"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.