*After all, that’s what advocacy groups do – they automatically stick up for their members, regardless of the rights and wrongs of a situation.*

then

*Standing up for a certain side does not render you automatically incapable of seeing the full picture.*

Ok, so there we have it. Even if you know that you are wrong, you
will plug away and put your spin on things, to market your "product"

Which is exactly what some of us blokes have been pointing out,
time after time after time. Thanks for having the honesty
to at least admit it.

Our judgement has seemingly been spot on.

"The Football Federation of Australia automatically sticks up for footballers who come under negative scrutiny – the AMA does the same for doctors, the BLF for builders, the Chamber of Commerce for business people, the Teachers Federation for teachers. Children’s advocacy groups look after a child’s rights regardless of whether or not the child is a proper little brat. All these groups look after those whom they represent, regardless of the rights or wrongs of a situation." (Quote: SJF)

I like it!
__________________

"Ok, so there we have it. Even if you know that you are wrong, you
will plug away and put your spin on things, to market your "product"

Which is exactly what some of us blokes have been pointing out,
time after time after time. Thanks for having the honesty
to at least admit it." (Quote: Yabs)

I like this too!

Plug away/spin**!!-(THAT'S a laugh)/some of us blokes.... awww!...sweet.

That is not** what SJF was saying and 'you blokes' know it.

You know why I like it? Because it shows more about your motivation
than SJF's.

(And judgment doesn't have a 'e' in it, oh perfect one).
______________________

"Ginx perhaps then we have both misunderstood the others position re online behaviour. I'm not sure how but it seemed that your complaints about male behavior on OLO were an attempt to moderate the behaviour of other posters just as those who are tired of the prominance of nasty posts can rightly suggest OLO would work better without that stuff." (Quote: R0bert)

!! Sarcasm;-and from a fella!

'You blokes' are seeing what you want to see, aren't you?

Ginx not sarcasism, rather a genuine attempt to understand how your rejection of calls for better behaviour goes with your complaints about the behaviour of posters who disagree with you. I still don't get it.

SJF, "Why should a movement that is by women, about women, for women – one that exists to raise awareness of women’s viewpoints, women’s existence, women’s realities, women’s needs, women’s problems – be criticized for ‘automatically’ sticking up for women?"

Perhaps because for a lot of people feminism is just not about womens advocacy. For many it's about seeking a fairer society which provides equality of opportunity regardless of gender. That type of feminism can't stick up for inequality or injustice just because it's a women who benefits. The type of feminism which see's itself as a womens advocacy group regardless of issues of right and wrong is rightly rejected by most. It's no more worthy of support than the worst kinds of chauvinism. A part of feminism is to raise the profile of the spectrum of realities, needs and problems which face women more often than men but if it does so at the expense of truth and a basis of fairness then you have tossed away much that is valuable.

R0bert

R0bert - true. Well at least you were going really well until the fuzzy interpretation of advocacy. What SLJ said is also true and she put it so well. A criminal may well have an advocate sit with them through the police statements; trials and so on. The advocate doesn't deny that the crime occurred, but ensures that whatever the criminal may have done, the justice process occurs with respect to the criminal's human rights.

Feminism is not some external collective of women wanting to destroy men. Many of us are wives; girfriends; mothers of sons and so on. We're each as intrinsically part of the social fabric as any other citizen - working in ordinary jobs or stayin at home to mind the kiddies; managers; volunteers - whatever.

So we come from many different life stories. One of the most interestig aspects for me is the analysis of patterns of power and control in society.

It soon becomes clear that not only have men occupied major decision making positions (the economy; politics; war) but the social institutions spawned by those have misused other men. Like, the labourer on the factory floor works for a pittance in unsafe conditions not because of women, but because that is how he - his life and humanness - is valued by men with greater power.

Similarly, men go to war because other men with varying vested interests send them. It's not 'men' that feminist analysis challenges but the social institutions that victimize all people (including children) with less power. I hope that we can change or at least understand and acknowledge existing patterns of power and privelege. As a humanist and a Christian (yes, they can co-exist within my worldview) I am interested in humanity, of course. As a feminist, I am particularly interested in where women place themselves within those changing patterns.

SLJ pointed out that there is no suprise that a women's movement should advocate for women and issues that impact primarily on them; but the social effect is a benefit to all, as this (male) writer points out:

http://www.alternet.org/story/47080/

cont'd

cont'd:

As a further example of social injustice, an it may still be under discussion - but do you realize that Scots Law desn't/or only recently - acknowledge/d that men can be victims of rape. Half the United States still has no or inadequate provision for male victims to seek legal acknwledgement or redress. These are issues that feminism recognizes and challenges; while poviding support (by women and men, based on feminist principles) where they can to such victims.

An example: http://www.secasa.com.au/infosheet/infosheet_2003.pdf

So where is the Glenn Sacks and Angry Harry retinue leading men, in their concerted efforts to dismantle feminism and feminist orgnizations; support centres and so on - towards a fairer and more just society ? - I don't think so. If they cared about men and boys (and by extension,all of society) they would be pointing their energy at existing structures that enshrine the victimization of men by other men.

SJF - excellent posts

Pynchme

I have been saying for a long time now that men are more likely to be victims of men, than they are of women. From the factory floor to assault, men are more likely to be exploited by other men. But this fact is rarely discussed by those who are intent on blaming feminism for all their woes.

Women are no angels either and the few who have made it into positions of power have either colluded with their male peers (Maggie Thatcher), or just haven't made any difference at all - for a variety of reasons such as, being out numbered or marginalised.

BTW

I loved Grim's question regarding who had actually engaged in gang-bangs - none whatsoever.

Besides they wanted their group sex to be with multiple females - in their wildest.... Hilarious after all their claims that multitudes of women are into all male gang-bangs. I suspect that some men have been spending too much time in the shed thumbing old copies of Penthouse, circa 1970 - what tipped me off were the references to the Rolling Stones. Back in the era of post-pill and pre-aids. Such innocent times.

However, to be fair:

I ask the female posters if any of them have indulged in RFL style sex - by choice of course.

Starting with myself; zero - I don't think 2 male/female couples in the same bed really counts as a gang bang, especially as there was no "swapping" involved.

Cheers