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