James: "No I do not beleive that anyone who identifies as feminist is evil, but I reserve my judgement until proven otherwise."

So you believe I - and Bronwyn and Yvonne and Romany et al - are evil, unless I (we) can prove otherwise? Nice.

Are you serious? If you are, it reveals much about your emotional and intellectual understanding of the issues, and none of ours. If you are, I see no reason to take you any more seriously than I would a "radical" feminist who believes men are not necessarily evil, but reserve their judgement until otherwise proven.

Or are you joking? In which case, why why do you get to make jokes about gender, but you believe whoever made the "men are bastards" knife block cannot?

Or is that "different," is such a way that makes saying things like that ok for you, but not ok for other people? Such as, oh, say, women.

I assume people are rational, until proven otherwise. I assume they have empathy and lack prejudice, until they demonstrate they don't. I like it when people disagree with me - it's nothing to do with that.

james: "Thats why it is important for men to be included in the debate, even when they say things that rub you the wrong way."
TRTL is a man who is included in the debate and who includes others in the debate. Debate needs informed, brave, and emotionally open, and demands people do their best to avoid falling victim to predictable prejudices. It doesn't immunise people against rigorous challenges - on the contrary, those challenges are important, they strengthen us. TRTL issues those challenges, and he also accepts them.

It's easy to think people are evil. It's harder to think that they they may have a point, even when they rub *you* up the wrong way.

"So you believe I - and Bronwyn and Yvonne and Romany et al - are evil, unless I (we) can prove otherwise? Nice."

Vanilla,

That is putting words into my mouth Vanilla, which is not nice! I reserve my judgement of people until I get to know them better.

HRS "being insane and all that" - I don't think I've ever made that suggestion. I'm still hoping that you can be reasoned with, that something I or others say will help you to understand the damage you do to the case of those wanting a better understanding of the issues facing men.

What you do now makes it very difficult to get attention focussed on real issues. Some feminists such as Vanilla, Yvonne, Romany are willing to listen and engage in honest discussions and often try to do so even in the face of your attacks.

Others don't but maybe if they observe constructive discussions some will soften and start to listen.

Whilst I disagree with some of the often stated ideas about oppression and male power I put that down to the convenience of those ideas as sound bytes used to stir up ferver. Maybe some poor analysis and or lack of understanding as well.

That does not change the underlying value of working for a society where women and men have equal opportunity according to their individual ability and passion.

HRS, it's time to move on. Time to start being a constructive part of discussions rather than a serial pest. Do you have anything to offer other than a hatred of feminism?

R0bert

Bronwyn,

To me, sexy logic is not only appealing, but compelling. Sorry if that causes performance anxiety for some (we men know a little about that).

Antiseptic,

Language must have been developed by women sitting around fires just as you describe (grunting was mostly reserved for hunting and testing cave acoustics). I wonder how long it took these early linguists to find words in defence of feminist interests.

Sure, they would have also discussed who’s turn it was to fetch the water, or look after the children (don’t think straws were invented until later). But how much of it was gossip, politics or feminist discourse?

Vanilla,

To borrow from a song, I didn’t mean to hurt you… Hope you stay sexy and gracious, although, I have to say - I was a little disappointed by your misinterpretation and misattribution of JamesH just above.

“I assume people are rational, until proven otherwise. I assume they have empathy and lack prejudice, until they demonstrate they don't. I like it when people disagree with me - it's nothing to do with that.”

I may be missing something important here, but I thought JamesH was promoting the same concepts within a different context. He was reserving judgement on feminists, you, on people.

Are you suggesting such initial non-prejudicial neutrality does not work for “feminists”, and the two must be decoupled as you have done? Reserving judgement on individual feminist interpretation is to be condemned, because feminism “just is” and its adherents are all good?

I find this more than a little strange. Critics of feminism often cite their objection to the movement’s blinkered preoccupation with its women, to the detriment of its “people”. Perhaps you too are amongst those sometimes struggling with the movement’s name (your Freudian slip is showing).

The point I think most of us are circling around here, is that feminism, like any movement, has its pluses and minuses.

Some feel that the minuses outweigh the pluses in our comparatively enlightened western world.
I can see some reasonable points behind that - though I'd be curious as to the views those critical of feminism have, of the role of feminism in less enlightened cultures and whether a stronger feminist role is needed in these countries.

I can say from my perspective that the more reasonable critics of feminism in these threads have opened my eyes to the fact that it's not all positive - I'm not saying I ever thought it was all rosy, I guess I didn't think much about it in the past at all, I just acknowledged the importance of past contributions of feminism, and knowing that there is still some gender discrimination, however minor, I thought it still has a role to play... I still do.

However, I guess the critics have made me realise that gender discrimination flows both ways. I'm not convinced this is all to do with feminism or that it should be scrapped, more that it's important to identify people with agendas within movements such as feminism, and figure out what their real goals are.

The same goes for those who have an agenda of simply attacking women, because this reasonable criticism can quite easily be hijacked, and when it is, the search for real equality becomes that much harder for both sides.

I guess I just don't think this has to be a war and the real enemies are those that try to make it one, because of their own distinct prejudices, which all too often are either a hatred of men (yes, those feminists are out there, but they're rarer than their opposite advocates would have us believe) or a hatred of women, which is what I've been getting at in my last few posts.

Bronwyn: "many of us are constantly living out this struggle to be taken seriously"

Perhaps that would be less of a problem if feminist discourse were less shallow, more honest and hence more worthy of serious discussion? For my own part, I take you and others here as seriously as your contributions deserve; your gender is irrelevant.

"Why is it Antiseptic that when women do this it is referred to as “gossip”? What is it called when men do the same thing?

Gossip, perhaps? Men do plenty of it, just as women do. On the whole, though, men have less time to do it, as far more of their time is taken up earning a living. Women, especially middle-class women, which would describe the majority of those who claim to be "feminists", have much less pressure on them for self-support, let alone the support of others.

Vanilla: "Feminism, to me, is just part of a natural and ongoing struggle to create a culture in which women and men are as free as they possibly can be to experience all that existence has to offer."

It may well be that to you, but to the vast majority of women in Australia it's nothing more than "grrl power" and a justification for taking whatever they can get in the way of handouts. Sorry if that sounds misogynist, perhaps it is, but a brief look at where the majority of Government payments to individuals goes shows it to be accurate.

TRTL:"I've been arguing that dismissing the views of every person who has been identified as having some feminist beliefs is irrational."

I agree, but then, categorising all men as sexual predators and wife-bashers is irrational too and yet...

The trouble with the topic is that extremists, particularly extremist feminists, have stolen the debate from the rational centre. This is leading to a society in which men are second-class citizens and what's more, the women are standing by, cheering while it happens. Is it any wonder that some men may become somewhat unbalanced in their own views?