This discussion has deteriorated into the usual scenario.

Why is it that some posters choose to forget the environment that gave birth to the feminist movement. One reason, was women were being paid less for equal work under the cultural assumption that men were the 'head of the household' and had to support a family. Many women were also supporting families and proved themselves in wartime to be as capable as men of performing essential worktasks. At one point abused women had nowhere to go until women's shelters were established. Up until then women were told 'you made your bed...', 'why do you make him angry', 'it must be your fault'.

Why some continue to promulgate the image of a worst case example of a feminist and use it as the norm is bemusing and perplexing. Are there really people who believe feminism was a philosphy that pushed the view men were an inferior sub-group?

It only serves to diminish the original theme of the discussion and one might question the motivations and emotional baggage behind this behaviour.

And I would love to know where all these feminised workplaces and institutions are. I have never yet in my 47 years experienced a workplace where men in senior management were in the minority (in private or public sector organisations).

As someone succinctly stated above shouldn't we be concentrating on the wellbeing of families no matter what shape or form they might take.

Changing your name is a personal choice, I chose to change it some choose not to, some hyphenate it. No big deal. We all make our own choices for our own reasons.

Can we take it then, that Trade is no quantum physicist. Many women aren’t either, and never will be, regardless of how much affirmative action is legislated.

Proportional gender representation in every field of human endeavour is as unrealistic at our current point in evolution, as it is improbable any time soon. No matter how loudly the gender feminists scream. We’re different. Even if there were no discernable biological differences found in inherent skills or capacity, and all were given equal opportunity, there will be differences in motivation, preferences and therefore outcomes.

To legislate for equal outcomes would be no better than socialist slavery. Providing unequal opportunity and incentive to achieve such outcomes, would be social engineering at its worst. Neither is economically efficient nor morally correct. Both are just plain wrong.

Pelican: “This discussion has deteriorated into the usual scenario.” No, I read a much more powerful argument of feminism deteriorating. Have you not read the link to Christina Hoff Sommers?

Pelican:” Why some continue to promulgate the image of a worst case example of a feminist and use it as the norm is bemusing and perplexing” Really? Isn’t that precisely what feminism does to men most effectively of late?

Pelican:” Why is it that some posters choose to forget the environment that gave birth to the feminist movement. One reason, was women were being paid less for equal work under the cultural assumption that men were the 'head of the household' and had to support a family.”

Then as now, men competed in labour markets, regulated or not as they may have been at any particular time. They will continue to do so. They may need to compromise between how much they need to support a family and what the market will pay, but will happily take more than they need if the market values their effort so. It was always thus. If you are a victim feminist, you will see that a market is all about discrimination. A glass half-full kind of person on the other hand, will view it as competition.

You know, it would be really nice to see more women supporting their families. No, not those families on single mother benefits. Traditional families, such as the ones being destroyed by the more reckless branches of feminism. If for no other reason, just to show they can.

Catch,

"Alas, thats the folly of self-identity in my estimation... it eats itself."

This statement, coupled with your rationale about evidence directed to Spikey, sounds almost as though you've opted for nihilism?

"Self-identity"? As long as I keep in mind that self-identity and the identity of one's self as defined by others are always two distinct beings, I find that cannibalism can be avoided.

Robert: re: the article by Neil Lyndon. Please take the trouble to check a couple of matters to which he refers. For example, something simple and easily verifiable like women getting the vote. He lies by omission and minimizes the efforts that women have made and their achievements. If he can’t tell a simple truth about something like that… pffft.

He says that women obtained the vote only 11 years after men. I’m not going to quote everything (word limit) but note key dates: 1832; 1867; 1884; 1885-1918; 1928.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage

Men were never excluded because of their sex; they first gained the vote based on ownership of property. Women were not only excluded because of their sex; but also on the grounds of property, and age for that matter. Women had to be over 30 yrs of age.

<” Millicent Fawcett, the leader of the NUWSS during the campaign for the vote, was still alive and had the pleasure of attending Parliament to see the vote take place. That night she wrote in her diary: "It is almost exactly 61 years ago since I heard John Stuart Mill introduce his suffrage amendment to the Reform Bill on May 20th, 1867. So I have had extraordinary good luck in having seen the struggle from the beginning.">

http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/W1928.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suffrage#History_of_suffrage_in_the_United_Kingdom

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/3153024.stm

As to Christine Hoff Summers: – I disagree unreservedly with the 3 point characterization of feminism. It’s complete trash. Nevertheless, I haven’t noticed any feminist conspiracy exerting undue impact on her career as a conservative anti-feminist. She has done very well with book sales. This will do for her:

http://coolbeanscool.blogspot.com/2003/07/what-to-do-with-those-im-not-feminist.html

James:

Why do you say that material written by men offends my “sensibilities” when many of the articles I’ve referenced are written by men ?

Of your most recent link (again, menz sources). I take it you’ve never heard of the terms incidence and prevalence, or that you don’t understand them. Please look those terms up then follow the links in your page and compare what’s provided there with studies from – well, anywhere that isn’t one of your dumb sites.

Follow that site's references and read the whole material. One link provides information that detracts from the menz sites claims that men are victimized by bitter women who make false allegations about child abuse.

One study there shows that by far most reports of suspected abuse are made by professionals – teachers, doctors and so on. After that, neighbours and various others. The other parent accounts for a very small number of reports. (Which is problematic in several ways, but none in the way you’d like it to be).

Also, the figures there deal only with reported cases; not whole populations. Women do most of the child care so it’s not surprising that they generate a higher proportion of reports – which in the case of females is mainly neglect; including failure to obtain medical care (in a country with very high costs of medical care).

Your menz sites actively encourage men to avoid paying child support. Therefore we have many women raising children alone without fathers contributing adequately to the costs.

A much smaller number of men are responsible for children than are women, yet except for the postnatal period, higher figures of violence and child sexual abuse are still attributed to males.

Re: DV:
<” Of course we must have compassion for those relative few men who are harmed by their wives and partners, but it makes logical sense to focus our attention and work on the vast problem of male violence (96 percent of domestic violence) and not get side-tracked by the relatively tiny (4 percent)problem of male victimization. The biggest concern, though, is not the wasted effort on a false issue, it is the fact that batterers, like O.J. Simpson, who think they are the abused spouses are very dangerous during separation and divorce. In one study of spousal homicide, over half of the male defendants were separated from their victims [38]. Arming these men with warped statistics to fuel their already warped world view is unethical, irresponsible, and quite simply lethal.”>

http://www.nomas.org/node/107

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