SJF and Pelican re: how stereotypes about feminists are perpetuated.

Pelican your post (was a beaut post btw):
<"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” Runner: Really? Isn’t that precisely what feminism does to men most effectively of late?">

Here's a study of interest:

"They found that having a feminist partner was linked to healthier heterosexual relationships for women. Men with feminist partners also reported both more stable relationships and greater sexual satisfaction. According to these results, feminism does not predict poor romantic relationships, in fact quite the opposite."

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/10/071015102856.htm

I see a lot of positives for the future when I observe and listen to my son and his groups of friends. The young blokes seem to seek, prefer and feel more comfortable around assertive and capable young women who have study and career goals. I think younger men are better adjusted to a worldview that accords with feminist philosophy than some of the men who post here seem to be.

James: You've done a 180 but you're still standing on the same spot. Maybe the problem IS that someone (one partner) has to work 60 hours a week - losing contact time with partner and children - for - what... um financial pressures? Career competition? Organizational politics ? From a feminist perspective, if a couple chooses that traditional division of labour and household configuration then that's that; however it should also be a viable and respectable choice for each to work 30 hours, or to take turns at being earner and homemaker; or to reduce consumerism and livemore humbly or.... whatever. One vision (historically - neither accurate nor viable) of man hunter hero and woman cook parasite, can no longer be imposed on others.

Antispectic: Re: Ignoring the US sites. You fellas draw on US and Canadian sites when you choose, everyone has access to them via the 'net; many of the views you and others express reflect them and Australian sites carry links to them. Also, please read message boards attached to the Aussie sites.

Robert: I don't agree that it's cricket to attack someone's personal or professional life just because they hold different views. However, he suggests something like a conspiracy. I think Romany gave a full explanation about publishing priorities and I think we've covered just about everything worth saying about that page.

Houellebecq: Your admission is noted and discounted. I wouldn't be bothered. Maybe you could reflect though on why you think it's worth pointing to mine (and SJFs) while ignoring that which is apparent in posts by males.

Pynchme:"You fellas draw on US and Canadian sites when you choose"

I don't, although as the US models are picked up more and more by self-serving "feminists", perhaps I should. Regardless, none of the links you obviously spent time searching out actually supported your contention that there is widespread support for the non-payment of Child Support, merely a recognition that as it is currently constituted, Child Support is unfair to all, especially fathers who are kept from their children by mothers intent on mazimising their take.

Pynchme:"You fellas draw on US and Canadian sites when you choose"

As i said, I regularly visit and often contribute to the 4 major Australian sites, including their forums. There is nothing on any of them to suggest that non-payment of Child support is an option that should be encouraged. In your zeal to make women into victims you seek to place the blame for the situations of lazy women who won't work on the men who do. As always, in your world women anre never capable of being responsible for the outcomes of their own decisions, the poor helpless things.

Pynchme:"I think younger men are better adjusted to a worldview that accords with feminist philosophy than some of the men who post here seem to be."

They might well be, having been subject to the massive propaganda campaigns that have been run for decades and without the benefit of sufficient experience to see the faults. Still, they'll soon learn that the reality doesn't add up to the propaganda spiel when the "assertive and capable young women" decide that the best use for the young men is to shut up and pay Child Support and that they themselves are somehow no longer capable of lifting a finger to support themselves.

Pynchme, a conspiracy would be hard to prove. On the other hand I assume that for a writer the group of people who get to decide what gets published and what does not is relatively small and likely to know each other, it's not hard to imagine the kind of discussions which might lead to some kind of agreement to shut him down. Have you read Graham Youngs comments on tribalism? Attacking the core beliefs of tribe can draw a tribal response.

I'm glad we agree that the described tactics are not OK. I've no way of telling if what was described happened in this case but I've seen the theme often enough to be disturbed by those who think that anybody telling such a story should be dismissed with comtempt.

R0bert

Trade,

as regards self-identity and the identity others give one you say: -"l think they're prolly exactly same thing, tho one might be chicken, the other one egg. Either way they're the same intra-dependent thing."

See that, right there, is where we disagree. Personally I think the two exist with no relation to each other whatsoever...and yeah, both of them could possibly be illusory. In fact I'm damned sure that that other peoples perceptions of one's self nearly always are. But the juxtopisition of the word "false" with illusory as you coupled them, gives a feeling of deliberate deceit?

While that may be true for public figures or some people, I don't think its a given. Everyone brings their own interpretation to things so I figure I can't be responsible for other peoples illusions any more. When/if people people cannot bring themselves to believe that what you see is what you get with regards to my own self then I can no longer concern myself with that inability.

The last few years have brought a lot of changes with them for me, and while I may not have a complete handle on my self I have no illusions left at all. The biggest change of all is that I can now not only accept that, but am content with it as well.

Antiseptic,

<"it seems that 98% of men are prepared to pay through the nose to support the mother of their children, regard;ess of whether she can be bothered to get off her burgeoning arse to do so herself...">

- and there you have it. Child support doesn't support mothers; it helps pay to raise the children.

According to this study, "...98% of men..." are hardly paying "through the nose". In any case, one wonders how they think they'd be paying less for their children if they were living in a family situation.

"Child support is of minimal assistance to most
families. According to the Child Support Agency,
mothers constitute 91% of parents who are entitled
to child support and 41% of single parents receive
no child support. Related information on child
support payers, who are overwhelmingly men,
demonstrates that:

• 40% pay $5.00 or less a week
• 16.2% pay between $5-40 a week
• 22.3% pay between $40-$100 a week
• 21.4% pay over $100 a week child support

(Family and Community Services Committee 2003:14, 127,128.
cited in Keebaugh 2004a: 1).
This statistical data reflects the experiences of the
participants in this study, few of whom were
receiving reasonable entitlements of child support
for their children.The number of men manipulating
and minimising their child support responsibilities
contributed to a corresponding number of women
and children living in poverty.These facts need to be
made widely known to counter prevailing societal
beliefs that most separated mothers receive
lucrative child support entitlements, to the financial
detriment of their ex-partners."

http://www.csmc.org.au/sites/default/files/pdfs/his%20money%20or%20our%20money.pdf

http://www.csmc.org.au/?q=researchandpapers