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