Dozer,
I haven’t called Ronnie Peters a retard, and I haven’t even called CJ. Morgan a retard.

In fact, I’ve called no one a retard.

You will find that feminism is a cult that describes the male gender as being an abuser no matter what the situation, and this can be found in countless feminist documents.

But when it comes to overall abuse of girls in schools, it was found in the US that the most abuse of girls was coming from other girls, (and not from boys) and I would think that this situation would be the same in Australia.

However the way the education system is going, I think that the most abuse and victimisation of boys in future years will be from the teachers.

This is precisely the problem HRS: you're describing feminism as a cult.

You're censoring reasonable feminists out because they don't fit the bogeyman depiction you have for them - under this system you're right in that all feminists are evil stereotypes. You've reclassified the term to only encompass this variety, and written out the rest of the population.

When people come forward with facts and figures that dispute your anecdotes or sweeping generalisations, you just shift the ball entirely.

You've asked me repeatedly to provide you with statistics on how many 'men are violent.'

Yet you've brought forward no empirical evidence at all to support your case. As usual, you don't have backing.

I've told you repeatedly why I don't believe these particular stats exist, and I've presented you with alternative statistics that show quite clearly, that more men are violent than women.

What's more telling, is the fact that I've never argued violent men aren't a minority (nor has anyone else), which is all the 'how many men are violent' statistics can prove.

And yet, the assertion you seem to rebut - that men are more violent than women - is proven quite persuasively in the recent, Australian, statistics I have shown.

But oh no. You won't engage those. Too inconvenient I suppose.

-Inconvenient like the views of the 'unoriginal' claims of the professions at the front line I listed earlier.
-Inconvenient like the views botheration put forward, showing that believe it or not, not all feminists are the fire breathing dragons you describe.

Inconvenient like the many people here who have pointed out that your extreme generalisations and feminist hating (and yes, I'm calling you a feminist hater, but don't go extrapolating that to woman hater or some other tangent) actually do the cause of mens rights more harm than good.

I sincerely hope you're not associated with any reasonable groups pushing for equal rights for men, because your pursuit of feminists would make reasonable people discount your views and that of the group by proxy.

One of the tricks used in gathering data, is to only gather data which supports your thesis.

i.e, gather data about female victims of alleged DV, but ignore collecting data on men who may have been injured in DV.

Warren Farrell in "The Myth of Male Power" wrote that when women stop being victims the research stops.

The next trick is to hide the data or refuse access to the data from researchers who do not share your ideology. Lenore Weitzman did this.

http://web.archive.org/web/20050308115735/www.nojustice.info/Research/ManufacturingResearch.htm

In Perceptions are not facts, various word games are used to confuse.
http://web.archive.org/web/20050313222509/http://www.nojustice.info/PerceptionsarenotFacts.htm

TRTL,

Erin Pizzey in her book 'Prone to violence' wrote that of the first 100 women to her refuge, 60 were as violent or more violent than the men that they had left.

For example if the police only charge men with DV, then it is possible to say 'only men commit DV because the research supports this.'

However just because there is no data, it does not mean that there isn't a problem.

Im afraid there may be some substance behind hrs comment 'feminism is a cult...

One aspect argued in full court of family court was titled 'the madness is the group called women in family separation' in the legal submissions...a unified subverting and acting force develops...with evidence to back up it was said that all women will support the mother to have the child and against the father...be it her friends, as church group, government employees abusing their positions, and even fathers family like sister and mother...and might/will act to corrupt proces to different extents to this achieve said effect...and if judges were judicially aware of this factor, and judicially act to counteract to negate its effects on legal process...

nobody argued against this point...including the three senior judges sitting on the bench,,,its seems its an accepted fact in law...and for those legally inclined read Roberts v Hopwood [1925] AC 578 House of Lords...quote 'nor had the council become such ardent feminists as to bring about at the expense of the ratepayers whose money they administer, sex equality in the labour market...'or by feminist ambition to secure the equality of the sexes in the matter of wages in the world of labour'...and 'There is no provision relative to the nature of the work to be done by the women, or their fitness for it. The minimum wage was to be the same as that of men, however different the nature of work'...see the unbalanced nature...sitting at the table answering customers or walking a narrow plank high in the air carrying bricks was the same in risk, stress and body wear per feminists it seems...

hard to believe...should ask fathers who have experienced the family court...its unbelievable until one see it in action for themselves...a destructive force...devastating to fatherchild

Sam

HRS/Timkins: "I haven’t even called CJ. Morgan a retard"

I haven't called HRS a retard either. Neither have I called him any other offensive term, despite his provocation.

But I have called him Timkins.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6333

HRS

I never said you called CJ Morgan a retard, although I have rightly called him pathetic on another thread. On http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=5212&page=0, Happy Bullet (rightly) called RP a “retard.” (Deleted by the moderator.) My apologies, my memory of the event was wrong, I mistook you for HB. I should have checked the details. However, my criticism stands.

Hello botheration, HRS,

As usual with these sorts of things, I think I agree with each of you, separately, on the fundamentals, but disagree on the detail.

When I criticize “feminism,” I refer specifically to gender feminism/radical feminism. This is the form of feminism most regularly taught at university; its philosophy, that men are inherently vulgar, base, and violent, informs and is reinforced by most “mainstream” research on domestic violence and sexual abuse; and it has the most influence over policy- hence the bias against fathers in the family court, against boys in school, and generally against men regarding domestic violence.

There definitely are women “who identify themselves as feminists” who support fathers’ rights. They cite, and support studies on domestic violence that show that men and women are equally violent. Posters such as JamesH, Robert, HRS, and myself, regularly link to such “dissident feminists.” And these dissidents similarly criticize gender/radical feminism.

I have regularly seen posters criticize feminism, without distinguishing the criticism as relating specifically to radical feminism. Often, a radical feminist (not botheration) will then bring up examples of dissident feminism and argue that feminism is a broad church capable of sustaining different viewpoints. When a radical feminist makes such an argument, I see it as deceptive: radical feminists disagree with dissident feminists 99% of the time, but the dissident strand is useful tool for confounding feminist critics, to make them look ignorant for not understanding the diverse nature of feminism.

I would like to make it very clear that I do not think botheration is doing this. You have made it quite clear that you are more “equity” feminist orientated than the radical kind, and that your defense of feminism is genuine. But one still cannot dismiss criticism of