Antiseptic, "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" - I refuse to accept that the extreme end of the men's rights side of the disussion sets the agenda for "our side" of things. They influence the agenda in providing a diversion from the issues, by providing a characature of angry men which is played to try and make us all bad but I don't think they set the agenda.

I don't like being treated as though the extreme end of the mens movement controlled my thinking so I don't see how it's fair to treat moderate feminists that way. I suspect that any "sisterhood" between moderates and radicals is an artifact of broad scale attacks on feminism and feminists rather than "sisterhood". If you make all feminists the enemy then you should not be surprised if they respond in kind.

If radical feminists have too much power, if their opinions carry too much weight it is in part because many have attacked the whole feminist movement rather than talking just about the bits that don't work. That leaves people feeling defensive, it hides those valid concerns which should be addressed and lessens the chances of meaningful communication.

R0bert

There is some great confusion about the actual situation.

I have not observed any "extremism" in a "men's movement" (btw, why women allegedly can't be seen to advocate for men is false and more than troubling).

The problem is not symmetrical as R0bert seems to think (ie, whatever feminism is accused of doing, so to it must be reflected in 'anti-feminist' movements).

The problem as alluded to by Antiseptic, is that feminists in positions of power are abusing the moderate feminists greatly (and all of the people who suffer from their policies and political correctness).

If you've observed the discussions here on OLO, you will know that moderate feminists who "step out of line" are quickly admonished by the more stringent feminists of the forum. This heirarchy and attitude is easily seen by the use of at least one feminist, of the word church in describing feminism as if all feminists are disciples who can't question it or stray from it's "teachings".

The authority of the author's was appealed to. It didn't matter what ration or logic was used by the moderate, the "Betrayer" card was played seemingly as a last resort. So when you see people like Melinda Tankard Reist manipulating women based on her feminist description, which is really servile to her hidden agenda of rigid Catholicism, you see an unhealthy relationship.

Conversely men who have had enough of the disgusting reasoning and denialism that has elevated feminism to a church in modern day society, an untouchable institution, as virginal as the fantasy about female innocence and whereby every politician may do anything but criticise it and the people spreading the propaganda for fear of being labelled a "misogynist" (see: Malice discussion above in the alst couple of posts). Who is serving the agenda? if you know anything at all about feminism, with influential people like Melinda Tankard Reist contributing to policy and the lies surrounding feminist viewpoints, then you will know it's not being served by moderates.

In this sense, feminism is a bit like Scientology or other religions, where women are introduced and fed information that is ever-increasing in extremism and deceit. Eventually the label of feminist becomes an automatic license in academia to have all of your views uncritically passed and accepted. To disrupt this flow of information is to hate women, to be labelled a misogynist.

"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."

I imagine this is how every extremist, from the IRA, right through to the feminists/anti-feminists and even ufo conspiracists see the world.

"I have not observed any "extremism" in a "men's movement"

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6883&page=0"

Actually, take a closer look at the commentary from HRS, and tell me that again:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=30937&show=history

He even refused to admit that if a woman opposed the stoning of women in Saudi Arabia on the grounds of human rights and equality, and defined herself a feminist, she could be both a feminist and a decent person (he'd already accepted that anyone who defines themselves as feminist is a feminist).

Didn't compute.

I stand with those who say it's idiocy to define a group solely by the fringe. You piss off plenty of reasonable people for no good reason. Plus, when you say that the moderates are just sheep for the fringe, you dismiss them and refuse to listen to their arguments, which doesn't wash with me either.

Oppose the actions, not the name. When there are idiotic and unfair moves by fringe feminists, by all means, highlight them. Don't go tarring decent people by the same brush.

HRS first words in the responses:

HRS>"I'm still waiting for Audrey Apple to take the banner "Boys are made of slime and snails" off her blogsite."

TLTR>"take a closer look at the commentary from HRS, and tell me that again"

HRS' latest comment, about feminists concerted attacks on the successful Sarah Palin, shows you have blinkered vision.

TLTR>"I stand with those who say it's idiocy to define a group solely by the fringe. You piss off plenty of reasonable people for no good reason. "

As the fringe holds the keys to power, it would actually be idiocy not to define the movement by it's output and publications. If people become pissed off it's their own fault for rubber-stamping feminist policy and calling people who criticise it misogynists: yes, so-called MODERATES that you are defending make this manipulative accusation REGULARLY...don't you think that pisses people off?

i guess it doesn't count for someone with blinkered vision though.

TLTR: "Plus, when you say that the moderates are just sheep for the fringe, you dismiss them and refuse to listen to their arguments, which doesn't wash with me either."

I've never dismissed them nor refused to listen to their arguments. The converse is actually true. Rather than challenging my comment recently and the facts presented, the feminist CJ Morgan, resorted to simple ridicule, as did Fractelle prior to that.

The more public the discussion, the more someone advocating male concerns is quickly and falsely charged with the smear of misogynist and ignored (despite the anti-*feminist* position). Again, I wouldn't expect someone with as blinkered vision as you are demonstrating to acknowledge this fact.

i'm not surprised none of this washes with you. You do not observe the production of feminist propaganda and how it is disseminated. You do not pay attention to who makes these claims, nor who repeats them. Indeed you fail simply because you are biased from the outset*, and rather than accusing others of not listening, you yourself fail to extend that courtesy, by *simplifying* the prior comments and declaring that it doesn't wash.

*As shown.

Steel, "The more public the discussion, the more someone advocating male concerns is quickly and falsely charged with the smear of misogynist and ignored (despite the anti-*feminist* position). "

Some will do that but others engage in discussion. Some will lash out early but still keep listening, others will listen all the way through and try to understand.

I've persisted with putting my views on the misrepresentation of DV for some years now in this space. I've been accussed of being an abuser more than once, I've often been accussed of trying to cover up violence against women and assorted other nasty claims which sometimes hurt more than they should. I've been very disappointed at times people I respect have made those claims but through all that there are feminists who have sought to understand the point being made. Feminists who are willing to speak against all violence not just violence against women, feminists who accept that people hurt children not just men.

Few here are perfect but there are good people on differeing sides of most discussions. We get a choice here, engage in long running slanging matches or try and have a dialog. Sometimes we have to be the one who chooses to make things different.

R0bert