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