Houellebecq;

You make an endless array of assumptions yourself. For example, you can't seem to get your mind around the notion that men are not necessarily nor automatically sole or even primary financial providers. (Historically, they never were either).

The jig is up. Those of us who have exchanged roles know full well that it's possible to work full-time - even extended hours - and still build strong bonds with our children (and partners).

Yes it may have been "hurtful" to question Antispectic closely, however, he has the option of answering those questions or not. His unsupported and factually unsupportable statements that denigrate women as a whole can't be left unchallenged. He isn't a singular case - James' eager support and yours, Roscop's and that of other men posting here stand as examples of an unquestioned readiness to believe anything negative about women that's uttered by whatever male takes up the most air space.

I even once put the idea that the men posting in such ways couldn't represent the majority and some one of them stated with absolute confidence that they represented a mainstream male view. If that's so, then what I've said does apply to (too) many men. In any case, my remarks were not about all men but the posters here - and anyone who shares their views on women.

Just think about the things said about women that you've read (condoned and elaborated upon) here and on the other thread - for example: lazy, can't make a decision; irresponsible; liars; manufacturing evidence; unwilling to work; soap opera junkies; preoccupied with baubles and trivia; dependent on men for everything - and these statements are made broadly about all women; no disclaimer. If those things were being said about people from some ethnic group you'd all be shouted down as racist and hateful. There is no justifiable reason to paint women with such attributes.

Again I put it to you; if you're suddenly so mortified by "callous" remarks; you might take some time to ponder why you haven't found it problematic when male posters are the source.

Pynchme,

'you can't seem to get your mind around the notion that men are not necessarily nor automatically sole or even primary financial providers.'

I think you need to get your mind around your prejudice about men and what you assume they all think.

'The jig is up. Those of us who have exchanged roles know full well that it's possible to work full-time - even extended hours - and still build strong bonds with our children (and partners).'

Ha. What jig? Just imagine, if good 'ol Anti said the 'jig is up' for all those women who say they do valuable work at home because some women have managed to juggle full time work and caring for the kids. Regardless I never said it isn't possible for primary earners to have a strong bond with their children. I said the primary carer will have a strongER bond due to the extended time with the children.

My point was that why would the father (yes father, not primary earner because I'm countering your claim about a fathers 'sudden' interest in their children) still be happy to only see his children on weekends after the marriage breakdown? I think I explained many of the reasons they aren't happy with this.

I find it interesting that you think I support Antiseptic. If anything I've ignored his posts and referenced his bias as something I though you should/would aspire not to emulate. I may have over-estimated you.

I think it's indicative of your low opinion of men that you see all the male posters as an 'other', all having the same thoughts and opinions. Because I am silent on poor form from some male posters, and I am male, you think, well, logically, I must agree with everyhing they say.

'you might take some time to ponder why you haven't found it problematic when male posters are the source.'

I have found it problematic, but I see them as a lost cause. I only point your remarks out as I see you as the pot calling the kettle black all the time.

Pynchme, you made the claim that Men's (Menz) websites encourages fathers not to pay child support.

Where is your evidence?

In all the sites that I have visited I have not found a single one that encourages dads not to pay child support.

"I even once put the idea that the men posting in such ways couldn't represent the majority" Pynchme

If you had read either Thomas or Farrell, you would notice statements made to these authors that a bloke may tell them, but not share with his best mate, even though the mate expressed the same ideas, when the other wasn't present.

I know males who share some of these ideas, but never ever infront or within earshot of women, especially their wives.

I know males who would prefer to talk about football, etc, anything but talking about feminism.

I as wrote before, Melaine Phillips and Maggie Hamilton have both written good books. NOTE these books are written by women not men.

Alot of the material I relie on is because it also has been supported by female authors.

So are you telling me that the female authors are wrong! or is only female authors who do not agree with feminism are wrong!

billie’s Acer study does not support her claim that “Women still suffer from discrimination in Australia with 24 year old female graduates earning 25% lower wages than 24 year old men.”

As I read the media release, women study longer, do not necessarily choose courses using money-making criteria, then settle into jobs with higher levels of occupational status but less well paid careers to work shorter hours.

Perhaps she meant women “experience” (rather than “suffer”) [their own] discrimination whenever they make a choice … Should we ignore victim feminism, or act to discourage some of those choices?

Pynchme:” If you're talking about your personal situation (did you say that you care full-time for two and she for one child?) then you'd have to explain how your child support payments were determined and what method you chose - like did you go through the CSA or make some private arrangement? Even so I am not conversant with or very interested in CSA matters.”

Of course it was standard CSA formula as mentioned more than once i.e. no special circumstances, no variations. Houellebecq’s assessment seems so apt and Anti’s frustration understandable.

Even though you posted that link yourself, you can be so dismissive when it suits. What other content of your own posts are you “not conversant with or very interested in” ?

Having explicitly stated that you do not know and do not care about the subject, how can you criticise men’s sites in the way you did?

"As to fighting for time with your children. Let's then use the term, "interest" or even "want". When you were married to their mother, were you as comparably determined to spend time with your children as you have been since divorce. It's also interesting that none of you dare think about why women seek divorce - " Pynchme

"Mothers can be very encouraging to fathers, and open the gate to their involvement in child care, or be very critical, and close the gate."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/06/080601092230.htm

It would then suggest to me that it is the mothers who are critical will most likely be the ones who get divorced.

pynchme:"lazy, can't make a decision; irresponsible; liars; manufacturing evidence; unwilling to work; soap opera junkies; preoccupied with baubles and trivia; dependent on men for everything - and these statements are made broadly about all women; no disclaimer."

Ah, the shoe is starting to drop, I see.

I, along with many others have complained frequently about the broad-brush demonisation of men in advertising, the media, from politicians and especially from "feminists". There is never a "disclaimer" saying (for example) "most men never commit violence, this ad is aimed at the very small number who do"; or "most men pay their Child Support in full, this campaign is aimed at the very small number who don't"; or "the rate of motor vehicle accidents among young men is higher than the population average, but most young men are perfectly competent drivers unless they drink too much or try to show off for other young people, especially young women".

It's not much fun being included as part of a group you don't identify with, is it, especially when that group is being vilified? Ask yourself why you find the standards applied to the vilification of men are acceptable and why you find the much milder criticisms offered here so personally affronting.

It has taken thousands of words for you to grasp this basic point, which is indicative ISTM of your deep-seated prejudices. Those prejudices have been carefully nurtured in you and other women over the past 40 or so years, using the time-honoured method of inducing envy. "Poor women, they have it hard, while men have it so easy", never once mentioning the large class of women who are entirely happy to have little to do all day but ensure the children don't dribble chocolate on the new carpet, or the similarly large class that have historically worked alongside their men in agriculture and in business.

Feminism has become a means of securing a sinecure for a few, using the poor circumstances of a different few to "justify" it. It's nothing but self-interest dressed up as altruism and it's rotten to the core.