Fickle Pickle,
If you’re on the end of demeaning or infantile comments, rather than seeking redress for injury (the legalist approach), why couldn’t you just ignore the comment, like water of a duck's back?

Demeaning comments (and I’ve been on the end of a view if you want to look at my history) really only reflect on the person who made them, as it shows that their argument is lacking in substance. The demeaning comment even serves to highlight this. Everyone else can see it, as we can all recognise the sound of an empty can rattling.

You could take it as a compliment that the person has no rational come back to what you are saying.

Or you could highlight this yourself, and ask them why they need to resort to such name calling or the like.

On the other hand, I’ve seen colourful banter used quite effectively in this forum. The Australian parliament is known for it. As Prime Minister, Paul Keating was once asked about the childish behaviour in parliament, and he responded something to the effect that at least in Australia we fight with words and not knives, sticks, or guns.

Cornflower; that's very kind. Thanks!

one under god

"They (women) may be as wrong as any man but wont be called to account..[because its only a woman being foolish]

that sounds more harsh..[ok ignorant]than even i expected..."

I mostly can't fathom your posts terribly well, but occasionally a little gem jumps out at me, as it has now, and I must say I applaud you for your honesty.

I would suggest that it's a much more commonly-held view than is freely admitted to. In my experience many men expect women to be 'foolish' and they judge most females accordingly. I've occasionally wondered whether any of my posts would have generated a different reaction had I written under a masculin pseudonym. Not that I could possibly sound like a male, even if I wanted to, well certainly not on any sustained basis.

Sorry if this question has already been asked as I haven't followed this thread all that closely, but I assume that's why you chose the Tom T pseudonym. I'd be interested to know if you'd observed a corresponding difference in the way you're responded to as you switch between the two personas. I realise it would be hard to judge because the content of what you say varies, but if you've done it often enough I'd assume a pattern could be emerging.

Bronwyn

It comes down to the games people play to get strokes. If you role play the needy woman (or child in Transactional Analysis T/A terms), you will certainly evoke the reciprocal parent response from some some men and women. This could be a rebuke but is usually support, albeit patronising (which is worse?).

Another interesting model to describe what you are encountering could be that of victim and rescuer. However you have to understand that the rescuer is usually taking cues from the would-be victim and vie-versa. Then there is the complexity of victims and persecutors swapping roles as is seen fairly often in the gender wars. Phew, what a waste of living time!

Why not make everything simple for yourself and others by being yourself and trying to be as straight and open as possible? Most people respond favourably to that.