No Steel, not facts. Distortions and ommissions, at best.

One example of illogicality:

Sacks emphasizes:

As we've discussed many times, men earn more than women on average for many legitimate reasons. These include:

1) Men work longer hours at more demanding and hazardous jobs

2) Men are more likely to travel, relocate or have long commutes for their jobs

3) Men are more likely to have more years and more consecutive years of experience, because women are more likely to work part time or take years off of work to care for their children.

IF (IF) these are true, or even the central issue (which they are not), then in summary - women forgo career possibilities to provide care for the children.

If women care for the children, and father is away earning all the time, then there is no reason why, after divorce or separation, that uninvolved fathers should suddenly claim custody. Father could just go on fulfilling his responsibilities as he always has - by providing financial support.

He also supports the outrageous fiction of Parental Alienation Syndrome (for example, Glenn's E-Newsletter/Week in Review, September 23, 2008) - if you haven't read up on the source of that bizarre and malicious mythical illness, then I urge you to catch up now.

Anyway Steel, there is too much to contain here. Do some research - it doesn't take much - a bit of Google; or you may of course choose to just stew in the lies you are absorbing that generate bitterness and hate. Are there bad and ruthless women? Certainly - there are bad and ruthless people of both sexes. However, the patterns of power and control are not evenly shared. When they are we can stand together to condemn abuse by abusive people.

Anyway, here to kick you off:

http://www.xyonline.net/Myth.shtml

http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/backlash.pdf

http://www.xyonline.net/womencanthear.shtml

http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/Politics_of_Father_-WAV.doc

http://www.xyonline.net/objections.shtml

Pynchme:"or you may of course choose to just stew in the lies you are absorbing that generate bitterness and hate."

Are you talking about feminist lies? Are you talking about feminist hate and bitterness? If I am bitter and hate-filled, then so are all feminists, who have institutions dedicated to hate and bitterness.

Pynchme "We can stand together to condemn abuse by abusive people."

We agree that all of these issues do not require institutional sexism against and oppression of men and masculinity (that often amounts to misandry), which is disgusting to any rational person, or should be. Feminism is obsolete and unnecessary to deal with any of these problems. Institutions past their use by date will deceive the public to protect their continued existence...such institutions employ people like you to create smoke and pollute society with their sexism.

Pynchme, those critiques of the 'mens movements' could apply equally well to a vast array of feminist organisations and authors.

They are as convincing as any government and opposition arguing in parliment. Both full of it.

I am miffed that you reject Steels opinions on feminism, when you can see the validity in identical arguments against the mens movement.

pynchme,

This has turned into a 'my freaky feminist sites are better than your freaky masculinist sites' competition.

But I will respond to some of your tripe...

1. And your point is? When in a relationship, couples decide what is the best mix of financial and caring roles between themselves. If all men suddenly decided tomorrow that they wanted to be prime carers and told their partners to go out and earn some money I know not many women would be interested.

2. Pff. Get over yourself. How sexist. You need to get out more.

3. I see the US as an alien culture. It has no relevance to me. BTW: I wonder who pays for the dinners, drinks and gifts.

4. I stopped reading when they started talking about a bunch of intangibles to portray women as victims. As Steele always says, the market rules these days, and people get paid what they are worth and what they can sell themselves for.

5. Never heard of her.

6. I don't deny anyone choice. I'm all for choice.

7. I'm all for choice, that's why I hate the erosion of choice for anyone who dares to want to partake in traditional gender roles. Feminism was brough about by some women who wanted a different role in life. Good on them. Bad on them for having the audacity to speak for all men and women and tell them what's good for them. I do want to ' try and maintain the status quo', AS AN OPTION for people who would wish such for themselves. I am about choice. You're not. You see this option as an affront to your ideology.

70% of women with young children would rather not go to work. Feminism has had a hand in hampering them in that choice, all for the 30% who do want to persue their career.

Cue all sorts of loony justifications as to why they just don't know what's good for them, they're victims of 'inescapable' gender roles or that the choice is illusary or some such rubbish.

Dear Steel and Usual Suspect,

If everyone is making the choices they want to,
then what are you two complaining about?

I assure you that feminist sites are not mirrors
of the vitriol filled sites to which you two subscribe.
Feminism is for inclusiveness and creativity; your sites
are backward thinking and trying to reassert oppression,
no matter what it takes (violence, slander, lies) to do it.

Feminism is interested in social well-being.

Your masculinist sites are interested in each man for himself
and bugger human rights for anyone else.

Maybe you two should just hang out together then you'll be able to hear your opinions over and over with no opposition or pesky new information to challenge your biases.