"There's a lot of big money invested by womens groups to keep women angry and distrustful." This was a comment I overheard between the wife and a couple of her girlfriends on my way to the 'fridge fer a beer. "Womans magazines promoting deficiencies and inadequacy through their ... articles." Was another half heard comment before I escaped into the flora of the 'back yard'.
Just goes to show ya not all women are blind to the machinations of the feminist seeking power over women and female identity.
Never mind the guilt trip they're trying to impose on men.
And before you get on me about sneak'n a couple a beer. I'm not allowed to sit with the women on these occasions. There girls only talks.

aqvarivs,

I thoroughly recommend reading 'Spin Sister' by Myrna Blythe.

Her book talks exactly talks about as you wrote, "Womans magazines promoting deficiencies and inadequacy through their ... articles."

Her book although not necessarily an eye opener for me, it did help to explain and clarify a few things for me.

I do not necessarily agree with people like Mike LaSalles or Glenn Sacks to name a few, but just because I don't agree with them does not mean I am anti-male.

It is strange then that if a person like myself disagrees with some exaggerated feminist claim that I am somehow anti-feminists or anti woman.

Let give an example;

Lenore Weitzman published the "Divorce Revolution" and in her book, her researched showed that after divorce a man's standard of living rose by 45% and a woman's fell by 75%.

It took about a decade before researchers got access to her data and when they did, they found her research to be wrong.
http://www.acbr.com/biglie.htm

The results of her (faulty) research were published in newspapers world wide, including here in Australia. The public, politicans accepted her findings as fact, when in reality they were a myth. There were subsequent reforms to property settelments here in Australia and elsewhere.

About a decade ago I theorized what I was later to learn is known as "Maternal Gatekeeping". Rather disappointingly very little research has been conducted in this area.

Perhaps because researching Maternal Gatekeeping does not show men in a bad light.

At some point in time people have to take responsibility for their own behaviour and the effects that behaviour has on others.

I learnt that if it sounds sensational, looks at the facts before making a decision, otherwise it is 'Sophistry'.

JameH. “Subscribe to” as in “express ones adhesion to an opinion or resolution”. “ Propaganda” is mind-madeup stuff. “Paper” a figure of speech I’m an old fella still have a font rule around here somewhere.

You can try and deflect attention from your failure by going on about these “mistakes” but you’re hilariously unconvincing.

“Men’s Daily” is clearly a conservative male-interest magazine that speaks from a position. You may claim to be trying to “nut out the facts” but I think given your attitudes and that every time you put pen to paper (figure of speech) you write against feminism and even I think express opinions damaging to women in the long run. I think, considering your posts, you surf these sites looking for more propaganda to undermine feminists.

Nothing wrong with challenging feminism or even having an anti-feminist agenda ,however, I think that the consequences of anti-feminism will be harmful to women and families in the long term. Anti-feminism is pushed by conservative forces. Moreover, there is plenty wrong with being pretentious about your position.

The articles I read in Men’s Daily were positioned. You can’t sustain your non-gender argument in the light of this JameH. Nor I think your claim that your position is not mostly anti-feminist

“ Hail! Hail! The anti-feminists are all here. “ These threads usually trail off with the usual anti-feminist crew patting each other on the back and making rather silly chit chat. For instance: “Just goes to show ya not all women are blind to the machinations of the feminist seeking power over women and female identity. Never mind the guilt trip they're trying to impose on men.”

This is plain unsubstantiated nonsense and an insult to the intelligence and intuition of men.

Clearly an anti-feminists sentiment which you JamesH rush to enhance.

aqvarivs family has girl’s only talks where the male is excluded. Hmm - a gender-biased household. Don’t let JamesH get wind of that. It seems a little contradictory to be wailing on feminists in light of such harsh treatment.

JamesH says: “It is strange then that if a person like myself disagrees with some exaggerated feminist claim that I am somehow anti-feminists or anti woman.”

Ahh. But that is all you ever do and with such enthusiasm and fervour. What got you started on this hippie quest to create a rosy world where men and women can live in peace and harmony and all are all are considered equal; where being male or female is no longer recognised as a difference. Where individualism, which is in part couched in our genderised and sexual brains and bodies, is given over to the greater good of our non-gender world. I reckon there is a hidden agenda in there somewhere. No thanks I’ll keep my individuality.

Poor ronnie peters a totally embedded feminist struggling to maintain his individuality. How ya going to do that ronnie? Ya have chosen a side and give blind defense to woman as victim. Your perpetuating a false reality given the social changes in the last forty years. As the women in my life well know. I keep up the same mantra. Individual responsibility. Individual responsibility. Individual responsibility. You may not agree with James. I may not always agree with James, but his post show a willingness to explore a subject and a power base that directly impacts his world. I say kudos to any man or woman willing to step out of the confinements of social sexual "norms" to explore their world. You on the other hand have simply chosen victim as the highest moral argument. You haven't thought beyond the initial starting point for womans rights(for which I separate from feminism). Before you start your personal attacks perhaps it would be best if you took a hard look at your personal bias and gender issues.
There is nothing wrong with being a feminist but, there is much to discuss about the direction and intent of todays feminism. Even women think so. Your blindfolded cheer leading aside.

Ps. It may well be considered anti-feminist sentiment but it comes from several females. Or don't females have a right to express anti-feminist thoughts. Says a lot about you don't it.
Your only statement is anything anti-feminist is harmful. Give feminist carte blanche, no questions asked or we'll do irrevocable harm. What a load of crap.

I have read obviously much more extensively than you Roonie Peters.
You seem to ignore the fact that I also quote Daphne Patai, Melaine Phillips, Christine Hoff Sommers.

The above women are much more articulate than I could ever be and reading their books have given me a greater understanding.

Unlike some, I try not to take things on face value and ask myself what is going on here?

I asked myself the question "Would all the changes for women in society have occured if feminism did not exist?" and I think that many of the changes would have occured regardless, without feminism.

Daphne Patai in her book 'Heterophobia' writes about how claim makers firstly define a claim and the media then runs with the most sensational aspects of the claim and then after it gets acepted as fact then there is a process of where the domain of the claim gets expanded.

The book really does make for some interesting and challanging reading for those who are game and would like to think abit more deeply. As does Melaine Phillips book "The Sex Change Society."

But then I guess there are people who will only
believe what the feminist cult leader tell them.

This is what is really dangerous.