To actually adress the original article, as I had once intended:

I grew up in a country town, yes there was lots of football and a fair emphasis by some on alcohol. but it didn't seem too severe.
About half would never be footballers in even the smallest way, nor soccer players, nor tennis/top swimmers/you name it. We may have been crack shots at archery, bowls, golf etc, but there just wasn't much scope. Once you know you're good, you know forever, you don't have to prove it weekly.

The home of Artie Beetson loves footy. Fooballers like beer. and girls. And some girls like footy players. Fine. I don't believe they don't talk before getting involved, they know exactly what *may* happen, if not often, just like the girl at that footy club in the news.

The rest of us like books, TV, music, talking, the opposite sex. Just like everybody. You *know* you can discuss a given book with a given girl, her name is on the library card.

It is in fact possible to discuss Philip J Farmer's "Henry Miller Dawn Patrol" with a girl you've had a crush on for years with a straight face, because you *know* she read it too, along with a dozen other books in common. and vice versa.

Wasn't that isolating, is all I'm saying. Then again maybe that town was too large....

And to address SJF: See? knee jerk!

Feminism has spent millions of Fem-hours on the problem of controlling the democratic outcomes, but SJF can rattle off an answer in minutes. You should join them.

I *should* have said hands on head. It would have helped (thanks for the suggestion).

I *said* many think as Antiseptic does, and vote. Bitching at me doesn't change my vote.

The only substantive contact many men have with "feminism" is the shitfight they get from legal aid lawyers the day after their wife leaves and the iron fist in the iron glove of the Child Support Agency ensuring they can't pay a lawyer to fight back. Their enforced separation from their kids often hingeing on the sort of evidence-free DVO's (and AVO's fer gawds' sake) that Anti objects to. If the CSA could interpret their own hallowed formula and were competant in standard business accounting, you may never have heard of him.

Others withdraw their uncritical and broad support the more workmates they meet that have been done over by the few worst examples of "feminism" in public policy. Many already refuse to cooperate with the CSA. where next? The only people guaranteed any particular quantity of money by the CSA are the staff. The same money would help divorced women in genuine trouble if available.

To answer your knee jerk assertions about preselection: Tough luck. *get* preselected. Not actually my problem, *your* problem. *I* think only a subset of women and a shrinking number of men support "feminism", and the peak has passed. The reason your brand of feminism isn't more supported by existing parliaments is that there are absolutely no more votes in it. The pollies would turn up in a tutu for a 2% swing, but they know there isn't one.
Cont'd next

I believe that the *vast* majority of men are never physically violent or in any way seriously threaten violence to women. The rest of us deeply and with appropriate anger, resent being treated by uninvolved public servants as if we "may be". I believe that only a sad and smaller number are genuinely capable of harming children. The rest of us deeply resent laws and police actions that assume we are on the verge of doing so, ignoring that women can and do.

I further believe that a substantial majority of women like blokes (even our idiosyncracies), children and family, and recognise that the single greatest ally they have in raising their kids is their husband. Above government and do-gooder "help", even if divorced, I believe he usually does near enough the right thing for the kids, and women know it. I would prefer my taxes directly help the families of those who don't, rather than be misused to employ the CSA to intimidate.

I believe that "feminism" does as near as nothing for functional females as years of training and effort and post-modern spin can manage, rather than recognising their choice as valid. Instead, it supports the dysfunctional few who, unable to negotiate any kind of (even separated) arrangement with men, attempt to dominate their arrangements in a way that is a sad caricature of the worst, not the best, of male practice. I don't think that *these* are the women I want in positions of responsibility. Or even in the gene pool.

Professionally and otherwise seriously (lawyer, nurse, ambo, first-aid trainer, occasionally academic) employed females with families that I know almost unanimously report that the single worst class of manager/roster-officer/postgrad-supervisor etc they have ever had is "childless career (only) women". Why? men will retreat before "womens business" but the dead-end feminist thinks she knows it all. She means to be boss, with a capital, of her workplace and *your* family. The least "female" females are held up as examples to others. "feminists" know better than females. I laugh to scorn.
Cont'd in 3 of 3

We encounter that type a lot at the CSA, they make determinations (estimates) immediately, without calculations or notes (even your accountant makes notes, even petty cash vouchers have to be explained in real business, why can't a contractor CSO?) about more of your earnings than the taxman, and cannot add up (COAT team can't even add up in excel). She does so despite clear and just objections, yet She leaves at a dead run at sight of a tape recorder (courage of her convictions, perhaps?). She is the product of "feminist" sociology courses which would rather spiral dive into irrelevancy than address the real needs of the majority of women who involve men substantially in their lives, who recognise that men are critically necessary for both the existence and health of children, regardless of difficulty in living together.

You think my pseudonym is grotesque - so is a male-excluding feminism that does not exist and could not survive outside of the considerable wealth of a few nations, that tries to pretend men *can't* care for their kids but complains when they don't, and objects to 50% shared care in which they do.

Remember, "feminism" *needs* my vote, and others like me. "feminism" has to convince and persuade a growing population of sceptics that it really delivers to all women, and it really has to do some horse trading on bizarre excesses, pre-emptively, just to demonstrate fitness to manage it's own affairs. Start by wondering if an allegation is the same as evidence, by calling the CSA and ask about "ignorance of standard accounting practice". Ask about their right to harangue, based only on their inaccuracies. Is it true that the office of "National Compliance Manager" is colloquially known as the "departure Lounge" in memory of a recent Queensland Registrar demoted to the role? ("fear our call" indeed).

Rustopher

Rusty Catheter:"I believe that the *vast* majority of men are never physically violent or in any way seriously threaten violence to women. The rest of us deeply and with appropriate anger, resent being treated by uninvolved public servants as if we "may be". I believe that only a sad and smaller number are genuinely capable of harming children. The rest of us deeply resent laws and police actions that assume we are on the verge of doing so, ignoring that women can and do."

Cue Sancho claiming this means your wife "smacked you around (hee hee)" and the Pomeranian claiming this means you hate women while the rest of the conga line of suckholes line up to see if its safe before jumping in with the boots when they think you're already down.

That was very well said, Rusty. The mythology is that women are "better" than nasty, brutish men in every way. The facts, of course, don't support the fantasy.

As you wrote your piece yesterday, WA police were investigating the case of a mother who has apparently killed her 7-month old twins. Naturally, before the investigation can get underway there has to be headlines from the media telling us she was "suffering post-natal depression" because that makes it all OK. The subtext being "normal" mother don't hurt their kids, she must have been temporarily mad. Funnily enough, men who are charged with violent crimes never seem to get away with that one...it must be because women are "better", eh?

The latest figures from NSW show that 30% of all hospitalisations for DV were victims of female perpetrators (most were children) yet the report appeared for only a short time in the press before being "buried" and I have seen not a single page of analysis or comment on it since.

If a man complains of his treatment within the FL system he will be labelled "disgruntled" because "he didn't get his own way", yet if a woman does the same, she'll be called a "victim" and the conga line of suckholes will form rapidly behind her.