Antiseptic:

"Fractelle:"you're confusing me with Col Rouge"

Never let it be said!. You're interesting to read, funny and rational."

Aw, shucks. Picture instant transformation from Artemis into Aphrodite.

Perhaps we can just all try to be a little less prickly, those female posters you mention - all adore the men in their lives and wouldn't be without them.

How do I know? Well, I am a goddess - we know this stuff.

Fractelle

[Antiseptic to you]: 'Which is why I didn't include you in my comment about the women who seem threatened by any effort to suggest fathers may be entitled to similar parental rights and obligations to mothers.'

Tee-hee-hee...

If you look back to my previous comment to you re women being subtly and not so subtly pressured to distance themselves from supposed radical and extremist women, this offering from Antiseptic is a classic example of this kind of divide-and-rule, neo-Madonna/whore humbug. In addition, the sugar-coated sweetness of the first half of the statement is designed to disguise the outrageous falsehood of the second half.

By all means, enjoy his compliment, but take heed of its underlying manipulation.

R0bert

Just a quick clarification. I notice that my last reference to you re Warren Farrell is a bit misleading. I didn't mean to say that WF believes women enslave men; I meant to say that his writing has an undercurrent that men are enslaved by a system designed to benefit women. Because I was making a rushed reference back to a previous comment I made, I resorted to a shorthand version, which ended up misrepresenting my original comment.

SJF,

Would that be the same kind of subtle pressure that yourself and Romany are using on Robert to distance himself from Farrel?

SJF, "I meant to say that his writing has an undercurrent that men are enslaved by a system designed to benefit women"

My impression was more of social systems designed to perpetuate the species and benefit those at the top of the heap and that Farrell's emphasis's are countering the idea of a social system designed to benefit men.

Like everything there were exceptions in both directions. I took it that Farrell was saying most men have not had privilige and power, rather they have been treated as expendable because their biological function is different to that of women in terms of perpetuating the species.

Perhaps that's a reflection of my own preconceptions in reading his material but it's the theme I took from the book.

R0bert

Antiseptic:<The feminist side of this discussion, however, is quite happy to make the claim that "all men are bastards" while using the most extreme examples to tar the rest.> Call me simple, but aren’t you doing precisely that towards women or feminists? Anyway, name ONE feminist or any poster, who has done just that.

DVD: <Any man who dares to stick his head up & say that he believes in equal rights because he wants his sons to have the same opportunities as his daughter is immediately tarnished as a 'Woman Hater'> Really? You’d be surprised how many feminists have sons, lovers, husbands and even fathers. Yes, we all have fathers.

As SJF pointed out, there is no call for parenting leave, or making it easier for men to fit work around family. Indeed, women are constantly berated for ‘wanting it all’; career and children. That is because society still very much expects the mother to be the primary care giver and devote all her time to raising the children. Indeed, if a mother were to agree with a father being the primary care giver, see the knives come out. There would always have to be ‘a reason’. She’s got other ‘serious problems’, she doesn’t care for her kids, etc.

Mothers have to fit the Madonna mold for many. This by the way is not directed at men only, but women as well.

It is in the child’s best interest to have BOTH parents care and participate in parenting. It is high time for men to ‘want it all’: Career and children and demand changes in our working culture. It’s still soooo last century.

Robert is very articulate in expressing his views and interpretation. What I think would be interesting to examine is how one perceives a text on gender based on the gender of the reader. That to me seems to be more or less the debate that is happening between Robert and Romany and SJF.

Anansi, I suspect that it's more to do with the preconceptions of the reader than their gender. Gender may come into it but if there is room to interpret themes and subtexts we will do so according to existing views of the material and or author. We can try our best to see the issue from other viewpoints but it's never going to be easy.

R0bert