Antiseptic has one good point. Letting the poster's motivation dictate discussion gets nobody anywhere. But neither does tossing all feminism into the separatist basket.

There is such a thing as feminisms. The common picture of all feminists being hairy lesbian separatists is dead wrong.

For example we have women who believe they're entitled to equal pay but hesitate to think of that as feminist because they also want to shave their legs.
Some women want to stay home and raise their kids but object to being thought of as servile or the property of their husbands.
Plenty of women think we need more women in positions of power without advocating a complete takeover.

Feminism is as diverse as culture.

As one of the me-too crows, I think our position has been adequately explained: there really was no 'topic' simply the two reddest flags on the forum hastily cobbled together into one gauntlet and thrown down while the originator stepped back to watch. This opinion is substantiated by the fact that, since the first post, the initiator has taken a voyeurs stance rather than becoming involved in defending, explaining or substantiating the intent behind the thread.

While the suggestion has been made that we are thus free to ride our favourite hobby horses because this is what happens in many more narrowly focused threads, I think, on these two topics, the me-too people represent those of us would prefer that some goal-posts were in sight. Pointless bickering over much-chewed bones holds little allure.

chansmoker:"There is such a thing as feminisms. The common picture of all feminists being hairy lesbian separatists is dead wrong. "

And mostly used by pro-feminists to try to discredit those who make any criticism of feminism at all. It's a straw-woman argument, created and answered in order to avoid answering the real critique.

I don't dispute that individuals' expectations vary, however, the basic tenets of discrimination in favour of women, State-sponsored vilification of men and the use of deliberately created misinformation to justify it all are seemingly unquestioned within the upper echelons of our society. After all, it's all in a good cause, isn't it and let's face it, men (except us REAL men) are such neanderthals, aren't they? They need to be kept in line.

chainsmoker:"Feminism is as diverse as culture"

No, women are diverse; feminism is the very antithesis of diversity. It is entirely and unabashedly exclusionary and axclusivist. One need only read some of the output of SJF hear on OLO to gain an understanding of the reliance on received wisdom and rigid adherence to ideology that is feminism.

Romany:"As one of the me-too crows, I think our position has been adequately explained"

Yes, i think I explained it quite well. Attempting to shut down a conversation because one does not like the motive of the OP or perhaps his/her choice of topic is classic "thought police" behaviour. If just one of those who squawked "me too" had been known not to be pro-feminist, I'd not have commented on the "thought-crime" aspect at all.

Antiseptic "One need only read some of the output of SJF hear on OLO to gain an understanding of the reliance on received wisdom and rigid adherence to ideology that is feminism." - interesting that you picked SJF rather than one of the known feminists who don't take the same tack as SJF.

There are a number of other female posters on OLO who clarly identify themselves as feminist who take a much milder line than SJF and frankly SJF does not come near the level of blinkered inflexibiilty that some of the anti-feminist posters routinely display. She and I have clashed often but I've not seen the malace in her posts that I see in the posts from some anti-feminists directed at feminists.

When I was doing some background reading for the sisterhood of male baggers thread I came across an interesting piece by an anti-feminist commenting on the broad church idea. The writer made the point that moderate feminists believe that feminism can encompase a broad range of views but millitants don't tend to. The militants think that they know how it should be and have little regard for those who disagree. That does not make the militants right.

Judge feminism by where most are at not by the fringes no matter how loudly those at the fringe may claim to be at the center.

R0bert

R0berts>"nd frankly SJF does not come near the level of blinkered inflexibiilty that some of the anti-feminist posters routinely display. She and I have clashed often but I've not seen the malace in her posts that I see in the posts from some anti-feminists directed at feminists."

Where you see malice, I see urgency. When you are confronted with the most boneheaded denialism and ignorance, you drive people who know better than yourself to become angry. Imagine the forum was populated by one hundred runners and BOAZs, and imagine living in a 'democracy' where they had such a ratio.

"Malice" is a normal reaction to ignorance and denialism, because that passive aggression is malice in itself.

There are ample reasons why feminism is damaging society, that have been discussed on many occassions. The central part of which, is that bigotry and asinine, harmful ideas are passing under the guise of Feminism (see the catholic MTR's grip and activism that I've exposed here on OLO), which is rubber-stamped by the "hundred-score" feminists described at the alluded to at the beginning of this comment.

There is simple denialism and ignorance becoming policy in Australia, with as much frequency as religious-based laws are being implemented in this country and being pandered to.

Don't make me post how much malice has been shown by the feminists and their apologists, in their use of the term "misogyny" to describe rational dissent and critique.

R0bert:"interesting that you picked SJF rather than one of the known feminists who don't take the same tack as SJF."

I picked SJF because it is the radical fringe that have set the agenda. The moderates are frequently moved to support radicalism in the name of "sisterhood", while they rarely implement action of their own. Moreover, by and large it is not the moderates who have gone and got soft "doctorates" in gender-based fields, paid for by the Government, that they use to "speak from authority" (the received wisdom I mentioned earlier) to support ever more stridently ideological arguments.

It is true that some anti-feminist views are extreme as well, which can't be a good thing. It is also true that those of us who do speak out reasonably moderately and articulately are thin on the ground, so perhaps the more extreme viewpoints are an expression of frustration, as Steel said.

The church of feminism may be broad, but the clergy are from a very narrow-minded sect indeed.