva Sodhi (Canada) wrote a piece on activist justices (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."

Nah! No conspiracy theory here.

Aqvarius. I should have clarified that the sexual assault convo was on another ongoing thread. I was at fault for not having pointed that out and apologise.

Personal details are irrelevant. The point I unendingly put forward is that discussion and debate revolve around objectivity. The introduction of subjectivity is what leads to personal attacks and criticism, unforgivable rudeness.

To have an objective view of anything is to be in possession of facts - not opinions - from both sides of a debate. From the balancing and weighing of facts one then forms and states opinions.

The point that one person has had x number of experiences which point one way while another has had as many that point another way is immaterial.

This article is about:
a) many people not knowing what contemporary feminism is and
b) many people utilising the terms "feminist" or "misogynist" when in fact they are engaging in gender wars and
c)Contemporary feminism in Australia is NOT about gender wars.
Just as contemporary punitive measures here in Australia are NOT about capital punishment. Both these things were once true. Neither are today.

I pointed to the fact that some posters no longer pretend they are arguing about feminists - they've started addressing women in general.They are engaging in gender-bashing.

As many posters who argue the most bitterly are those who have elsewhere admitted to having had terrible personal experiences it is both reasonable and understandable to assume that they are projecting.

However, personal experiences don't tell you what feminism is about. That's what the article is saying. That's what I have said over and over. That's what many other posters keep saying too.

Once more I say: some PEOPLE are good, some PEOPLE are bad. BAD things have been done in the name of feminism. BAD things have been done in the name misogyny.

NOW lets move on. No-one will ever be declared the winner in a mudslinging competition.

I don't think subjective stories are unhelpful, they add a richness to a debate and help form opinions which is what this forum is all about. However, it is not helpful to allow subjective experiences to colour all of a person's opinion.

I am interested in your statement JamesH that says that the graduates from women's studies in the 70s and 80s are now in positions of power in the government. By my calculation that means that they have been in the service for 20-30 years and should be looking at retirement soon. Who or what is going to take their place I wonder? Are our young men in training to fight for the rights of men in family law and domestic violence policy as apparently the young women of decades ago were trained to fight for the rights of women. Again, I ask what are men doing about the anomalies in family law and domestic violence? Are students researching how these laws affect men? If they are, why isn't the media picking up on it or have they been hijacked by feminism as well?

"THE Premier's plan to "name and shame" the perpetrators of domestic violence has run into immediate opposition - not from men, but women."

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/women-wary-on-shaming-wife-beaters/2007/02/18/1171733612755.html

During the Victorian Law Commission's inquiry into domestic violence I submitted areound 30 separated papers which included research papers, as well as opinion and discussion articles.

Not a single one of the papers I submitted were listed in the bio. However the papers submitted by Michael Flood were.

The final paper read predictably like a typical feminist DV paper, perhaps constructed for a uni assignment.

The basic assumption of the paper was that men were the perpetrators and women were the victim.

Interesting Romany, Cireena, Ankh, and whoever in between … unresearched afterthought: possibly even Ronnie? … “some PEOPLE are good, some PEOPLE are bad”. It explains a lot, but not quite adequately.

Constructive and challenging questions Lizzie4.

I don’t realistically expect to see men’s studies being offered at Universities anytime soon. But as men begin to understand the post-feminist legal and social double-speak, unfair one-sided gender contracts, and begin to fully appreciate its potential for damage to their future family, social and economic lives, so too, will they be in better positions to make more informed choices and perhaps even mitigate some avoidable risks. Simple things perhaps, like not committing, or guilt-free right to demand paternity tests before birth certificates set in concrete.

This knowledge base is relatively new but is growing rapidly. We maybe still in the “raising awareness” phase, but if it proves requiring feminist levels of agitation, activism and subversion, we’ll bring along our drums and spears ;-)

As priorities, men need:

- much more reliable long-term contraception that they control;

- to rid themselves of their romantic, fanciful notions of women and marriage (incl de facto arrangements). To be blunt, they need to be practical, take advice and see beyond the window dressing;

- to develop fulfilling friendships and share time with other men, including older men. In some other cultures men don't seem to have much difficulty in spending hours with one another in street cafes and so on. Pubs are very poor venues and they are expensive (health and wallet).

Men place far too much reliance/importance on women for their social interaction and they should not be backward in demanding quality time with their children, their relatives and other men.

Men should also be conscious of the necessity to maintain some areas of personal independence and action in relationships.

In the past and even still today subjective stories were and have been used to a large degree by feminist claim makers and very effectively as well.

One example which comes to mind is the hysteria which was generated over breast implants, the hysteria bankrupted a company and awarded millions of dollars of compensation to women on the basis of a hysterical mythical claims.

"I pointed to the fact that some posters no longer pretend they are arguing about feminists - they've started addressing women in general.They are engaging in gender-bashing." Romany

There is perhaps not a single woman in Australia today who has not been exposed to feminist philosophy, idealism and even if they do not do womyns studies, many are exposed to feminist philosphy by just reading womens magazines. Some feminist philosphy then becomes accepted in popular culture.

Both Patai and Sommers have indicated that feminism is antagonistic towards men. Just as Romany is by her above attempt at claiming that some are engaging in gender bashing, even though gender bashing has been the hall mark of the feminist movement.

I use to wonder if feminists could ever find anything positive to say about men. Eva Cox once made a comment for which I understand she later apologised for. It was to do with the male suicide rate and she said some thing like "at least they can do that well."

Oh for goodness sake JamesH. You are clearly quite convinced that feminism is intrisically evil.

So tell me, do you believe women should be denied the vote? Should we not be allowed to stand for parliament, or the judiciary? Should there be no women doctors, or lawyers, or accountants? Should women not be allowed to own property without the consent of her male next of kin? Should women be paid less than men for exactly the same job for no other reason than her sex? Should women be forced to leave their jobs after marriage?

Because feminism brought about changes to all these laws.

And as a young woman in this society I'm damn pleased that these things occured.

Sure, some things are not great - but don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

And as for feminists saying positive things about men? Here's some:

* I am a daughter, grandaughter, sister, cousin and girlfriend to various men. I love and respect them all.

* I believe that Men are NOT as a group out there to deliberately opress or harm women. SOME men do, but mass generalisations about 50% of the population is hardly worthwhile.

* There have been many great and inspiring men through history. We are better as a soceity for the great works of Plato, Michelangelo, Van Gogh; for the great inspriation of people like Churchill and Napoleon; for the great inventions of the Wright brothers... etc etc etc.

That said, expecting every woman who identifies as feminist to have to caveat their words with similar sentiments is MISSING THE POINT - you will find very few who genuinely hate or dismiss men entirely. There are of course some, but THEY ARE NOT the majority, or even a sizeable minority. They are very few, and should not be taken as representatives against the broad mass of women and men who aim to work together to make life better for ALL

Today I did some sustained research into the posting history of Seeker, JamesH and others.

I had thought that other posters eventually tailed off and left forums in your possession because a) they were intimidated b) they had no time or c)because only masochists enjoy having vitriol thrown at them. The reason I stayed with this one was, predictably, proprietary interest.

I'd also hoped that if someone kept in there plugging long enough you'd eventually see past the miseries of your own prior relationships and realise you're letting life control you instead of taking charge and making sure it was you who controlled it.

Guys, you all had raw deals and life has been harsh to you. The same applies to so many others in this forum. You, however, are allowing it to embitter you and, after an entire day spent plodding through your posts, that bitterness has infected me to a point where I feel physically ill - so I begin to see what it must do to you.

However, I have also seen that every reasonable response, every suggestion, every allowance that could possibly be made to you has already been done, over and over by people like "Ringtail", "Erica" Michael Flood, "RObert", "Ena" and scores more. Nothing anyone has ever said has ever touched your deep committal to justifying and increasing your own unhappiness.

Everything that could be said in response to you has been said over and over again during the past three years. Your replies all remain unendingly, unvaryingly and sadly the same. I can predict already the responses and charges this post will accrue:"pathetic" "arrogant" "condescending" "showing your true colours" "leftist" "bulldust" "feminist claptrap" will be probably the mildest.

However I shan't be responding to posts from any of you again. Not because I am intimidated , but because I now realise that anything I say will have been said before. No-one can prevent you from pushing your self-destruct buttons.

cheers - and thanks for the fish. c

Romany, I hope you are feeling better. Don't forget those who read but don't post, there was an article sometime ago based on OLO usage patterns which suggested reader far outnumbered posters.

Contributions such as yours are valuable, if not for those who would throw the baby out with the bathwater for those who might learn from you.

I find myself in an odd position on many of these debates, having been through the mill with the family law system and seen how it can be abused I share some of the concerns of James and others but don't share their view that it is entirely feminism's fault or that all feminists support gender bias.

I've appreciated your input into these threads.

R0bert

Romany,

you have no understanding of what I have been through or experienced.

For years I have read everything I could get my hands on, even stuff which was so convoluted and obtuse that it gave me a headache trying to understand it. Some of the material I have read even made me feel bad about being a man.

I have asked questions and had some very interesting discussion with a wide variety of people in my search for knowledge and understanding.

I have quoted a number of female authors, so these writings are not of some misogynistic male. I have read the works of many misandristic females and what surprises me is the gems of insight that they miss.

It is true that reading feminist propaganda is not good for one's mental health.

I doubt very much whether you would even bother reading "The Rantings of a Single Male" Thomas Ellis.

"In the end it's women who do not get it." Thomas Ellis. I could quote the page number but you'll just have to read the book.

Research show that part of the bullying technique of schoolgirls is to tell bad or false stories about an individual. Having listened to enough conversations this technique is not left at school and becomes apart of the repertoire of grown ups.

goodbye Romany its been fun.

Romany, I suppose it must be a feminine or feminist thing and I know I probably will never as a man come to understand but, If I was you and other feminist or women who support the feminist agenda, I wouldn't be afraid to communicate or debate with posters such as R0bert or JamesH or others, including myself. I would be, like in the words of that "famous fem" be more distrustful of the male feminist. Those "manginas" and what honestly motivates them.
For many of the "anti"fem men posting here are pro-family and love women. For us the issue is equality and justice, and not role reversal and reassigned injustices based on the "feminist" version of the history of the sexes. Especially the oppression of women by men down through the ages bit.
Your last post makes it quite clear that it's your way or it's wrong. While not new, it is much of what family concerned men have had to contend with since feminist have led the charge for "liberation" and the destruction of the family unit.

Laurie,
"Because feminism brought about changes to all these laws."

First. Feminism didn't bring about these changes. Mass consumerism and employment needs did. If you honestly investigate the "right to vote", you will find that there is not a great deal of time difference between when all men got the right to vote and women got the vote. Hardly cause celebrity for womans oppression by men.
Secondly. Any women so motivated to seek such esteemed career heights as to stand for Parliament or accountancy, will not find any barrier by sex. Men do not get to hold any of those careers by virtue of being male. They have to have the necessary education and credentials, and be willing to compete. It's a win or loose proposition. One can not whinge their way to the top.(though I know a few guys that wish they could sleep their way to the top :-))
Thirdly. Women are not paid less than men for the exact same job. They are paid less because they don't put the same conviction, time and energy into the job. Those women who do go out and invest their lives into their work end up in high positions and making equal if not more salary. That there are fewer of them than men does not make it an issue of male dominance or oppression. It's that woman's choice.
And last but not least. The free ride is over. Your equal. You have to get up every day and go out and get kicked in the face by reality just like any man. Welcome sister. Now take up your post, wipe the tears and snot of whinging off your face and accept the responsibility for your success and failures. It's only been a mans world cuz we've been dumb enough to shoulder the responsibility. You see sister we men are going to hold you to the equality bit cuz we deserve that right. There is no reason why your life shouldn't be as degrading as any mans. So role up your sleeves and dig in. It ain't pretty.

Romany reaffirms the article’s dishonesty. While not obligatory, it would have been nice to debate this with the author herself rather than through another pseudonym, referring to herself in the third person and claiming no hidden agenda. Oh well. Welcome to the brave new world of post-feminism, I guess.

What makes this little altercation even more interesting of course, is that opinion makers like you Romany are happy to sweep crap under the rug, hand out rose-coloured glasses and nose pegs, but get upset when people ask about the bulge in the rug. You then defend the cleaner.

Yes, things are wonderful. All the good people are trying to make this a better world by enabling both genders to achieve their best. Oh, and let’s not forget the best interests of children. Even CSA in its newly acquired, presumably post-feminist wisdom, will attempt more honesty. I hear also, the family court allows a few token paternity tests while the underlying fraud continues to deserve no less than an “Australia says NO” campaign.

Why should vulnerable young Australian men (your sons), be treated with such contempt? Why are feminists keeping mum?

Like the NSW government facing an election would like to say - more to do, but heading in the right direction. And apparently, … so is Romany.

Oh dear...I have loved this topic but I know that it is impossible to change people's opinions or perceptions because that is all a lot of people have to hold on to.

But, I would like to say that far from being whingers and wiping our tears from our eyes, the feminist movement and women in general have been very successful in gaining increased power in some areas and it is no time to give up now.

If I am to believe some of these posters, women have the most power in family law and domestic violence, we have power in how boys are educated and we will perservere until we have our role as primary carers acknowledged by the market society.

I am reminded of the line in Mary Poppins "though we adore men individually, we agree that as a group they're rather stupid". I have heard more whinging from the males on this post than the women. To finish up - I am glad of the feminist movement. I am glad that we women have shaken up the status quo and now we have men running scared in some areas. Don't give up now ladies.

Lizzie4

You have proved a point however it might not be the one you set out to prove.

Women want equal rights only and are turned off by the social engineering goals and baggage of gender feminists. Many women are effectively disenfranchised by feminists who claim to represent them while having entirely different goals in mind.

lizzie4, while a brutality against men and children continues out there for benefit of women, you will realize this is not 'whinning' but process of change towards balance...

For example, you raised domestic violence... Now the original study which came out with crazy result of some 70% of women in general population experienced dv by a man on which current dv law enacted, but study was funded by 'office-of-women' now totally discredited and further as 'predetermined results study', and with it Bureau of statistics lost international reputation lost for supporting it, so abs did another study last year I think, which showed it was no where near that prevelant (5% i think), male female 50% representation, and a child safest with their real(genetic) father... no word since from womens office nor change in dv laws...

We know 2 out of 3 relationships fail, and right now in your neigbourhood women are calling police with a 'fear' of violence and without any evidence and the police force removes the father from his children, family home and which soon after made as order in the local dv courts by police and government/politically sanctioned, womens effort was just a phone call now she has full child support, full power over children, and more stronger position in family court. Is it evil, the best definition I found as 'unbalanced self interest causing disruption destruction and trauma'... many men say as long as so many do this, then as a group most women are...yes... and you want proof then head off to the local dv courts, its a production line out there with happy women and trumatized men and their children...

Further, you have to accept that it must be women who organized and effected the above said... gives you the extent of how infiltrated in all things this 'sisterhood' power is... now do you understand why we men 'have' to act now before further dramatic shifts in society occurs...

Sam
Ps~I have left out my personal experience which in itself beyond my belief until I realized it is a common fathers experience worldwide...

I have lost track of the point I have been trying to make Cornflower, perhaps you can enlighten me. It is also interesting that you finally make the concession that feminism is not good for all women either. I think that I was trying to make that point earlier in that I don't believe that feminism is as all powerful as some believe. Is it a feminist conspiracy now?

Equal rights is an interesting concept as it sets something up as the standard to measure others by. By my understanding from these posts, women now have more rights in some areas meaning that men are less equal. So women are the standard.

Sam said, if you read my other posts you will find that the last one was a slightly tongue in cheek reaction to other posts. An earlier post of mine commented on the experiences of a friend and how I do not support such policies of domestic violence or family law.

However, I must point out that individuals have a lot of power in these cases. We can refuse to be bullied as I did in a court case where my solicitor wanted to portray my ex as an abuser.

And I totally agree that "...we men 'have' to act now before further dramatic shifts in society occurs..." It is about time that men looked at the decisions they make which land them in trouble. Many women, unfortunately are ruthless in using any power they have. Many but not all. However, from my experience, these are the types of women men go for. If you play with matches.... Also, the power might shift a bit if men take on more of the caring role for their children. Something to think about.

Lizzie4

OK, I will enlighten you.

You declaim that feminism is really about equality, but a heartbeat later you chortle that the 'them and us' battle is being won by 'us'. That betrays you as being about win/lose all along and not the win/win that most women desire. You were not being tongue in cheek, you were boasting and made a slip.

I think it is reasonable for men to distrust feminists when they are so often confronted with deliberate ambiguity and misrepresentation. If you doubt any of that you might like to consider just how convenient it is to employ rubbery terms like equality or equity in policy and regulations without defining them. Usually it is only when one sees the outcomes of the policies that one realises those terms could have very different meanings to those implied at the outset

Cornflower, you missed the joke but that did not mean that it was not there. If you had paid attention to what Lizzie has said in other posts you would have got it.

I don't think Lizzie understands just how bad the family law system has got but she is listening, she is engaging those who discuss the issues in good faith.

Yes it's fair for men to be cautious about feminism, by and large too few feminists have been willing to speak out against the abuse of feminism (by those using it for something other than equality) but maybe that has something to do with the way so many men refuse to deal fairly with the discussion.

Likewise it's fair for women to distrust the mens movement (whatever that is). Some of those speaking out on mens issues do seem to want to roll back the clock and put women in their place, some are just as willing to encourage and support the cheats who abuse the system as those we so despise.

In the middle there are men and women seeking a fair go for all, who do want equality but who may not be convinced that their own gender has it as good as some think or that the other gender has it as bad as some think.

R0bert

"Many women, unfortunately are ruthless in using any power they have. Many but not all"

Thank you Lizzie4, I could hug and kiss you.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/02/10/nsuffrage10.xml

"Suffragettes 'were like al-Qa'eda'

By Liz Lightfoot,

Claims that members of the Suffragette movement behaved like al-Qa'eda terrorists have led to a furious row among historians."

A new thesis published this week claims that the "so-called heroines" of the fight for the vote for women actually delayed progress by their "carefully calculated, stage managed, cold-blooded crimes".

"The Government of the day dared not be seen to give in to their violent tactics, says Christopher Bearman."

"They became a positive obstruction to votes for women because no Government could appear to surrender to political violence," he says. He accuses "feminist" historians of failing in their duty to tell both sides of the story, allowing "an extraordinary mythology" to grow up around the events of the early 20th century."

"The article, first published in an academic journal and re-printed in the current edition of History, the BBC magazine, singles out June Purvis, the professor of women's and gender history at Portsmouth University, as one of the "feminist historians" responsible for "repeating the propaganda while other sources which contradict it are ignored".Liz

Christine Stolba wrote about 'errors of fact', 'errors of interpretations'and 'sins of omission,' in 'Lying in a Room of Ones Own,' how feminist text books miseducate students.

"Do you know what your daughters may be learning in their "Intro to Women’s Studies" courses? During the Women’s History month of March, IWF released a study by Senior Fellow Christine Stolba entitled Lying in a Room of One’s Own: How Women’s Studies Textbooks Miseducate Students. Stolba’s eye-opening analysis concludes that "the 'knowledge' transmitted by Women’s Studies textbooks is often factually and interpretively at odds with reality.""

Well that is the first time that I have been accused of boasting and chortling (what a delightful word). I assure you Cornflower, that no slip was made. I gather from your post that you are accusing me of being a closet feminist. I will argue however, that when I am looking at issues, I am able to do it from many different theoretical perspectives. For example I am able to look at issues using neoliberalism, behaviouralism, institutionalism, Marxism, capitalism, conservatism, socialism, feminism etc etc. Does this make me a neoliberalist, behaviouralist, institutionalist, Marxist, capitalist, conservative, socialist, feminist? All theories have their merits and their limitations.

I am glad you recognised my facetious comments RObert. And you are right, I have had no experience with DV or FL. I have made a conscientious effort to get on with my ex. Someone at uni is doing a PhD on domestic violence and the police. I will enquire about how men fit into her thesis. Yes, it is being conducted by a female and it will be interesting to find out the scope of her research.

James H, it has been years since someone wanted to hug and kiss me. The fact that it was as the result of what I believe put icing on the cake.

Lizzie4

No, I was thinking more along the lines of hubris. I had been reading a report on Australian law reform along gender lines and that did not prepare me for enjoying your wit for what it was worth.

On re-reading my post I realised it was a bit strong and possibly unfair. I hoped you would not be offended. I had planned to respond in that vein when the response timer allowed it and hopefully before you could take offence.

Allow me to make the lighthearted observation that anyone who can successfully juggle so many 'isms' deserves an award.

cornflower, nicely done. The timer can be very frustrating when you realise that you may have posted a bit too hastily, I've been there occasionally.

Lizzie sad to hear that it's been a long time - we all need hugs and kisses.

I'll be interested in hearing about the approach the PHD student is taking, might be a good general discussion thread.

From a male perspective the kind of issues I've heard of in dealing with the police on DV related issues are
- some officers being instructed not to attend DV complaints where the alleged perpetrator is female unless a weapon is involved.
- a high percentage of males making a DV call in the UK reportedly are the one arrested.
- Reports of police ridiculing males making DV complaints.
- Claims that in some US states the male is removed from the property based on a complaint regardless of evidence. If the complaint is a tactic in a seperation this places in male well behind the eight ball (no access to clothes, paperwork records, tools of trade etc, kids perceiving that daddy has done the wrong thing because the police removed him, patterns of childcare etc). A similar effect can be achieved here by the use of an AVO.

If you want some background on the other side of the child abuse and DV issues have a browse at sites like the stats pages on The Abused Child Trust website (http://www.abusedchildtrust.com.au/./facts.htm), the NSW Child Death Review team reports(http://www.kids.nsw.gov.au/director/resources/publications/childdeathreview.cfm), the summary of the DV section of a long term study run in Dunedin (http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/170018.pdf) or Australian research into the genderisation of DV (http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm)

None are (as far as I'm aware) front's for mens groups or advocacy research.

R0bert

I was not offended Cornflower although I did a little chortling. What I was trying to say about different "isms", is that I try not to limit my responses to an issue by looking at it through only a feminist lens (or an anti-feminist lens for that matter). My research at the moment entails making a choice between institutionalist and behaviouralist approaches for example. My choice will be the one that I consider answers most effectively the questions raised. So, no offence taken.

RObert, I looked at the PhD student's site and it deals with domestic violence with women as the victims and the changes that have occurred with making it a criminal offence. I will ask when I see her though, what she has discovered about men as victims in her research.

Certainly the points you made in your last post suggest that men face severe structural problems in even obtaining acknowledgement of domestic violence concerning males.

By the way, don't feel sorry for me. Living alone has distinct advantages and a lot of "needs" are really "wants".

Lizzie4,

I remember reading more than a few years ago about how (some) female partners would push to get an emotional response from their male partners when discussing issues.

Psychologist Toby Green has written about what she calls the BANG (BAM) factor.

("Bang!" happens when physical and emotional limits crash into each other and explode. The ingredients for "Bang!" are fatigue, frustration, anger, confusion and the fact that there's too much going on to be able to verbalise and cope with what's happening at the same time.

John Gray talked about men going into caves with their upsets and coming out when they calm down. Women think when a man goes there it's because he isn't willing to stay put and be rational, that it's a cop out. Because most men can't explain "Bang!", women often think nothing is going on.)Green
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21224271-5006049,00.html

Mothers are being screened for DV in the Hospital Maternity wards. I made a comment to some midwives and asked why are they not also screening the fathers and I was told that other men have also asked the same question.

I witnessed one occasion recently where there was conflict between a midwife and a father. It was not until later reflection that I realised it was the midwife who was aggravating the situation and the bloke had made, I think an admirable attempt not to loose his cool.

A couple of comments in regard to some posts here about the abuse of DVOs…
I have actually been noticing an alarming trend of violent men starting to use DVOs as another weapon of abuse against their wives. In two separate cases I have recently observed, violent men who had been married before and had been issued with DVOs by their previous wives, then took out DVOs when their next marriage broke up – as they knew the drill, they hurried to ‘get in first’ so to speak.

In one of these cases, one that was quite close to me, the husband went straight to the local courthouse and took out a DVO on the day his third wife left him (after she had suffered repeated mental and physical cruelty from him) and used it to prevent her from returning to the property to remove her things. With two children under five, she was forced to live for months in a flat with no furniture or appliances, except what was given to her by friends.

Also, I have often heard claims that some Family Law solicitors advise women to take out DVOs against their husbands as a standard procedure in order to give them a ‘sympathy’ advantage in settlement claims – of course, the solicitor in these tales is always a female. A (male) Family Law solicitor I have spoken to about this was adamant that these stories are myths – the law is clear about what each partner is entitled to and any DVO history does not influence the outcome

Found an interesting quote in my internet travels from a group that calls itself the National Organization for Anti-Feminism (NOAF, http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Anti-Feminism/). It started in 1999 and states its aims as follows:

‘It is our hope that the [NOAF] movement will grow into state and local chapters in order to reverse or at least counter the progress made by the feminists in the last 30 years. It is also our hope to see anti-feminists networked systematically and placed in key positions in every area including social and educational policy making, higher education, textbook planning, the media and film industry, law and the like.’

Phew!! As the saying goes … Just ’cause you’re paranoid, it doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you

Heres a little something -make of it what you will:

There was earlier an mention of Eva Cox.
I recall Eva Cox being interviewed during the First Gulf War .
Some channel had her on a panel of “experts” discussing the war.
She made a point -& I paraphrase- that we in the west had approached the issue the wrong way -when dealing with middle eastern men we needed to ensure they were not put in a position where they might loose face -they must always be allowed to preserve face & ego.

On the same theme, I recall otherwise pro-feminist lecturers at Uni being very concerned about outside developers in third world countries giving jobs to woman -which thereby made them, the family breadwinner ( over their husbands) - & which risked disrupting the local/native social order !

Perhaps there is a deeper current to feminism than initially meets the eye.

MLK

That was a silly little forum, wasn't it?

But try this one for a laugh, because this person is for real:

http://www.marydaly.net/

Horus

Re your comment on Eva Cox and the other feminists’ in your post: ‘Perhaps there is a deeper current to feminism than initially meets the eye.’

I’m not sure if you’re being ironic here, but as a feminist myself I don’t see anything contradictory in their attitudes. The gender dynamics of one society do not seamlessly fit into another. There is a wise feminist saying that goes: ‘Feminism is a plant that only grows in its own soil.’

When you consider that Kuwaiti women have only just won the vote; that tens (possibly hundreds) of women abort their female fetuses each year in China; and that millions of mothers in several countries willingly have their daughters ‘circumcised’ each year to make them more marriageable – it’s ridiculous to use Western feminism as a benchmark for women’s progress worldwide. It also makes it pathetically misguided for right-wing opinion makers in the West to use the supposed liberation of Islamic women as justification for two wars of aggression

Cornflower

‘[NOAF] was a silly little forum, wasn’t it?’

Yes. But at least it’s being honest about its aims and intentions – compared to many organisations that have much the same agenda as NOAF, but camouflage their websites in pretty suffragette colours and duplicitous ‘women’s’ scholarship.

As for your link to the rad fem, Mary Daly, she sounds wonderful!! I can’t believe she’s slipped beneath my radar all these years. I’m getting out my credit card and going straight to Amazon as soon as I finish this post

MLK

The so-called anti-feminist chat forum you cited is a joke and you were right to surmise that one would have to be paranoid to see it as anything more.

Feminism is first and foremost a political movement. It was never about universal humman rights and equality, but it did piggyback on the human rights movement.

Insofar as Daly is concerned, she gained notoriety through not allowing male undergraduates to attend her lectures when she was at university. Is this the sort of equality you support?

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles/comment/marydaly.htm

If so, maybe the feminist plant grows best in its own night soil.

For some, feminism is a good earner in Australia and I guess those with a stake in maintaining the 'divide that keeps feminism alive' (my quote) would see multiculturalism as a competitor that has to be accommodated at least superficially or it will take over the victim territory occupied by the feminists. When that happens the feminism consulting industry and feminist courses in university could collapse overnight.

To date western feminists have experienced difficulty in partnering with multiculturalism and the past record of feminists in putting their own concerns first and foremost doesn't help (and would that ever change?). To put it in feminist speak, the relationship between feminism and multiculturalism is 'problematical' at best. Feminism has recently become a persistent suitor for multiculturalism, however multiculturalism remains a very reluctant maiden and wisely so.

Would you care to say why feminists support FGM in Australia; why they support the marriage of adolescent aboriginal girls to old men; or why they similarly support the sexual 'training' of both young boys and girls by older aboriginal women and men? After all, Australia is not a developing country and all young women and men including children should enjoy the same rights, benefits and protection under the same laws.

I have a problem in that how does one separate 'feminists' from the often highly emotive and inaccurate claims made by feminists.

There is much rethoric about equal rights, yet as Romany demonstrated us blokes are not allowed to try and express our views or experiences.
Mangina, Hugo Schwyer has developed a policy of excluding MRA's from his blogs.

"Most men’s rights advocates do not root their opposition to feminism in their faith, but rather in their own personal experience. (The stereotypical men’s rights advocate is a divorced dad who imagines he got a raw deal in terms of custody and child support.)" Hugo

Interestingly many DV advocates are women who have had personal experience of DV, so they speak through their own experience.

So one side of the arguement is that women's experiences are relevant and on the other side is that men's experiences are not only irrelevant, but imagined as well.

I put forward this 'hypothesis',

Women when compared to men in general are much more articulate and it is not until men gain more life experiences do they begin to develope an understanding of the complexity and subtleties of human behaviour. That men when they are younger are hamstrung by their desire to try and please women, so tend not to articulate what is bugging them.

I would also suggest JamesH that men are also hamstrung by their own desire to be pleased. They hear what they want to hear. They want to be pleased and think that by pleasing women, they will be pleased in return.

A lot of women play to men's desires for romance and no commitment, but get smart guys. The main aim for women is security. They want financial, emotional, physical security and any woman that promises you fun with no strings attached will eventually want a commitment.

I am aware of this because I am a woman, and we are all basically the same in some ways. I hear so many stories about men becoming trapped by women that play to men's weaknesses for sexual gratification, excitement and romance. Face it guys, men are much more romantic than women.

That is not to say that women are not wonderful, we are. Just be aware that games are played and teach your sons to think with their heads.

I had a talk with my 22 yr old son the other day. He was told by friends that he needs a 'missus'. He considers that before he commits himself, he should have had a relationship for about 5 years before even considering living together and starting a family. He also considers that he should have a stable job and be financially secure. I hope he continues to be smart. So many men just jump in.

Talking about 'hypothesis' to be tested for validity by study with suitable population numbers, I have one;

"do our mothers, through developing fear of her when we are children, cause us to fear women as a group in adulthood"

I must point out that I think my mother is no different to any other mother in that she has her good and bad points... but this point of issue arose when I found myself in the family court. Until then I had a 'sense' of what women wanted particularly in work and social area and usually worked with it and thought I was just being cooperative as every other man I saw around me. In family court the 'sense' said 'forget your child and be happy about any scraps we throw at you"...

Of course I could not bend to that, and it started a process where one discovery was the above said fear, which had no rationale basis so had to originate from childhood, and until I started making it consciously aware and excluding it to look further is when a real process of moving forward began in dealing with the reality before me...

Sam
Ps~I think men of 39 to 48 years used in the study as by this stage we have a lot of experience with 'women and life'

I have often thought that mothers wield enough power to change society for the better (whatever that is) if they were so inclined and used that power wisely.

I also have a theory with men and the courts. I wonder if it is a result of men setting themselves up as breadwinners and the only thing they offer their children is financial security? I was reading an article about Bob Jane in the paper who is going through a nasty divorce. When asked how his children aged between 14 and 18 are coping, he replied "Kids survive".

An interesting reply and suggests that his position is more important than his children's. I wonder whether this attitude which I have perceived (and it is not rare), is one reason why the family court tends to reduce the father's role in a child's life to a financial one. I have gained the impression that a lot of complaints that fathers have is having to pay child support which they think is unfair for a variety of reasons.

What I am suggesting is that men have been instrumental in the perception that they are dispensable to children except as meal tickets. Men have to take on a more active role in their children's lives so that they are indispensable in more ways than just providing money. They must also be aware that children hurt and they have not chosen the decisions that their parents have made.

Cornflower

Your post to me is so hopelessly bogged down in culture-wars bigotry – and, in that respect, you’re certainly not alone on this forum thread – that it’s a waste of both your energy and mine to address all the unbelievably provocative misrepresentations of feminism that seem to just roll off your keyboard. Having said that, however, I refuse to allow one particularly ugly comment of yours to pass unremarked:

‘Would you care to say why feminists support FGM in Australia; why they support the marriage of adolescent aboriginal girls to old men; or why they similarly support the sexual 'training' of both young boys and girls by older aboriginal women and men?’

These sleazy questions cannot be answered because you know full well the premise on which they are based is false. This is just muckraking – desperation posing as debate. Frankly, it says far more about you than it does about feminism

Sam said;
"Of course I could not bend to that, and it started a process where one discovery was the above said fear, which had no rationale basis so had to originate from childhood, and until I started making it consciously aware and excluding it to look further is when a real process of moving forward began in dealing with the reality before me..."

I have read the book 'Iron John' by Robert Bly and if I remember correctly, there is something about a boy having to steal the key from under his mothers pillow before he can become a independant man.

Now I think I'll have to re-read it.

Lizzie4,

I can remember a time when my young son was crawling that I thought it was time he learnt how to negotiate the stairs safely. There were other times as well when I felt it was time for him to learn. Of course I got into trouble from his mother because she thought I was teaching him how to do things, which I was, but trying to teach him how to do it safely, like going up or down the stairs.

I don't understand how I knew he was ready for the next step, it is just that I did.

It is interesting listening to Warren Farrell taking about fathers and children. He raises some interesting points about fathering that do not really get covered in discussions.

MLK

You need to catch up on your feminism ideology which says that such practices as FGM are quite OK as long as those practices are controlled by women (you can safely assume that does not include the adolescent victim).

Feminists do see the practices I cited as examples as 'problematical', which means simply that is political to accept them even though they conflict with what feminists say elsewhere. 'Problematical' is feminist speak for difficulty in rationalising these awful practices.

Go back through OLO and you will see at least one article on the subject of multiculturalism and (western) feminism.

Lizzie, sorry about the delay in response to your comments - I've been having a think about them. I suspect that there is some truth in the idea but also a significant component of social expectations, maternal gatekeeping and practical issues (lack of access to paternity leave etc).

We are in a transition period where many men are trying to get the freedom to spend more time as fathers and fighting a reluctance to release them from their traditional responsibilities (if the mother works generally that is for more money for the family rather than to reduce the pressure on the father to provide). In my experience the last few years have seen a much wider acceptance of dads doing the hands on stuff for the care of their kids.

There was an interesting article today in the Courier Mail http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,21290482-23272,00.html on this.

It's probably a bit like women suffering at work because of a perception that they will leave work to become full time mothers (and not return). Sometimes it's true but when applied to people that don't work that way grossly unfair. In my experience of dealing with the FMC, RA, C$A etc my actual role as a parent and the choices I'd made seemed to play little part.

Guy's often bitch about C$A because it's one of the final indignities, you loose your kids and then the government forces you to subsidise the choices of the person who took those kids. Again there seems to be little interest in what led to the situation - contested custody is treated no differently to one parent leaving the other with the kids. There are no checks in the system to ensure that C$A monies benefit the kids.

For the record I've now got prime care of my son - and am still supposed to pay some child support.

R0bert

An interesting article RObert and thank you for providing the link. I have also been thinking about my comments and hope that they do not come across as blaming men for their position as women are often blamed for attacks, etc.

I have been thinking about FL and remember reading about changes because of the perception that men were escaping their financial responsibilities. My perception at the time was that the changes fitted in with the neoliberalist ideologies of the Howard Government in that ideal government intervention is minimal and people should take responsibility for their own situations. I think that's what I meant when I commented earlier that femininst theory had been hijacked. It is not really to support women, but rather is in the interests of the government. So that the government doesn't have to support those women and children. To cut costs. Does that make sense?

I really dislike reducing things to economics but that seems to be the way life is measured these days. My own ex complained that I only see him to fix things for me and to mow my lawn! But as I pointed out, that is all he is offering and if he left the lawnmower here, I would mow my own lawn! I included him in family get-togethers and dinners, but he has chosen to opt out because his new girlfriend does not like him to see me even though it is in the non-threatening family context. Sometimes you just can't win.

Family law is a difficult problem RObert and one of the most difficult things about it is that these types of laws have to do with the private sphere which cannot be regulated. Everyone is different and I rail against those who can put things neatly in a box and say this is the way it should be just because others choose it. Just be glad you have your son and money is just money and it is a small price to pay. I cannot imagine what it would be like not to have my children in my life.

Seeing this thread is moving along the lines of economics I'll follow.

In 1985 Lenore Weitzman published the Divorce Revolution in which she published her reseach which showed that;

" the year after divorce women's standard of living decreased by a whopping 73 percent while men enjoyed an increase of 43 percent"

However Weitzmans findings were faulty is putting it mildly.
http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm

Now this finding captured the attention of the media in this country and a few years later the Child Support act was introduced.

Barry Williams who was on the original committee said that the percentages for child support were not based on any research and would have been much higher. For example 20% for one child rather than the current 17%.

Melaine Phillips 'The Sex Change Society" wrote,

"The goal of these authors remained the redistribution of labour and wealth within the family, form men to women. Yet they conceded they had to do so without alienating the majority of people by the attitudes which appeared to be hostile to men. The way they would do this was to emphasise the 'interest of children'.

Child support analysis
http://www.childsupportanalysis.co.uk/

Supports Lizzie's assertion that it is more about governments cutting costs. for example in Australia family tax benefit is reduced by 50 cents for every dollar recieved in child support.

The current push for CSA to deem fathers income, is not really about recovering child support money. It is about the government recovering social security payments, done under the guise of the best interests of the children.

For example married men are free to work part-time, change careers to lower paid positions. Child support payers are not free to make these choices.

Lizzie4,

As JamesH also points out, I think there is a lot of truth in the economic explanation for FL - both in terms of supporting of women and children, as well as the FL industry. As you indicate, the government could be playing a more direct role in supporting these women and children, but it is clear that it is intentionally avoiding responsibility for personal and economic lifestyle choices even when its policies are seen to be encouraging them. Equally wrong and perhaps more so, the systematic holding individual men responsible without proper consideration of relevant facts. To muddy the waters, we have no-fault divorce and best interests of children. Under a more equitable system, one would at least expect some gender parity in the numbers of divorce applications.

Hence, I do not agree with “Family law is a difficult problem RObert and one of the most difficult things about it is that these types of laws have to do with the private sphere which cannot be regulated.” This is exactly what FL pretends to do, and does it very badly.

It’s paternal preference for punishing men to mask responsibility and shift wealth, will not only prove unsustainable, but unhelpful to feminism. Blind belief in maternal goodness disadvantages children, yet governments continue perpetuating these underlying falsehoods. Nowhere is it more blatantly obvious as in it’s support for paternity fraud. Counter intuitive as it may seem, child abuse is on the rise. So is poverty