phanto, the problem was what the thousands (millions?) of Germans who acted badly were lacking access to any information that would contradict Hitler and his goons. By the mid-30s the only news they got was carefully tailored by Herr Goebbels and his merry band of ad men and every public event was carefully orchestrated by Herr Speer to stay "on message" with the massive claim to victimhood and the concomitant resentment that was under the Nazi's message. Let's not forget that Hitler had huge public credibility thanks to the economic "miracle" that the Nazis brought about in the mid 30s. (It was just as epemeral as John Howard's "miracle" of the last decade, but that's the power of advertising). Aggressive behaviour is a part of human nature and will come out whenever a group feels resentment and can find a target for it. The real key is in giving free access to information and education so that the manipulation of the mob into specifically-targetted violence becomes more difficult. Individual acts of violence are a police matter, while large scale manipulation may well subvert the police as well. Fiji is a more local example of manipulation of ethnically-based resentment leading to violence against those of Indian descent and ultimately a military coup.

phanto:"If they are trying to hurt you then that is another matter and their should be consequences for them in their relationship with you"

bingo. The trouble for those of a "delicate" disposition is that they tend to find all sorts of things offensive that are not, to the objective observer. They also frequently conflate one idea with an entirely different one and take offence at the construct, although it is entirely their own product. Our society has encouraged this sort of thing for years now and it provides some who wish to avoid discussion a "get out if jail free card". The so-called SLAPP writs are an extreme example at a corporate level.

Pomeranian:"snufflrsnuffleyipwhine"

Haven't you put that neurotic excuse for a dog out yet, Fractelle? Your leg must be developing callouses.

I believe I qualify as an objective oberver, Antiseptic, as your vitriol has -so far- not been directed at me.
You are deliberately trying to be offensive. Your remarks concerning canine behaviour are misplaced and have no place in an adult conversation -particularly one on the power of hatred.
You do not impress, you do not inspire, and you most certainly do not intimidate.
In fact, your constant jibes can only be described as childish and immature, and reduce the credibility of your opinions.
So why do you bother?

Having lurked on this topic for a few days, I'd like to give my general thoughts as a feminist, before it drops off the radar …

As a feminist, I’m used to being perceived as, and treated like, the scum of the earth by certain sectors of the population. On mainstream online forums like this, being called a ‘femonazi’ and having feminism routinely referred to as a movement of hairy-legged man-haters are par for the course.

Far more difficult to deal with, however, is the endless conveyor belt of misrepresentations of feminism and/or unhelpful exaggerations of alleged feminist behavior - often made with the professed 'sincerity' of 'constructive criticism'. I tend to find this a far more insidious form of hate speech than name calling or obvious abuse terms.

Compounding the problem is that many of the people who routinely misrepresent feminism in this way are not overtly abusive, like Antiseptic. In fact, they are often nice, likable people who just have a bee in their bonnet about what feminism is supposed to represent.

They are also well served by a vast body of ‘male crisis’ pseudo-research and bestsellers – often financed and promoted by highly conservative organisations like the Heritage and Olin Foundations in the US and the Centre for Independent Studies in Australia – who also have a collective bee in their bonnet about what feminism is supposed to represent. While this pseudo-literature can sometimes contribute positively to the gender debate, more often than not, its agenda is to create ongoing straw fires for feminists to run around putting out.

When you know the truth from the inside of a movement that is being continually misrepresented, there is only so much time, effort and energy you can devote to putting readers right. Unfortunately, you have to choose your battles, and let a lot of others go. In the end, all you can do is put your trust in a mixture of humanity’s common sense and the innate justness of feminism’s cause – both of which require huge dollops of patience.

Dear SJF,

I am a male who read your post with great sympathy. You express yourself well.

I have never heard of the Heritage and Olin Foundations in the US and the Centre for Independent Studies in Australia. You have a limited audience on this string. An OLO article dealing with their output would be appreciated. Even I have never heard of them I may have been influenced by their output.

I realise that that I have had many regressive attitudes toward women that I have attempted to deal with. I have been married twice. My second wife is a feminist, and I have learned a lot from her. Had I known then what I know now I probably would still be with my first wife.

Please consider writing an article for OLO.

grim:"You do not impress, you do not inspire, and you most certainly do not intimidate."

Wondeful, that makes at least 2 of us, eh?

grim:"reduce the credibility of your opinions."

You responded to a perception of the tone of part of what I was saying, rather than the content of the post. Do you disagree with the 200 words or so that preceded my "Pomeranian" jest? If so, why? If not, how is my credibility reduced?

Think of my responses to the Pomeranian as being comebacks to a heckler. A discussion is difficult when the less-capable keep interjecting.

SJF:"they are often nice, likable people who just have a bee in their bonnet about what feminism is supposed to represent. "

And these people are in disagreement with your own views about that. Few of those "nice" people speak up because they don't want to offend. The feminist movement arrogated that right to itself many years ago. This thread is a pretty good example of the sort of stuff you're used to being able to get away with, and you're cranky that I dare to do the same.

What you don't seem to grasp is that I actively support equal opportunity for all and I believe that it has been achieved. I don't support further perpetuation of the sort of gravy-train ride that you have come to expect is your "right" as a feminist. Nor do I support your right to constantly belittle and vilify men without challenge.

If you wish to do battle with the "evil male oppressors", go to where they actually exist in resonable numbers; don't stay here, feminist ticket for the gravy-train clasped firmly in your sweaty hand, telling us how hard-done-by you feel.

David f.

‘I realise that that I have had many regressive attitudes toward women that I have attempted to deal with.’

It cuts both ways. One thing feminism has taught me is to deal with my own regressive attitudes to men. Many of us women still expect men to provide us with ongoing romance, financial security, car maintenance and IT support. And we still have an irritating habit of automatically jumping into the passenger seat. We also cling to the traditional expectation that we are the primary carers of children – a belief that is no longer practical when almost one in two marriages now end in divorce.

Anyway. Thanks for your kind words.

Antiseptic

‘I don't support further perpetuation of the sort of gravy-train ride that you have come to expect is your "right" as a feminist. Nor do I support your right to constantly belittle and vilify men without challenge.’

As I said in my previous post … as a feminist, I have to choose my battles. Because such negative generalisations about feminism are impossible to either prove or disprove, this is a battle not worth fighting.