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