Pelican, 3, This may come as a shock to you, but this is, going on, everybody's report card. We are not having a verbal conversation in a pub or cafe. This is all in writing on the net.

1, If an allegedly antifemanazi, male/right winger, etc, writes an article, posts a comment which is in plain, simple, logical, polite, English, contains no stereotyping, labeling, sarcasm, condescension, etc, as most of them don't, and you completely ignore it, leave it unchallenged? Then everybody reading it all, (whether they leave a comment or not) will, interpret that, as being agreement.

2, If you, try to, twist the words, (play mind games in public) to mean something different? Then any reasonably, intelligent person will see that as well.

3, If you also, having done numbers 1 &/or 2, then, launch into, repeating the same, tired old propaganda, that, almost, all of your, "sistas in da hood" have been lecturing us with, for 40 years now? Then again, plain for all of us to see.

4, If you try the old, lame, quote 1 line out of context? Then proceed on with any combination of the above, then, that too will be equally obvious.

My first encounter with OLO was the article, "when not to negotiate", bobtwat left a comment alleging that "all" men/fathers were abusers and "all" of their groups were "abusers rights/apologists groups".

You ladies, may wish to consider, your, "bitch, and i don't care", what, anybody, thinks, positions, before you destroy, femanazism with your own words.

"Then everybody reading it all, (whether they leave a comment or not) will, interpret that, as being agreement."

I don't agree Fomersnag. If we posted directly to everyone that posts on OLO we would soon run out of word limits. It is enough to just state an opinion and offers some rationale and reasoning behind the statement. Obviously sometimes we might refer to a particular post in reference to a point or theme within a topic.

"...bobtwat left a comment alleging that "all" men/fathers were abusers and "all" of their groups were "abusers rights/apologists groups"

One person's comment does not a movement make. Your understanding of what a feminist is very different, obviously from mine. All you have done in your posts to date is to denigrate women as feminazis without any evidence or rationale.

What is a feminazi? Is it the same as a masculinazi?

"If you also, having done numbers 1 &/or 2, then, launch into, repeating the same, tired old propaganda, that, almost, all of your, "sistas in da hood" have been lecturing us with, for 40 years now? Then again, plain for all of us to see."

You make statements like this but do not explain what the message is that the "sistas" have been lecturing for the past 40 years. It is just ranting at women for the sake of it.

I can see no argument or rationale in your postings - it is hard to comment reasonably at a rant.

'I don't agree Fomersnag. If we posted directly to everyone that posts on OLO we would soon run out of word limits.'

I agree pelican,

But the rules of engagement as set by these threads differ.

I remember one odious poster roscorp or something said some pretty weird/nasty stuff, and good 'ol Fraccy decided it was up to every male poster to 'denounce' this guy or else we must therefore agree with him.

Obviously being male and all we must agree with every other males' post in her head I dunno.

'I can see no argument or rationale in your postings - it is hard to comment reasonably at a rant.'

I was curious as to why you thought it best to use rational logical thought to converse with formersnag. I think you have to try and relate to people on their own level.

R0bert

'I'm not feeling all that alone here although it appears that most of the anti-feminist posters agree with you. If I belived you and the anti-feminists on that front I'd be joining the anti-feminist crowd.’

I consider you ARE part of the anti-feminist crowd. I always have. It’s just that you hide your anti-feminism behind a veneer of pseudo-sympathy and good-feminist/bad-feminist wedge politiking.

My meaning in the quote was clear but you have deliberately twisted it to imply that feminists are proactively trying to divide the genders. In this regard, you are making an equivalent ‘sexist misrepresentation’ that you accused the author of in your first post here.

‘There are certainly some feminists obsessed with power…’

More sexist misrepresentation and more wedge politics. As a feminist I find this statement truly offensive – and the use of ‘some’ does not soften its intended message. I went to a great deal of trouble in my previous post to explain the importance of social and psychological empowerment to feminists and you took those words and changed them to portray ‘some’ feminists as being greedy for power.

How would you like a movement that you believe in described in this way? But, of course, that’s not really an issue, is it? Because I’m a ‘bad feminist’, I’m not assumed to have any feelings – except greed and megalomania.

Haha.

Go SJF:-)

'I consider you ARE part of the anti-feminist crowd. I always have. It’s just that you hide your anti-feminism behind a veneer of pseudo-sympathy and good-feminist/bad-feminist wedge politiking.'

Man that's really gonna hurt. Actually maybe to much. That's cruel, you know how much robert wants to stand apart from that crowd. Coming from you that's like a stake through his heart!

'I think what the author said was fair in the circumstances. Men's social conditioning to assert their power over other men creates a higher probability to inflame the situation described than women's social conditioning to conciliate and to please.'

I still don't agree with you. The author didn't say

'Men's social conditioning to assert their power over other men creates a higher probability to inflame the situation described than women's social conditioning to conciliate and to please.'

She said

"'Often, men get angry. They don’t like to be put down. There is no forgiving or collaboration to avert a fist-fight or hissy fit ...'"

If she'd have said what you said nobody would have cried sexist stereotyping. See, just because you agree with the point, doesn't take the sexist stereotyping away. Also I'll be watching from now on (as I do) for the next time you object to any sexist stereotyping.

Pelican, 4, You sound, just like my first wife. "i can see no argument or rationale in your postings" Everybody else can. At least Pynchme is attempting to have a sensible conversation about DV and child abuse. That kind of head, #$%*, mind, game, may have worked, when i was in my early 20's, and a relationship, with a woman, i loved, whom i also "thought" loved me. (men fall for these childish games at first, because we are simple, honest, creatures, easily, pleased, and it would never enter our heads, that the woman who is supposed to be your, "life partner" would be involved in mind games, because of some strange neurosis or femanazi, social conditioning, until it happens, and you see your children being abused as well)

When a sociopsychopath has no rationale (because they are just plain wrong) and still wants to win the argument, one the first rules is to deny or argue everything, without exception, 24/7, the aim here is to wear your opponent down, thereby fooling them, into questioning their own integrity.

Not one, of my postings has ever, denigrated "ALL" women, i have always said that moderate women are the "silent majority", not interested in femanazism, having always, clearly spoken about a minority group of radical, extremist, femanazi's. If you are not aware of that fact, then you have not been reading, my postings at all, or are lying, which is it?

If you don't know "ANY" of your own, femanazi propaganda AT ALL, then heaven help you. Here is a hint, why don't "YOU" name just "ONE" of the feminist "ten commandments" that is true, or ONE SINGLE positive achievement for women/girls as a result of, 4 decades of feminism.

houellebecq, You sound just like my third wife, she too, was always, "taking the words right out of my mouth", i have written postings, just like RObert's, but have done more, of them at your level, lately. Your "comebacks" are a lot more "intellectual" than those of pelican or poor old, SJF, but still?