Cotter, you have given me plenty of food for thought with your recent insightful posts.
<"What's the term to describe the male version of Feminazi?"

Can I suggest chauvinazi? A marriage of the terms 'chauvinist pig' and Nazi sounds pretty apt to me anyway.

I agree that female politicians may not be the saviours that many women believe. One only has to look at the female doctors who first dared to join their male colleagues in the health professions.

Many of the female nurses found many of these female doctors very hard to work with initially. They seemed to be even more grumpy than the male doctors! They always seemed to have something to prove. I don't blame them, as I am sure the old boys gave them a hard time.

Things have certainly improved in recent times, now that there are far more female doctors around. Maybe we just need to give the female politicians time to gather their numbers!

I read a quote about feminism today which I find is true for me anyway.
" You don't have to be anti-man to be pro-woman."

suzeonline:"there are far more female doctors"

Yes, thanks to quotas, preferential entry standards, biased primary and secondary schooling curricula and methods that favour girls and all the rest of the paraphernalia of "affirmative action", women outnumber men in the professions, with the imbalance predicted to grow massively over the next few years. At present, at Australian universities, Australian women outnumber Australian men nearly 2:1.

When the situation was reversed, as it was in the 50s, feminists used the data to "prove" how badly women were being discriminated against, yet strangely they seem remarkably complacent about the current state of affairs. There is much denial and name-calling as soon as it is pointed out, just as the 50s feminists experienced.

What do you think? Should we be aiming for a society in which most professionals are women and men get the menial jobs? Do you think that most men will be happy with a world in which their most grandiosely realizable ambition is to be a carpenter, while any thought of becoming {say) a nurse or a doctor is simply out of the question for most, regardless of their talent or how hard they work unless they can find a woman to sponsor them?

Most women weren't when the positions were reversed.

anti..you really are a women hater, big time. massive chip on shoulder...well...that is certainly how you sound. like a woman badly mistreated you in your youth or something?

and i am not trying to be condescending or trying to shut you up, i am trying to understand where such vicious views actually come from? certainly not from feminism, because your understanding of it is clearly gutter press sensationalism driven at best....women want to take over and there’s a conspiracy against men...another spoke in the wheel of the

elitist communist post-modern latte swilling chardonnay gulping curry eating intellectual rag headed gay multicultural feminist global warming conspiracy to take back the world from decent ordinary blokes who for centuries have got a away with...doing whatever they want.

E. Sykes

You aren't a donkey farmer from out Broken Hill way by any chance? You just remind me of someone else...

Seems that a lot of people are still being conned by the idea that "feminism" has anything to do with "equality". Where in the word "feminism" is there any reference to either equality or male?

This is just another "ism" no different from all the other isms "nazism", "racism", "fundamentalist religious ...ism" etc etc.
The most common factor being tunnel vision and a twisting of fact or even fiction to support their agenda, and the blaming of the worlds problems on to someone else. One cannot reason with them or convince them of any other point of view. That is the way with all fanatics.

Of course the first response to any challenge is always "you are a male chauvinist" or "you hate women" or "you do not believe in "equality", which in fact is often wrong. I personally fully support "equality" in all facets both positive and negative, but cannot stand followers of any "ism".

The problem with this whole "sexual assault/rape" and for that matter "violence" business is that as a part of the vilification against men by feminists the definitions have become so broad over the past 20 years, that now more and more females are getting caught in the trap. As a male I can now say, based on today's definitions that I have been raped/sexual assaulted by females many times, dating right back to the 70's.
I do not believe I am Robinson Crusoe

benk:"You just remind me of someone else."

No doubt we'll be getting told that "TWO CHILDREN DIED" (sic) any moment now...

Lav:"Seems that a lot of people are still being conned by the idea that "feminism" has anything to do with "equality""

Absolutely right. What started as a genuine attempt to redress an imbalance has become an industry based on taxpayer funds. In order to ensure funding each year, the groups have to come up with yet another way to vilify men, since to acknowledge equality would be to sign their own death certificate and of course, that would mean no more lovely taxpayer funds that no one has to work for.

The UN released the WEF Global Gender Gap 2009 report recently, very quietly indeed. It contained some very revealing quotes and some even more revealing statistics.

"the Index rewards countries that reach the point
where outcomes for women equal those for men, but it
neither rewards nor penalizes cases in which women are
outperforming men in particular variables."

IOW, "if women are doing better than men, we simply won't use that data in our calculation of the headline Index." Nice, eh?

And this one:

"To capture “gender equality”, two possible
scales were considered. One was a negative-positive scale
capturing the size and direction of the gender gap.This
scale essentially penalizes either men’s advantage over
women or women’s advantage over men, and gives the
highest points to absolute equality.The second was a
“one-sided” scale that measures how close women are to
reaching parity with men but does not reward or penalize
countries for having a gender gap in the other direction.
Thus it does not reward countries for having exceeded the
parity benchmark.We find the one-sided scale more
appropriate for our purposes."

IOW, we not only won't use the data, we won't even collect it.

And some people wonder why I despise feminism?