Pynchme:"parochialism just won't do when we're considering the internet and connections that transcend territorial boundaries. "

The US is a different country, with different laws and a different culture to Australia. You might just as well link to sites from Outer Mongolia for all the relevance they have to the Australian situation.

On the other hand, the US example is instructive in terms of providing a view of the extremes of radical feminism, including such egregiously flawed examples as the Duluth model for dealing with domestic disturbances, the Tennessee model for enforcement of Child Support Assessments (including such wonders as disenfranchising men who are behind; a nice way to ensure that there can never be any effective political protest by that group) and a few other examples of State-sponsored feminist policies that are specifically gender-discriminatory. Unlike the various men's groups, the feminist movement is very much in communication across national boundaries.

Pynchme:"I take it you haven't read anything on it. "

In that case you take it wrong, as usual. It is a collection that is essentially polemic in nature, rather that providing any insight into men who are not "pro-feminist". Frankly, it's crap by a third-rater.

Pynchme:"I wish you would read some of their articles with an open mind and heart."

I have. I wish you could post something that actually responds to what has been written previously, instead of regurgitating your own tired, inaccurate and frequently dishonest polemic. Frankly, I think you spend too much time in feminist male-hate sessions and not enough time in the real world.

For example, the current situation in higher ed is that there is a 30+% greater number of women than men entering undergraduate courses. Do you see that as a good thing? Why

"Right now; I'd be interested in seeing any site that celebrates the murder of a boy child because he won't grow up to be a man; or anything comparable to the loathing and hatred that is directed at women generally from those sites." Pynchme.

You really are hitting below the belt with that one. But I'll respond.

Last part first.

1)"anything comparable to the loathing and hatred that is directed at women generally from those sites."

How can examining and trying to discuss, the destructive behaviour of some women, loathing and hatred? Sure some strong language gets used and in part this because of the image that is portrayed of men by the media. Case in point is an article in todays Telegraph.

The journalist would never write the same type of article that accused mothers of killing their children. One bloke on ABC radio spoke about how is ex, killed the child and herself rather than allow him to have custody.

2)"Right now; I'd be interested in seeing any site that celebrates the murder of a boy child because he won't grow up to be a man;"

That is really sick.

However there was recently a protest about certain advertising that used the phrase, "The second ad pictures a smiling boy beside this message: "When I grow up, I will beat my wife."

Now lets look at research methodology, Lets say I research men as domestic violence victims and never ask them if they had initiated or perpetrated violence, my research was only interested in expanding the definition and there by increase the incidence. Imagine if I refused to research men in initiating violence.

Wouldn't there be a hue and cry about researcher bias.

Yet this is exactly what feminist researchers do. There was time I noticed that they researched men by asking women, no one bothered to research men by asking men.

Antiseptic in regards to the kids in distress website, it seems to present itself as caring about kids and mothers, yet in the writing there are some very subtle and not so subtle negatives.

I found it disturbing the comments about Jamie Bulger and the boys who killed him.

"Because the terribly sad thing is that two young men, so horrifically sadistic as boys, will be entitled to form relationships and have children. Their chosen partners/wives will not be entitled to know anything of their past, unless they disclose voluntarily to them."

Ok there is no denying the death of Jamie was sadistic, and there is a low probability that one or both of his attackers are psychopaths or have psychopathic tendecies.

But basically what is scary is that this site seeks to create anxiety or fear, for all the owners of this website know, these boys could grow up to be model citzens and extremely good parents.

<James: "2)"Right now; I'd be interested in seeing any site that celebrates the murder of a boy child because he won't grow up to be a man;"
That is really sick.>

No James. What IS sick is that a man has actually written that about a little girl who died a cruel and horrible death and not only have other men endorsed his comments about "the little trollop" who "never did get laid..."; but only one or two have commented against it. (Nevermind that he attributes both heroic and victim status to a rapist of multiple crimes).

How come there is no male outrage from you, for example, that another man is portraying men this way? Instead - just as he blames the child victim and her mother (she did have a father after all didn't she) - you say my comment is sick. The point of my comment, as you well know, is to say that I would be astonished to have you find anything comparable to those made on that site.

The reason that comment was made was because of the incessant claims that women say nasty things about men. Some women do, of course, and it's contemptible (like in the complaint on the menz site that a female journalist said some men can't change their own car oil and get cranky that a woman can do it). However, that sort of comment PALES in comparison.

It's not just the rough language of the menz sites - it's the concepts about females that are formed by that language and portrayed to others. Mind you, they are concepts with which we are all well familiar - from everywhere on the globe including some of the most reprehensible gender backwaters imaginable.

James re: the DV ads. The ad actually continues to say, "Men who witnessed domestic violence as children are twice as likely to abuse their wives. Break the cycle of domestic violence."

Personally I don't like the ads because of the pics of children but I get the point that they are intended to convey.

Btw: Tell me how Glen Sacks (unsuccessful) campaign to have funding removed from this service: http://www.familyplace.org/Page.aspx?pid=328 , which also provides services to abused men; men who were sexually assaulted as children; and to DV offenders, is supposed to help male clients of that service, or reduce DV against men ?

As to your articles written by women - so? There are conservative women who subscribe to traditional sex role stereotypes, just as there are men who are progressive and confident enough to think beyond the confines they impose. You seem to have the notion that feminism refers to a group of strange women whose life mission it is to vilify men. Feminism is a philosophy - a world view that opposes oppression and which sees the socio-cultural connections and patterns of abuse, control and subjugation. Feminists can be people of either sex: fathers, mothers, all sorts of people who lead other wise unextraordinary lives.

Antiseptic:

1. What lies are you talking about ? Show one. I think you have the lies department entirely covered.

2. I need a link to your stat so that I can see evidence of what you're talking about. Then I'll be glad to comment. Thanks for asking about it.

3. As to not answering questions or whatever; in only two posts I respond to what I can. Is there something specific that you've been waiting to discuss ?

4. Yes we have different laws and culture to the US, but that doesn't stop you and James from regurgitating Glen Sacks and other notables amongst the menz groups, when it suits your purposes.

Pynchme, I once thought that I could drill down through all the layers of facades, false fronts, misconceptions.

I read Myrna Blythes book "The Spin Sisters", in her book she writes that the women of the media tend to think either that all women think like them or that all women should think like them.

This either red-neck liberlism or they are liberal red-necks.

You talk about traditional sex roles, that kids in distress website, ascibes to the traditional sex roles, let me ask you a personal question?

If you are heterosexual, who is it that initiates sex most of the time in your relationship?

I have undertaken study in areas and done other things in socalled non-traditional sex roles.

My conslusion is that inspite of liberalism, even women who ascribe themselves as feminists, still ascribe to traditional sex roles, or behave in such a way, that encourages or influences men to behave in certain ways.