And Jack is of course not anti-Moslem when it comes to being anti-Jew.

Not teasing, Vanilla, just pointing out his contradictions.

Brian/Bugsy, denying the Holohoax doesn't make anyone anti-Jew, if that's what your little statement inferred.

"TRTL questioning the fact that women operate under freedoms and safety guaranteed by men is like suggesting the earth is flat. It's so self evident that I can't be bothered arguing it. Yes, protection from other men, of course."

You mean, like suggesting the earth is flat as the church demanded so many years ago?

Sorry. Couldn't resist. Though your defence of gender roles feels a little flat earth at times.

In response to your response, I make the point that you're accepting that men are the aggressors that women need protecting from.

You can argue this somehow supports the idea of gender roles - i.e. men need to be there as the gender role of protector.

Wouldn't a better argument be to remove gender roles, taking away men as aggressors?

The argument you're making is that women need men to protect them from men. If we're looking at it purely in terms of the logic of this single statement, then you've got to admit it looks pretty stupid. Technically, if men didn't exist, women wouldn't need men to protect themselves from them now would they?

So Jack, what's the contradiction? Do you think anyone who speaks out against ill-informed prejudice should, ergo, support the president of Iran? Do you think practicing tolerance is equivalent to becoming a complete moral relativist? Do you look at CJ and think, "He stuck up for mozzies. Oo-er. That means he *loves* them. Hey, I just found a bit where he said he didn't love them! Omigod! He's *so*, like, a hypocrite."? (Not sure why I gave you a Valley Girl voice then, but it seemed to suit.) C'mon, do tell, what is this contradiction?

As for not having to be anti-Jew to not believe the holocaust took place, your own link proves that evidence for the holocaust *not* occurring is not particularly credible and is certainly not scholarly. (Did you even read the link Pericles provided? Or do you only read dodgy, monosyllabic websites that back up your own view?) So no, you don't have to be anti-Jew, but I'd suggest you at least have to be an enthusiastic and gullible consumer of internet-assembled conspiracy theories. Otherwise you'd look at a website like that and come to the old GIGO conclusion, surely?

Actually Jack, what my statement was referring to, was the fact that you are usually rabidly anti-Moslem, seeing as how you have referred to them in the past as a "lesser race". The idea that you are defending a view held by the president of Iran kind of tickled me, and then I realised that it's because the only common ground that you would find with him would be in the vilification of people, eg. Jews and gays. Yeah, you're a real humanitarian.

Not anti-Jewish? I would imagine that there are quite a number of families who had relatives in the death camps that would think otherwise.

Whitty, are you still around? I'd like to invite you to look at the "Fair Go for Women" comments thread on the article boards. Do you think it fits into your schema? Do you think the male posters are demonstrating that they've "have always had sympathy for womens issues"? Do you think that the female posters are demonstrably less sympathetic than the male posters?