Houellebecq:"skewed nearly as much as antis"

I find it fascinating that some people find any disparaging remark directed at a woman offensive, but a far more insulting comment about men to be entirely unexceptionable.

Having said that, my comments are rarely directed at women generally, but are nearly always directed at specific groups ("single" mothers; "career feminists" who expect preferment solely because of their gender; self-serving politicians who pander to them or in some cases, are them). The thing they all have in common is that they expect someone else to do the hard stuff.

My other principal theme is State-sponsorship of the envy politics that is victim feminism. I can see no systematic discrimination against women in any field. As Seeker points out, what often happens is that women want it both ways - they want "easy" jobs that are high status, but they want to be paid the same for them as those who take on high-commitment, high-pressure jobs. I'd go so far as to suggest that many of the jobs that women are doing today are simply not necessary work, including institutional child-care, much of the social work "profession" (it's really just a glorified clerkship in most cases) and several other newly-created non-jobs. As well, much of the growth of the bureaucracy in recent decades has been in areas devoted solely to discriminatory treatment in favour of women, including no less than 10 separate departments specifically set up to benefit women (mostly by employing them).

In today's world, girls are encouraged to go to uni (28% of "gen Y" girls compared to just 21% of boys; according to the News Limited press, this is "closing the gap" rather than creating a 33% imbalance) while boys are encouraged to "take the quick buck" and get a trade. No doubt that will enable them to pay for the young women going to uni and getting a Government handout to do so...

There is a clear division being created between productive, earning men and women who "can do anything" (as long as it doesn't involve getting their hands dirty).

<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.>

Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 1 February 2009 6:52:42 AM

I second that Anti.

What a bunch of sookies. I haven't got much time to play with you lot anymore for now so I'll just give a quick couple of responses.

Anti - you say that women get an education the government pays for. Is there any law; has there ever been any law against men aiming for and getting any education they please? The answer is no, of course. That hasn't been the case for women.

Houellebecq: If you didn't agree with much of what the men here say, then one would expect you to speak up. Are you afraid of not being one of the lads? Is it only 'safe' to challenge women, but never challenge cherished notions that hold them as despicable.

James: I already posted links to sites; many American; to Antispetic.
Here's something you might want to read about how the groups are connected. In any case, if you're really the least interested go Google some more.

http://www.kidsindistress.org.au/files/Kids-in-Distress-the-politics-of-father-rights-activists.php

If you'd rather read it in word you can Google and get it in that format.

I saw on one site where a mother who is breastfeeding a baby asks what to do about the father wanting overnight visits. The father already had access. The responses were all about how she should express milk etc etc rather than deny the father's RIGHT to have the baby overnight. Whose interests are best served by putting the baby through that ? I can't fathom the level of selfishness that would deny a baby it's greatest comfort and best source of nourishment.

As to interest in child support payments; I can comment on matters without having a primary interest in them. Personally, I pay for my family. I don't cry about fulfilling my responsibilities.

You'd presumably support the children before divorce so what's the damned difference with paying for them afterwards.

As to loving them so much you work so hard without emotional reward. If that's the case and you found it satisfactory before divorce then there's no rational reason to be moaning about having the same type of relationship with your children afterwards.

Pynchme:” You'd presumably support the children before divorce so what's the damned difference with paying for them afterwards.”

Why would you suppose “paying for them” is so deeply ingrained?

Pynchme: “Here's something you might want to read about how the groups are connected. In any case, if you're really the least interested go Google some more.

http://www.kidsindistress.org.au/files/Kids-in-Distress-the-politics-of-father-rights-activists.php”

So this is where you get your opinions from. The recommendations of this paper are astounding.

“In the context of the continued and growing use of the internet by FRAO to develop misogynist sites inciting hatred, and the number of growing discussion groups used to promote anti-mother propaganda, it is suggested that closer monitoring of these groups be undertaken by either a hate watch organisation, Australian Institute of Family Studies (AIFS) or by HREOC to focus on gender social relations (Bouchard et al 2003). Such monitoring should be used to provide warnings to government agencies such as the Child Support Agency and the Family Court, also politicians, and non government organisations which are the target of hate actions. Authors of hate mail and incitements to violence should be investigated and prosecuted for promoting violence. Persistent offenders should be identified on a national security register.

Also it is proposed that the “Window on Women” site be the central information, reference and factual data site for journalists and academics and others to access on the status of women in various areas such as family law. Further that publication of gendered data must always be supported by analyses that provided the context, since without it the data only fuels the masculinist discourses. This site and social responsibility should be broadly publicised. Also the establishment of a strategy to develop and support the dissemination by women’s groups of positive egalitarian messages to balance masculinist discourse and FRA propaganda.“

So if men’s sites were to engage in monitoring for, uncovering or discussing “hate speech” against themselves, or discussing their roles in the context of femocentric social, economic and legal frameworks that define modern families, its members should be prosecuted and placed on a national security register. Ouch.

Antiseptic: << ...my comments are rarely directed at women generally...>>

That used to be the case - previously Antiseptic restricted his antipathy towards women to those whom he identified as "feminist". However, lateley I've noticed that he's been extending those negative sentiments to women in general.

What's happened, Antiseptic? Could it be that the personal strategies you employ with respect to women are actually damaging to you?

It seems that you've morphed from supposedly anti-feminist to overtly anti-women over the last week or so.

You really should get over it.

Seeker, g'day -

You did well to read the whole article, but no, I don't get my opinions from any one source. I read and study widely and consider my observations of others' and my own life experiences as well. I compare opinions as well as research; follow the links and weigh up all the information. This is one of my favourite sources of articles:

http://www.xyonline.net/

Financially supporting children doesn't need to be "ingrained"; it's a basic responsibility.

"So if men’s sites were to engage in monitoring for, uncovering or discussing “hate speech” against themselves, or discussing their roles in the context of femocentric social, economic and legal frameworks that define modern families, its members should be prosecuted and placed on a national security register.."

Here's an example of one site that I found by following links in the menz sites (note the site links) - I'd do excerpts but it's too revolting. Here is a write up and comments about Jonbenet Ramsey:

http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/jonbenet-never-did-get-laid.html

Here's another that I came across while following links between menz sites;

http://www.menarebetterthanwomen.com/every-woman-is-a-cheating-whore/

The next one refers to Marc Lepine as a hero:

http://masculistman.proboards49.com/index.cgi?board=misandry&action=display&thread=698

An example of how they link:

http://masculistman.proboards49.com/index.cgi?board=general&action=display&thread=213

Here's an article about hate talk and how it's expressed against women.

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/31/sierra/

A couple of points:

1. The sites give the worst sorts of people a rationale for continued abuse of women, children, homosexuals and any men who don't share their opinions.
2. The sites incite hatred and violence. (For example, one of them has an article saying that women who are unfaithful should be dragged out and shot.)
3. We have seen on these boards here how some men are buying into the misinformation - they are not checking the 'studies' or the 'statistics'.

I don't see why men shouldn't monitor hate speech if they can find anything as remotely hateful about men. I haven't seen any women saying that men should be killed wholesale nor any celebrating the death of a boy because he was prevented from growing into an adult male.

cont'd