was to get women into unassailable positions of power within NRL clubs. So far we have had Cronulla and Manly announce women as CEOs and there has been a huge push to get clubs to appoint women as trainers, administrators, lawyers and "counsellors" to ensure the boys get properly indoctrinated.

Strangely, however, there don't seem to be any female players? Come on girls, surely some of the "ten ton Tesses" from the Women's Studies Department could fund their "education" with a contract to play front-row for one of these clubs?

Yes, I'm being facetious, but surely the point of football is that it is a MASCULINE endeavour - archetypally so. By all means lets make sure the players don't get too big for their boots and the groupies that follow them around don't bite off more than they can chew, but if we allow the sport to become a sanitised, soulless creation of corporate Feminism we will have lost what makes the sport great.

It is a game of character - showing one has the guts and the self-discipline to continue to function at a high level while in pain, fear, fatigue and under pressure. To treat one's opponent with respect, especially if one is on the winning side. to value the contributions of one's teammates and to help where one is able.

I suspect that if we were to check the backgrounds of all the boards of Australian companies we'd find that most, if not all, the high flyers played football at a high level.

Is introducing women into the game's administration going to damage all of that? I suspect it will, because the women who will be chosen will not have earnt their role against all comers. They'll be selected as the best WOMAN who applies, not the best PERSON for the role. Any opposition to their policies will be steamrolled as a "backlash" and the game (and the footballers) will be diminished.

What good, apart from some kudos from feminists, is likely to come of it and will it outweigh the bad?

the purpose is to diminish misogyny
through familiarity with female competence and authority,
not to diminish masculinity.

misogyny is not a trait of masculinity,
it's the resort of cowards.

Whistler, I don't think it'll get you very far by treating this so called topic seriously. The dude who started it is obviously totally off the planet. Let's look at what the moron claims as fact,

1 the "reason" for sex scandals is to get women into power

2 all members (who are "high flyers") of all boards of all Australian companies played football at a high level

3 he states that this "claimed" dominance of ex football players on "all" company boards will be damaged, if women are appointed to administrative positions within football clubs

4 football, and also it's players, are "diminished" when women are appointed to administrative rolls

5 the appointment of women as trainers, administrators and lawyers within football clubs happens for the following purpose only, "to ensure the boys get properly indoctrinated".

The antiseptic dude who started the topic is seriously deluded. In fact, he's utterly hilarious because it seems he actually believes his delusions. He probably has some serious "history" regarding women in order to have reached his current state of mind. It's very funny, but in a way also sad, that someone actually believes that stuff as "fact". Sad.

Hey antiseptic dude, maybe you should just stay within your little mens collective, all talking about feminist conspiracies and those nasty, nasty bull dykes that are out to get "you". Yep, you'd feel safer amongst your own kind.

I wish I understood what Whistler was on about half the time Master, nice name.

But I think Antiseptic just reeled you in and will probably throw you back overboard for being undersized.

Where is Col? He thought a women could run an entire country perfectly well so a few footy louts shouldn’t be a problem for your average CEO in skirts.

Antiseptic, don't companies develop a way they do things over time or from the beginning of time? Boys in the NRL; probably needed a forced change as often I bet the best person for the job was in fact a women who didn’t get in because they were a bit entrenched in their view of things?

DoCS needs a forced change to hire more men (I can’t help myself!).

High flyers played NRL; I thought they went to uni or something instead.

"Pain, Fear, Fatigue"... pffft like in child birth?[smile]

My gymnastics coach was a bloke, wasn't even gay. Hockey coach was a dude as well. I do know I wouldn't want to take on one of those Maori girls that plays rugby without my hockey stick in hand.

But where did it make sense that a sex scandel encouraged more women to hang out with the meat heads?

Unfortunately the State education departments have witnessed a great decline in behaviour and education standards since by being feminist dominated. It certainly has created a lack of male role models and caused many fatherless kids to be confused about their identity. League has traditionally been for boof heads anyway so not much will be lost.

Choosing Directors who have the capability
to look outside the square and offer a
diverse point of view takes a very brave Board.
And of course anyone who hasn't been immersed in
the culture of the organisation is more likely
to identify opportunities to do things differently.
They're also going to be looked at with suspicion
at first - by a few of the 'old guard.' But that's
natural and normal. Change is difficult for most
people. Although its one of the constants of life.

The NRL's reputation has taken a beating in recent
times. If it wants to change the way the sport is
perceived by its fans (and their parents), the players,
and the executive, it's got to look beyond
its circle of supporters and friends and appoint
Directors who can change the current perception - and
upgrade (elevate) its reputation.

After all Reputation is a Board responsibility!

I hate my ex-wife for leaving me. Why did she leave? Because feminism gave her the right to. I now hate feminists.

Feminists are women, so I now hate women.

I will get back at my wife by attacking women, who are feminists - and therefore my wife by proxy - by claiming in an internet forum that a scandal was fabricated to force women into that proud bastion of masculinity, Rugby.

Now everyone will hate my wife, and no one will think that I have allowed my anger to consume me at the expense of all other thought.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8957&page=0#143913

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8492&page=0#134806

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8068&page=0#126206

the wringing sweat flies
from an NRL player in full flight mid game
is not from fear of women.
can you imagine men still argue fear of women is valid!

Thanks for that post Sancho, that was useful in giving a bit of history to the jerk, but I didn't stop at just those 3 links. I found that by just clicking on someone's screen name you can get their history here, so I spent time reading things that antiseptic has written in the past. And BOY DOES HE HAVE A BIG CHIP ON HIS SHOULDER REGARDING WOMEN. He's a real nut case regarding women; utterly screwed up with a paranoiac obsession towards, and a fear of, any power that a woman may possess.

I read he's got a daughter. God help the poor kid! And no wonder his ex partner can't stand the thought of him.

Well said, Sancho - and well-spotted, Master. This guy takes misogyny to a new level, even for OLO.

Next he'll call you some kind of lapdog to the feminist cause.

Foxy, thanks for that. I do take your point about diversity, it's something that any organisation can benefit from. I also agree that reputation is a board responsibility. None of that was what I was asking, though. Football is and always was a MALE endevour. Girls may play in the open competition until they're 12, I believe, but not after that, both because of the physical danger and because they begin to develop sexually.

We have lots of exclusively female organisations, from Zonta to "women's investment clubs", to gyms, mother's groups and the list goes on. Why is it acceptable in our present social structure for there to be "secret women's business" but not the same for men? Men are increasingly being forced to fit into one particular mould of acceptable masculine expression, yet women are facing no such stricture. I, for one, don't think that's good.

Jewels, few women need to experience anything at all of the pain and fatigue of birth today and few choose to do so, sensibly.

Women have always had that potential for pain and even death in childbirth. One of the reasons the dowager is such a respected figure in most cultures is that she has been there, done that and survived. She is assumed to have gained wisdom as a result. Why do you ridicule the idea that men might gain some insight through an arduous challenge?

Sancho, thanks for showing us all once again that you've got nothing to say and plenty of time to say it in. Well done. You're an inspiration to non-entities everywhere, I'm sure.

sock-puppet:" "

Yes dear. Isn't it time you started yet another account to attack antiseptic?That one's a whole 2 days old now.

and I see the Pomeranian has found a new leg to hump. How nice for both of you. Don't get too excited now that you've found a Master, little fella - we know what your bladder's like.

Oh Antiseptic,

Just when I think how drear and repetitive things are getting on OLO along you come to startle and intrigue!

First off, of course, was the actual response to Jewely - is this a psychic convo or can anyone join in?

It was the content of this reply however that inrigued me. I'm always up for a bit of enlightenment so: - I've four friends who are pregnant at the moment...three of them are primips.They are all reasonably intelligent women so they'd be devastated to know that they were not being sensible about their imminent confinements. The poor dears are actually quite nervous and apprehensive.

I wonder if you could expand a bit on how they are in the minority and how most of their contempories manage to sail through childbirth pain-free and chipper? See, they desperately want to get out to their monthly Secret Women's Business meetings the days they are due.

My next bit of startlement (just made that up - I like it)was to learn about the majority of cultures who revere rich widows. Not that I'm doubting, of course. Though I would have thought envy was a more human reaction, but perhaps I'm just jaded.

I was surprised also that you yourself didn't seem to be disaproving either - I honestly would have thought that rich Upper Class Twits who make money out of their deceased husbands would have been right up there on your Nasty Women List? All those grasping twenty-somethings marrying old men for their money? The pampered partners who never lift a finger and are left to enjoy the product of the sweat of their husband's brows?

Yep. Startled and intrigued.

“Jewels, few women need to experience anything at all of the pain and fatigue of birth today and few choose to do so, sensibly.”

Bloody wooses. Problem with normal childbirth is that woman have forgotten how which really has to go back to male doctors I guess.
Maybe that is something men should have butted out of. NRL players just leave the field if they have a booboo don’t they?

“Why do you ridicule the idea that men might gain some insight through an arduous challenge?”

Did I ridicule – wouldn’t think so… couldn’t even spell it without copying you. I’m all for a challenge and I love men. But men don’t have any monopoly on physical challenges Antiseptic. The insight in both playing footy and giving birth is just the knowing you will generally survive; this is sort of at the lower end of the “wisdom” scale isn’t it?

But in the work place does it matter, really? Oh I’ve just messed up my own argument about DoCS. Did I just switched sides...

Okay nah I didn’t, it has to be more balanced. NRL needs some women stepping up and DoCS need some big brave men in their ranks. In both cases people may have been right for the job but the culture within the workplace has prevented it. I think I better just point out I don’t know a thing about the NRL or who currently runs it.

Sancho, you hate women? All of them? From what age? Feminists generally don’t like me but I think are coming round lately to where being a wife or mother or combination by choice is acceptable again. I did have to listen Germain the other night on TV going on about how it still wasn’t okay which really wasn’t a woman supporting another woman’s choices far as I could see. And on a personal level, yeah I could take her so what do I care.

How can you hate women, just stick to hating feminists, the logic is sounder… I’ll hate them with you if it’s any help.

Self to self:

"No, Fractelle, you did not wake up in an alternative universe, just when you thought the world couldn't get any crazier, along come Romany and Piper with both wit and wisdom - - all is well."

Whew! I thought that A-septic was claiming that the NRL sex scandal was a feminist plot to take over life, the universe and everything. After reading stuff like:

"Girls may play in the open competition until they're 12, I believe, but not after that, both because of the physical danger and because they begin to develop sexually."

Um, someone should tell all our female players and athletes that they should've stopped playing sport when they were 12. Bad for the developing sexuality, apparently. Oh wait, I went back to alt-universe. Here in my universe both men and women play sport, there are even areas where they may compete together like shooting (guns - ever the great equaliser).

And Sancho hates women - no that was alt-universe again, he was being ironic, it is A-septic who hates women. OK I think I have this sorted out again. Man, those space-time warps can really give one a migraine.

So what was the point of this discussion? That A-septic likes humping dogs?

Sorry, confused again.

Beam me up Scotty.

Romany, with pre-natal preparation, TENS, epidurals and Caesareans, not to mention all the rest of the pharmacopoeia and medicalia, birth in a Western context is hardly the big deal it once was. I don't know whether that's the case in China, but I expect they manage it pretty well - after all, they've had lots of practise.

Let's face it, with the current rules, football isn't the test it once was either. Life is becoming ever softer and yet some people seem more interested in looking for ever-smaller peas under ever-taller piles of down, all the while berating those who have to do the looking.

As for the dowager issue, our society and others have traditionally paid the older wife who post-deceased her husband a lot of respect. Having reached menopause, she could often outlive her male contemporaries by decades. She had influence within later generations through her children and grandchildren. I grew up in PNG and saw the respect accorded to the rare old women and the influence they had. I suspect nearly every culture has had something similar going on.

Perhaps one of the problems today is simply too many dowagers?

The Pied Piper:"The insight in both playing footy and giving birth is just the knowing you will generally survive; this is sort of at the lower end of the “wisdom” scale isn’t it?"

No, it's not at all, it's a profound insight, because it gives one the ability to see past the immediate circumstances, no matter how tough they get and to keep going. That sort of insight lets one take on challenges that are genuinely hard, knowing that even failing can only be so bad... If people are always protected, they expect to always be protected and that can get very costly. Sometimes a little suffering is the best teacher.

Fractelle, the no girls after U12 is a rule from the Junior Rugby League. Do you think that teenage girls could or should play football with teenage boys? It'd put a whole new spin on "going into touch"...

Besides the idiocy about childbirth, this struck me:

<< Football is and always was a MALE endevour (sic). >>

Indeed, as were voting, property ownership, university education, management, etc etc etc.

Clearly, it's all an insidious feminist plot!

Fractelle: << ...A-septic likes humping dogs? >>

I wouldn't know about that (although he does seem obsessed by them), but I doubt that he has much sex with women - at least of the unpaid kind - and he doesn't admit to being gay. I suppose there's always those inflatable dolls...

Dear Antispetic,

I agree with you that football was and always has been
a male endeavour - however perhaps I misunderstood
you but aren't you talking about women on the Board
of the NRL? Which I think is a separate issue.
We're not talking about the players - but the Board
that runs the organisation as a business.

Who makes up the Board of any business corporation (which
most large sporting organisations have now become - in order
to make it financial viable) - then surely gender shouldn't
come into the equation - but rather as you agreed - it
should be the choice of people who can look outside
the square and offer a diverse point of view and be able to
identify opportunities to do things differently.

I'm not trying to be contentious here - but as I stated in
my previous post - the NRL's reputation has taken a
beating recently - and perhaps having a diversified
Board may change the way the organisation is perceived
by fans, players and the executives.

The NRL Board should look beyond its circle of friends and
supporters and, as I said appoint directors who can
offer a diverse point of view.

However, it does take a brave Board to look outside the
square - especially in what is - as you pointed out -
a male dominated organisation.

*can you imagine men still argue fear of women is valid!*

Well Whilstler its not unknown for some of you to become
nasty little things, when you scratch, bite and throw
knives :)

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25667548-1242,00.html

Geez Louise, this would have to be the most ludicrous, asinine, thread I’ve seen here!
While I agree there is an “anti-male” sentiment about in the world, a combination of Feminist left-overs and a touch of reality (we we’re bad boys to women by current thinking), it’s hardly common, let alone universal.
As me sainted Granny used to say..”It’s just a phase we’re going through”, the pendulum is swinging. Get over it, we’re “getting there”.
Feminists are a joke to most young women these days, dinosaurs, the world is slowly moving on and they’re stuck fighting battles they’ve already won, by and large, and the “language” has become a source of humour to most.
Like all men I’ve been hard-done-by by the odd woman, but so what? I haven’t been an angel either. Welcome to “The Human Condition”
As for childbirth imparting some sort of wisdom, time has robbed that claim of its meaning. It wasn’t the birth, it was the rearing (and the regular death of children) that followed that taught women about Life, and nowadays we men get to share in that, Praise be to the Great Wombat!
Oh, and just to clear up a point, women today can easily escape the pain of childbirth through drugs and/or Caesarian Sect’ (Australia has the highest rate of zip-lock women in the known universe!), so I laugh at those who claim some sort of meaningfulness to birthing.
Re’ sport and girls. I suggest he was referring to football alone, not sports in general. In primary schools it’s mixed till puberty, then separated, again I ask, so what?
Do you really want your daughter out scrumming with a lot of hormone-driven little spotties, all wanting a grope?
I had kids in schools where there were only mixed sports or girls only, male only was considered “discriminatory”, a clear insanity and self-defeating. This changed back to a more sensible approach quite some years ago, it was introduced by the Feminist bullies in the Ed’ Dpt, and removed by concerted action by parents, both parents, and many teachers, sanity prevailed.
The Pendulum swings

Maxi

Down, boy! I was making light of this stupid excuse for a discussion.

No, I don't think adolescent girls and boys should play mixed sports - but I tried to make the point that girls do progress to leagues and competitions of their own and, therefore, have a wealth of knowledge and experience to offer any league, be it male or female.

As for child birth, no I don't think it imparts any special wisdom, but if you are going to comment on how it feels and you are male, I suggest taking a dump the size and density of a watermelon first.

CJ

You know I made a bit of a mistake about the 'dog-humping' - I was rather ambiguous. I think I meant he likes to watch, given the amount of time A-septic spends per post referring to 'leg-humping' and so forth. But it is true that the sterile one does have difficulties maintaining relationships, so anything is possible I guess...

what a girlyboy wimp the misogynist who started this thread is!
why not prohibit women from attending NRL games,
ban women from sports altogether,
and education!!
and as for the women's tag comps all over NSW,
only encourages them.
the author should emigrate to rural Afghanistan
and start a league comp over there,
where his brotherhood resides.

damn Yabby, those pesky women
objecting to perpetual male supervision again!

perhaps you might like to join the thread's author,
if he cares to stay around,
in the second row of a scrum
with prop John Hopawate,
who was suspended from playing rugby in Australia
for inserting his index finger up an opponents backside.

Another poster summed it up perfectly when describing the originator of this topic.

It's worth repeating - - - - - " I hate my ex wife for leaving me. Why did she leave? Because feminism gave her the right to. I now hate feminists. Feminists are women, so I now hate women. I will get back at my wife by attacking women, who are feminists - and therefore my wife by proxy - by claiming in an internet forum that a scandal was fabricated to force women into that proud bastion of masculinity, Rugby. Now everyone will hate my wife, and no one will think that I have allowed my anger to consume me at the expense of all other thought".

This is actually fascinating. I went back and read many, many of antiseptic's past posts and can see the above quote is 100% accurate. It describes antiseptic perfectly. Luckily we have those references to his past posts, otherwise it would just be one person's opinion based on memory or bias or both. But we can all read these past references in black and white, and therein lies the fact that antiseptic can't run and hide.

I feel this basic type of research can be especially enlightening for newer forum members. This way you can know exactly where other forum members are coming from, without spending months of posting time before you realise the truth about other members. This "truth" could of course be either good or bad things about the poster you're researching. I'm not used to forums as I've only been on two others, both piano related, so I'm still learning about the dynamics involved. In fact I'm still learning about computers, as I've only used them for the past year or so.

I think the terribly sad part about antiseptic is that he actually believes his opinions about women represent "fact". He seems to think it's "fact" that women arrange their own sexual molestation by footy players in order to advance feminists into positions of power on football club boards.

He's one seriously deluded dude.

*damn Yabby, those pesky women
objecting to perpetual male supervision again!*

Ah Whistler, so that is what you call marriage.
In that case its ok to bite, scratch and throw
knives eh. ROFL

Foxy:"aren't you talking about women on the Board
of the NRL? "

As CEOs of football clubs, actually, which are not the same as Leagues Clubs, in case anyone is confused about that. The football clubs are specifically about the sport, whereas the leagues clubs are basically entertainment and gambling venues that support the football clubs with funds.

Are there any top-level women's team sports that have men as CEOs of clubs? That's not a rhetorical question, I'm interested. Netball? Hockey? Cricket? Football, even? Does anyone here know?

I believe the NRL board as well as the boards of several if not all clubs have women members.

Fractelle:"girls do progress to leagues and competitions of their own"

Are they run by men to suit men's ideas of what women's sport should be? If not, surely you'd agree it's time for male CEO's to be urgently appointed and to make sure we have equal representation of males and females on their boards? In the interest of getting the widest possible range of views, of course.

sock-puppet: "antiseptic antiseptic antiseptic antiseptic antiseptic antiseptic antiseptic antiseptic"

Obsessed much, dear? Here's a tip - you can get 350 antiseptics into a post by just not typing any words in between! Now off you go and give it a try, you know you want to...

that's what i call the governance of Australia, Yabby,
derived from a Parliament,
in which, as mandated by the Constitution,
women attend men's legislatures
under male supervision.

Yabby that article is about men’s fear of authority and because they haven’t come forward and said “ouch” and chosen instead, because of other males opinions, to suffer in silence.

Hopefully Max’s pendulum will swing the men’s way soon (stay away from the visual people!).

Anti:“No, it's not at all, it's a profound insight, because it gives one the ability to see past the immediate circumstances, no matter how tough they get and to keep going. That sort of insight lets one take on challenges that are genuinely hard, knowing that even failing can only be so bad... If people are always protected, they expect to always be protected and that can get very costly. Sometimes a little suffering is the best teacher.”

I got the same insight from falling off a horse – in both cases the ride beforehand was more pleasant and neither outcome was planned.

But we’re wandering. So you really thought the NRL sex scandal was blown up by a feminist mentality so err… as to get women jobs in the NRL offices?

Okay so bear with me (hahaha… oh forget it) I travel a few sites where men have claimed DoCS are man haters that have destroyed their lives. Is this a chauvinist (are they the opposing party in this?) attempt to get men jobs in the department of community services?

Hey Master, I thought it was Sancho that hated women? Whose wife left who? Gawd, big apologies if I got that one wrong Sancho.

*The figures, from the New South Wales Bureau of Crime Statistics, show 2336 women faced court on charges of domestic violence in 2007, mainly for bashing their husbands, compared with just 818 in 1999.*

That was from the URL I posted Whistler. It has little to do with
your off the planet theories.

Clearly in NSW, we have a whole bunch of violent women!

But excuse it however you feel like.

Oops, I read this one:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/22/2604559.htm?section=australia

Excuse it? I just figured out a new career path for my girl:

Hire-A-WifeBeater

Nah in all seriousness that is horrible and shameful but then the NSW females haven't been thrilling me much lately on many points.

Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water!

Sancho's research and analogy has summed it all up really.

Bearing grudges and hanging on to past hurts is really counterproductive and forget about rationality and reason - thrown out the window with the bathwater while looking for feminist conspiracies under every rock.

Dear Antiseptic,

I'm well aware of the difference between sporting
organisations and league clubs. But it was good of you to
point out the differences to those that may not
be aware. As another poster said - we can all
learn something from each other on OLO.

The point that I've been trying to make to you however
has been that times are changing, and women in CEO and
finance positions are contributing greatly to
the corporate business world. Therefore it shouldn't
come as such a surprise that they are to be found
on the Boards of organisations such as the NRL.
And that they do have contributions of value to make.
This is being recognised all over the country.

Even
to the extent that -
The Apex Clubs that up until 1990s allowed only male
members - have since changed their rules. As have
Melbourne's Gentlemen's Clubs (males only) such as
the Athenaeum and the Australia Club.
Gender is beginning not to matter so much any more - rather
the emphasis is being placed on other individual qualities.

You asked about women's clubs having male CEOs?
I'm not familiar with every sporting club around
Australia - but the South East Netball Club in Richmond,
Victoria has a male CEO (and male coaches) and is actively
seeking males and females of varying abilities as players.

Then the Budokan Judo Club Inc. of Australia, in Castle Hill,
NSW - has Rob Katz as its CEO, ably assisted by his wife -
Kerrye Katz. Rob also coaches the women's team, and Kerry
the men's.

Of course the "Girls Only," computer Clubs in schools
across Australia - are run by males.

I'm sure if you google the subject on the web - you'll
find quite a few more.

You may also be interested in the following website
just for your information - about women in leadership
roles in Australia:

http://www.australianwomenonline.com/eowa-releases-report-on-women-in-leadership/

EOWA Releases Report on Women in Leadership,
June 17, 2009.

It may put things into a different perspective for you.

TPP: “Excuse it? I just figured out a new career path for my girl: Hire-A-WifeBeater”

I enjoyed some of your earlier humour, but this was just bad taste.

CJ: “…I doubt that he has much sex with women - at least of the unpaid kind - and he doesn't admit to being gay.”

Are you now accusing gays of being cheap and promiscuous?

Or are you perhaps suggesting homosexuality as an effective means of evading the obligatory kowtowing to feminism? Too late for some, eh?

Fractelle: “As for child birth, no I don't think it imparts any special wisdom, but if you are going to comment on how it feels and you are male, I suggest taking a dump the size and density of a watermelon first.”

A very unfair comparison Fractelle - men have no trouble performing within their design specifications and assume the same for women.

Seeker: << Are you now accusing gays of being cheap and promiscuous?
>>

Only in your head, you disingenuous prat.

However, I have speculated elsewhere about Antiwomen's sexuality, as you're aware. In previous comments about the subject of this thread, Antiwomen has admitted to fantasies about engaging in the apparent Rugby League traditional male bonding rite of the "bun". The homoerotic aspects of that venerable activity are well-documented, on OLO and elsewhere.

Antiwomen may well be a miserable heterosexual rather than an angrily repressed homosexual, but either way he obviously has major problems in relating to women.

I don't disparage him for either state of being unhappy, but I do take issue with the way that he persistently and repetitively attacks women in this forum.

Rugby league clearly has an image problem. Whenever a new scandal occurs, there is a long line of people rushing to take swipes at footballers. Rather than merely whinge, they could look at why so many people hate them. It could be becaue too many people have seen poor behaviour from teams in bars, especially their treatment of women after they have used them.
Feminism clearly also has an image problem. Threads regarding feminism quickly arouse the most spiteful posts. Many of these mention the family court and malicious claims of domestic violence. Antiseptic is just one of many men who seem to be very embittered because of their experiences. Feminism cannot afford to have the family court tarnishing its brand like this.

Seeker: “I enjoyed some of your earlier humour, but this was just bad taste.”

Sorry I was treading a thin line there aye.

“...men have no trouble performing within their design specifications and assume the same for women.”

Did anyone tell the gays about the specifications?

CJ: “Seeker: << Are you now accusing gays of being cheap and promiscuous?
>>

Only in your head, you disingenuous prat.”

Funny. I rather expected you to relate more to that second option offered.

CJ: “Antiwomen may well be a miserable heterosexual rather than an angrily repressed homosexual, but either way he obviously has major problems in relating to women.”

A good start in that you concede he may be hetero after all, but not quite good enough. Anti doesn’t much like feminism. That’s quite obvious. He’s not that unique. The most fascinating aspect of your criticism though, is not that you disparagingly call him a homosexual, but that when your chivalry gene involuntarily activates, you just cannot keep it in your pants. Is that your way of relating to women?

CJ: “I don't disparage him for either state of being unhappy, but I do take issue with the way that he persistently and repetitively attacks women in this forum.”

Yes you do, and no you shouldn’t. Stop it.

TPP: “Did anyone tell the gays about the specifications?”

Men are well known for continually stretching targets but watermelons are definitely out of scope. That, and housekeeping.

it's pathetic that men refuse women a legislature
then squeal about feminists and self-defence.
what a bunch of sooks.

Australia is at war
with men whose views
the proposition of this thread gives comfort.

Benck

‘Antiseptic is just one of many men who seem to be very embittered because of their [family court] experiences.’

Why assume these men’s divorce experience gave them their embittered attitude? It’s more likely the opposite. It’s these men’s embittered attitude that almost certainly created their particular kind of divorce experience. Embittered personalities almost always have unhappy marriages that end in traumatic divorces.

Antiseptic

It was not ‘group sex’. It was a ‘gang bang’ – a very different, and heavily imbalanced, power relationship. The fact that the media keeps referring to it as ‘group sex’ says volumes about the big lie we’ve been sold on women’s ‘equality’.

Foxy, thanks for keeping concentrated on the topic amid the swarms of flies.

My question was not to do with all the other non-sporting organisations, such as Leagues Clubs, that cater to a wide and varied clientele and who may well benefir from the presence of women on their boards. Nor was it to do with local sport-based businesses. It was specifically to do with the male sport of Rugby League and to some extent Rugby Union, although that has a different social dynamic behind it, with most players coming from private-school backgrounds rather than the working-class background of most League players.

The Netball club you mentioned is a mixed club, as is the judo club, while at my daughter's school, the "girls'" computer group is coordinated and run by a female teacher, as is the computer club at my boy's primary school.

What of the exclusively female team sports? Does the Australian Women's netball team have a male coach, male CEO, male trainers and "counsellors"? Do local women's netball teams have men running the show? If they don't, should they?

Foxy:"Gender is beginning not to matter so much any more - rather
the emphasis is being placed on other individual qualities."

When will Zonta start accepting men as members? As you correctly point out, there are few "men only" clubs any more, since the Sex Discrimination Act has forced them to accept women, yet the same Act does not force women-only clubs to accept men. Should it? If not, why not?

I have skimmed the link you provided and I'll try to read it more thouroughly, but my first impression is that it's a dated puff-piece.

I note that noone, apart from Foxy, has tried to mount a rational argument against my statement. Surely, it should be easy for you to do if I'm so wrong?

Nah, just keep pretending I'm a poof, or a wife-basher, or otherwise tainted - it's so much easier than thinking, isn't it?

“Men are well known for continually stretching targets but watermelons are definitely out of scope. That and housekeeping.”

Hey Seeker, Wish there was a man here right now, there is a spider, a great big Aussie one – these are the only times I miss NZ.

Anti I didn’t think you believed what you first wrote about suspicions of a feminist agenda to get women in the NRL. But you must have predicted the different tangents we’d all go off on. From feminist plot I lost track, you now want to discuss who the dominant gender is as CEO’s in all sports in Australia?

I imagine men want those roles in the NRL, men that could even maybe do better elsewhere but want to be closer to what they love.

Could anyone suggest a male plot to reduce the number of women in DoCS? I think the reason management applied there isn’t the reason they stay now.

Whistler can you explain please what you are talking about with the legislation thing? Or refer me to a link or something? If it is like what Peter has explained then I need a simpler version.

C-Flower

Re: Passing the watermelon

Apologies, I forgot to add after being constipated for nine months.

A-septic

Your hatred is consuming you. Get some help, please.

In the past there was little help for estranged and divorced men, however that is no longer true, while more is needed there is help available, but it is up to you whether you access it or not.

Try:

http://www.menandfamily.org.au/programs.htm

This website links to a variety of organisations.

Foxy

‘Gender is beginning not to matter so much any more - rather
the emphasis is being placed on other individual qualities.’

With all due respect, this attitude is well-meaning but also self-defeating and unhelpful. Gender is still very important, and will continue to be so for a long time to come. At most, women’s increasing presence in areas previously dominated by men simply makes them less anomalous and is gradually changing the boundaries of people’s comfort zones.

This is definitely a good thing, but it’s not, and can never pass for, equality. Despite what most anti-feminist rhetoric maintains, feminism is not subordinate to humanism. It’s a completely different political arena, with its own rules of the game.

"The Australian Womens Rugby League was formed in 1993 by Ian Davies, who coached the local North Sydney womens team. Several regions played organised competitions throughout the East Coast of Australia".

http://www.sportingpulse.com/assoc_page.cgi?c=7-2131-0-0-0&sID=29161

it's one thing to be suffering
a psychotic illness
quite another altogether
to be giving comfort to a declared enemy
with a stream of misogynist posts
available for perusal
on Afghanistan online.

Dear Antiseptic,

I don't have the time to scrawl through all
the sporting clubs in Australia to tell you
what gender their CEOs are.

Your point seems
to focus on the fact that a few women have been
appointed on the Board of the NRL - and you're
objecting because - you consider the NRL
male territory. I've tried to explain the possible
reasons for their decision. You then want to know
what women's clubs have male CEOs - in actual fact
I don't quite see the relevance of your question -
because each organisation makes its decisions on
what they consider to be beneficial to them - for
a variety of reasons - I'm not sure that gender
comes into the equation - but you can either - ask
them or - if you really want to know
the answers - you've got a computer - do your own
research.

As far as ZONTA International is concerned - ZONTA
is a global organisation of female executives -
who volunteer their time, talents, and money to
local and international service programs as well as
scholarship award programs aimed at furthering women's
education, leadership, and youth development.
If any male executive is interested in volunteering
his time, talent and money in helping ZONTA in the
pursuit of its goals - I'm sure he'd be most welcome.
Mr Sixten Nordstrom of Sweden was appointed as an honorary
member a few years ago, just to name one prominent male
in the organisation. I'm sure there are many others - but
as I said - google ZONTA - or even contact your local
branch (we have one here in Melbourne) - and they may be
able to help you further with your questions.

SJF: “Embittered personalities almost always have unhappy marriages that end in traumatic divorces.”

There were also claims that embittered women make a better class of feminist. Something to do with their “unique” victim status and experience, I guess. Not sure if any credible research was ever undertaken to prove or disprove, but if the numbers of victims are anything to go by, lots more unhappiness to look forward to, both in marriage and out. Good for business.

SJF: “With all due respect, this attitude is well-meaning but also self-defeating and unhelpful. Gender is still very important, and will continue to be so for a long time to come.”

Of course one would have to take personal responsibility for self-defeatism – much better to have someone else defeat you. Equity feminism is for wimps.

TPP: “Hey Seeker, Wish there was a man here right now, there is a spider, a great big Aussie one – these are the only times I miss NZ.”

Kia kaha, TPP.

Why assume these men’s divorce experience gave them their embittered attitude? It’s more likely the opposite. It’s these men’s embittered attitude that almost certainly created their particular kind of divorce experience. Embittered personalities almost always have unhappy marriages that end in traumatic divorces.

On what do you base this incredible statement? I am a survivor of that system, and while it worked well for me, ultimately, it was only because of the outrageous behaviour of my ex’, and her finally voluntarily giving me custody of the babies that I was happy. During my proceedings I was made aware of the machinations and outright lies that are accepted by the court as gospel, purely on a woman’s word, while males were required to provide proof of any claims or statements, preferably with six independent witnesses, only to have most dismissed as irrelevant, or as being “provoked”. The bias was incredible to witness, and even after achieving custody, I was a victim of it myself.
Your claims are entirely indefensible, positively ludicrous, and do you no benefit, they betray your bias clearly. Yes, there are many unpleasant men in the system, but most are not, and the women seem to be almost pushed into “using” the system by the feminists involved, as my ex’ was, plus the number and scope of the vindictiveness was almost entirely female.
I still don’t hold it against women in general, I’m sane enough to realise most are as appalled by it as I am. I certainly believe however that it IS changing, and will continue to do so. Comments like yours are an impediment, not an aid.
Feminism has only one rule: Women are right, no matter what they say or do.
Deny that

Ah come on, Anti, old son. 'Fess up.

You're bored, aren't you? There's been nothing on OLO recently but boring ole serious stuff like climate change and politics and population. Haven't had a good stouch for a while. So you came up with the most provocative theory you could think of, hoping to net conspiracy theorists, women, anti-women - anyone who you reckoned you could entice into another one of those 150+ post threads you so enjoy.

Naughty! But you got your nibbles.

Gonna go now and let you have your fun with anyone else who wants to play but first. (Yeah, there's always a "but wait - there's more" when someone says they're about to fade into the sunset, huh?). Sincerely: maybe you ought to click onto an on-line dictionary site, yeah?

I think you have the meaning of Dowager and Matron mixed up. Also, Dowager is a fairly nuanced word. I had to grin at the application of it to PNG. An image came into my mind of a pig fat coated little Chimbu improbably peering through a lorgnette and para-phrasing Oscar Wilde: "Lusim wanpela man, emi nogut. Lusim tupela man emi buggarup tru!"

Cheers.Enjoy your thread.

Foxy, I must admit to being wrong on the matter of Zonta. Having read further on the subject, you are dead right, there is no bar to male membership. That does raise the subject of why the perception of an exclusively female membership is so widespread. I asked several colleagues about it after reading your post and they all thought it was exclusively for women.

I must also confess that you're doing a good job of making the argument that there is a place for women in Rugby League management. Do you agree then that all exclusively female sports should have males running the show?

I still feel that the process has been orchestrated as an exercise in creating a public scandal that can be "fixed" by putting women in charge. I suspect that the NRL is regarded as a male bastion that must be brought to heel by many feminists, including Tracey Grimshaw and Sarah Ferguson and that they (mis)used their positions to create this scandal out of a 7 year-old incident that had already been dealt with by police, largely to create the right PR conditions for women to be brought in.

No one has addressed that yet.

Maximillion:"I still don’t hold it against women in general"

Nor do I, but I do hold it against those people who seek to profit from it, whether as beneficiaries of the corruption or as employees of organisations that promote it.

Romany, a dowager is a matriarch, beholden to no one. She is a very different cultural figure to the matron, who is a younger woman with family including a husband.

She is a very real figure in PNG, wielding immense influence. The oldest people in the village are most often women. I must admit to being impressed with your Pidgin, too. Mipela toktok liklik tasol. I left in 79 and haven't used it since.

You should know by now that I am sincere in my views and they're well-supported. I'm not after a "stoush", just a discussion

Maximillian

'Feminism has only one rule: Women are right, no matter what they say or do.
Deny that'

No problem. I deny it. Because it's untrue. It's a well-pedalled misrepresentation by anti-feminist mens groups who notoriously use the pain of the divorce system as one of its favoured weapons to get embittered men on side.

So-called 'mens support' groups have been getting away with outrageous lies about female bias in the divorce system for many years now. They've had a clear run in the media, and during the conservative war-on-women era of the Bush-Howard years ... and it's high time they were brought to account for their behaviour - and stopped.

How many times do we have to hear about this universal ex-wife from Hell who lied and lied and lied and the entire Family Court - all trained, experienced professionals - 'believed' her every single word?

And how many times are these ex-wives to be portrayed as having no feelings during separation and divorce - as if they don't experience any grief, any pain, any financial distress?

I have been at the coalface of two horrendous divorces of two close female friends, who got not a single ounce of bias from the Family Court, while having to fend off almost sociopathic gang behaviour from the local Mens Support Group.

One event that I directly witnessed involves members of this Group who 'mysteriously' turned up at the marital home when my friend was moving out. They stood guard at every doorway and gateway, supposedly in case she made off with all 'his' assets. After several beers were consumed, they started getting lewd and nasty - clapping and chanting stuff like: 'You're not getting a penny, bitch!', 'Tell the dykes to leave' over and over again.(Apparently the latter referred me and another friend who was helping her out.)

When I tried to intervene, I got the same treatment. After that ugly episode, no one is ever going to tell me that Mens Support Groups are just a benign counter balance to the women's movement. They have a VERY different agenda.

"Why should a movement that is by women, about women, for women – one that exists to raise awareness of women’s viewpoints, women’s existence, women’s realities, women’s needs, women’s problems – be criticized for ‘automatically’ sticking up for women?

After all, that’s what advocacy groups do – they automatically stick up for their members, regardless of the rights and wrongs of a situation."

Posted by SJF, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 4:26:19 PM

"'Feminism has only one rule: Women are right, no matter what they say or do.
Deny that'

No problem. I deny it. Because it's untrue. It's a well-pedalled misrepresentation by anti-feminist mens groups who notoriously use the pain of the divorce system as one of its favoured weapons to get embittered men on side."

Posted by SJF, Wednesday, 24 June 2009 4:35:46 PM

erm... someone seems confused. That's the trouble with being dishonest, it always catches up with you...

Now that we've cleared up who's doing the misrepresenting, tell us again how asking questions is bullying and you can't be bothered spending time talking to us. That always gives me a chuckle.

"Kia kaha, TPP."

I’m not when facing anything with 8 legs Seeker, it was huge, I nearly called the police.

Max:“Feminism has only one rule: Women are right, no matter what they say or do.”

It is certainly one of my house rules Max. This is because “I am mum” rather than “hear me roar”.

But hey I thought there was a big problem here with the family court and its policy of granting access to abusive parents because their parental rights were held as more important than anything else? I spent some time watching youtube and the reporters and parents a few weeks ago in different courts around Australia. The courts appear to be wrong, wrong but fair.

Wow SJF, men in gangs aye, NRL players in groups. Wish I could have lent you my husband for the day; he has no tolerance for bullies no matter what the agenda.

Dear Antiseptic,

I'm glad that we've been able to share ideas
and points of view in this discussion. And yes,
I see no reason as to why males should not
be on the Boards of female clubs. As I stated
earlier - it takes a brave Board to look outside
the square and choose a Director who may offer a
diverse point of view. That should apply to both male
and female clubs equally.

Take care.

the author of this pearler,
"Feminism has only one rule: Women are right, no matter what they say or do",
is complaining that women do not have a right
to advocacy of their own kind,
regardless of the rights and wrongs of a situation.

this insinuation, that Australian women
should be subject to the suspension of the rule of law,
is both heinous and a central tenet of Al Qaeda doctine.

Australian women have every right to advocacy of the own kind,
and should do so with provision of a women's legislature.

whistler:"the author of this pearler,
"Feminism has only one rule: Women are right, no matter what they say or do",
is complaining that women do not have a right
to advocacy of their own kind,
regardless of the rights and wrongs of a situation.

this insinuation, that Australian women
should be subject to the suspension of the rule of law,
is both heinous and a central tenet of Al Qaeda doctine."

I don't know about al Qaeda, but SJF is way off the planet in terms of gender relations. Let's face it, if even you think she's off beam, she's not merely misjudged her audience, she's so far off as to be irrelevant to any sensible discussion. Thanks for pointing that out.

Antiseptic you're an Al Qaeda stooge.
your colleague Maximillion cited the doctrine that:
"Feminism has only one rule ...", not SJF.
your erroneous claim as the basis of this thread that Rugby League is a male sport
brands you as an outsider.
you've fooled nobody with your attempt
to use Rugby League
to fulfil the your misogynist ambitions.

I've waited on purpose to see if the originator of this topic will produce anything to back up his claim. If he could adequately do that, it would immediately close down all opposition to him, and all those who believe they can see through him would not have a leg to stand on. I'm still waiting.

Let's consider the premise on which this entire topic was started:

"The real reason for the NRL group sex scandal was to get women into unassailable positions of power within NRL clubs."

The writer has produced not one shred of "fact" to back up his ludicrous "opinion" as stated in his quote.

Nothing.

Not one word.

He needs to answer the following questions immediately, if he desires to possess even a modicum of credibility:

1) Who are the "actual" people involved in this conspiracy? Name them.

2) "Precisely" how did you come across the information that a sex scandal was orchestrated in order to get women into "unassailable positions of power within NRL clubs"?

3) Have you reported that the scandal was orchestrated, along with the evidence, to the police? If not, why not?

4) Have the current female CEO's of Cronulla and Manly (as mentioned by you) been complicit in the sex conspiracy to get women into "unassailable positions of power" within Cronulla and Manly? If the answer is yes, how do you know this is so? What is the evidence? Have you gone to the police regarding these two women, or their accomplices? If not, why not?

Ok, now here's your chance to back up your claim.

Antiseptic: You've chosen to ignore what I explained to you about advocacy. Determined ignorance suits your purposes so much more.

Pancho: That was a brilliant analysis. As an interesting aside, it's usual for arguments put by women to be discounted as based in emotion and subjectivity. Antiseptic's arguments are swamped in emotions born of his disenchantment with his ex wife and the divorce experience (and maybe some mummy issues); but somehow that passes muster unquestioned by his few like-minded proteges.

SJF: Your last post - absolutely resonates with cases that I've witnesed as well. I have seen the system used by embittered men to harrass and control their ex-wives; including lies about not being given access and so on. A study in Canada found that a majority of the ex hubbies going through courts that they studied wanted authority over decision making in the families that had left; not the day to day actual care of the children.

Anyway I too get fed up with lies perpetrated by the MRAs - they tell a lie that sets up a false argument then claim to fight 'it' which has nothing to do with feminists.

As Pancho pointed out, all that's different is that feminism has made it possible for women and chidren to leave an untenable situation; not that all get out unscathed or even alive. No woman would be leaving a bloke because a feminist told her to (no feminist would tell anyone to leave anyway - what a bizarre notion). Maybe the blokes who are being left need to reflect on why they lost the woman's devotion. I think most people out of an unhappy marriage (or worse) do think about such things; Antiseptic is clearly not one of them.

I am so grateful every day for the good blokes (some of whom post on here). It's a terrifying thought for a woman/women to have to exist under the domination of men like Antiseptic and his ilk.

Another 3 dreary posts from the obsessed and still nothing to contradict my original claim. Nice to know you all either agree with me or can't actually find anything to disagree about.

Pynchme, I'd not put too much stock in what SJF claims if I were you, she does have such difficulty in stopping herself "telling lies for Feminism", but you already know that, don't you, hon? After all, all men are bastards and all women are poor, helpless victims under male "dominance". And then you wake up...

The bottom line in this "scandal" was that it was a carefully-orchestrated beat-up of a long-dead incident that the police had already checked and found to be unexceptionable. The question then becomes "why". I've heard the "ratings" theory , the "community outrage" theory, the "journalistic justice crusader" theory and a host of others, but they all ignore the incredibly swift response of the NRL and Channel 9 management. That response was planned well ahead of the story being released, as was the hatchet-job on Matt Johns. When Gallop faced the cameras the morning after the story, he had a fully-polished press release ready and a sacrifice already lined up. He also had a series of interviews already teed up. Normally that would take several days, so how was it done so swiftly?

Grimshaw was also completely prepared to play her part in the sacrifice of Johns and his family the very next day.

Miranda Devine pointed out that "everyone" knew that Matt Johns was going to be done over some weeks before the story aired.

Just over a month down the track we have 2 clubs managing to find women to be CEO for the first time ever.

I think my conclusion that this story was a deliberate ploy to achieve that or similar is soundly based.

I await the usual cries of "stop making me think, you bully, antiseptic hates women" from the grrrls brigade and their apron-clingers. After all, they've nothing else to say.

so Matty Johns sits on the bench
for a few months
while his colleagues clean up their act,
and the girly boys squeal.

if this is a conspiracy
it is one put together by men
aware of their own failings,
with the interests of the game
at the forefront of their actions.

the real issue here is the contention that:
"surely the point of football is that it is a MASCULINE endeavour - archetypally so".

there are thousands of women
playing Rugby League across NSW and Queensland
who would beg to differ.

Let me make myself clear, for those of you who don’t seem to understand what I’ve been saying.
I disagree mostly with Antiseptic, but I do agree with some of what he says, to a degree. I have been a “victim” of the bias, but put it behind me. I agree with most of what the feminist movement has achieved, and in the principle of equality. As a single-parent I raised my daughter to be strong and independent, and instilled in her much of what the feminists think, because I believe it to be true. But I also taught her to think for herself, and make her own decisions. It was she who pointed out to me how irrelevant a lot of the Feminist rhetoric was to her generation, and how poorly they were regarded by most young women today. She is no fool, she is an accountant and also volunteers at a women’s shelter, a habit of service that she also picked up from me. I have spent years dealing with horrible situations for the Salvo’s, both as an employee and a volunteer.
I believe the pendulum has swung too far, and despite there still being problems for women, we are on the right track, and the pendulum has started its return swing, hopefully one day soon we will achieve equilibrium, in that field anyway

Whistler, I’ve been generaly ignoring your fixation, but you have me stumped with that one, how the heck did you get from..” "Feminism has only one rule: Women are right, no matter what they say or do", to..” complaining that women do not have a right
to advocacy of their own kind,
regardless of the rights and wrongs of a situation.” “this insinuation, that Australian women
should be subject to the suspension of the rule of law, “ ?
That’s a leap I just can’t see! It’s bizarre, even for you!

SJF: I just don’t know where to start. Your tales of men’s groups and their antics I know to be true, yet you totally ignore the fact that women’s groups have been doing exactly the same thing since the 60’s, men’s groups only really started in the 80’s, as a direct result of adopting feminist tactics. Men don’t normally form support groups for perceived weaknesses, it’s genetic, but have now done so as a consequence of the bias of the Family Ct, and seeing how successful the Feminists were through their confrontational activities.
What’s good for the goose..etc.
Men’s groups should be stopped? Then in the interests of equality you are also advocating the stopping of women’s groups too?
The only difference I can see between men’s and women’s groups is the gender concerned, they both use the same tactics, women just started sooner, and are further along the path of achieving their aims.
As for the media coverage, barely a week has gone by in the last 50years and more when we haven’t been treated to the spoutings of the women’s lobby on some subject or other, by one or other of the many branches thereof. Men’s group voices have only appeared relatively recently, and have to struggle to be heard, and it’s mostly when women complain that they get it, without that they don’t often get a look in.

Antiseptic

Your little Gotcha! 'expose' about me in your 5:01:20 PM post simply highlights what we all know about the main problem of anti-feminist obsession - it cannot distinguish between advocacy and dogmatism.

'[Advocacy groups] automatically stick up for their members, regardless of the rights and wrongs of a situation.'

You cut and pasted this comment from me from another forum. It refers to advocacy, which is about giving people a voice, and about looking after their rights, regardless of the rights or wrongs of a SITUATION.

My denial of Maximillion's comment that 'Feminism has only one rule: Women are right, no matter what they say or do' is rebutting his view that feminism is about WOMEN always having to be right.

There is no contradiction here. But I'm sure you'll make one up. You're such a resourceful man.

Maximillion

You sound like you’ve been reading Erin Pizzey.

I’ve been a feminist for abour 25-30 years – virtually since childhood – and I have never encountered anything even remotely resembling the violent feminist militancy tales so loved by the anti-feminist backlash industry. However, if you are providing this as an excuse or justification for the thuggish attitudes of Mens Support groups, then I find that a chilling prophecy of what they may have in store for women’s advocacy groups in the future.

Also, feminist advocacy is not a mirror image of mens advocacy – or vice versa. Feminism arose out of centuries of women being the gender underdog (notice I didn't say 'victim'). It is a rights-based movement.

Men’s rights advocacy – in its current anti-feminist incarnation – arises out of centuries of men’s power and privilege (which anti-feminists of course deny), that is perceived to be under threat from feminism (partly true). Men’s advocacy pretends to be a rights-based movement but it has much more in common with a supremacist movement.

As for your daughter, you have to measure her attitude to feminism against the era in which I assume she grew up. Contrary to your claim that feminist rhetoric dominates the culture – this has not been the case during the backlash of the 1990s and early 2000s, where anti-feminism has been by far the most favoured position of the popular media (especially the Murdoch press).

However, with Murdoch almost ready for the nursing home, with Bush and Howard gone, and with more feminism-friendly leaders in Canberra and Washington – feminism is making a slow comeback. I particularly notice this among teenage and 20-something girls, who seem very savvy about the imbalanced role and portrayal of women in the cultural domain – probably because they grew up in the information age.

I have every reason to be hopeful.

Pynchme

I went looking for ‘Pancho’ of the ‘brilliant analysis’, but I couldn’t find him/her. Are you sure it was this forum or have I missed something? And BTW – I always love reading your posts.

To antiseptic.

I see you've had a hard day at the USMC (United Socialist Men's Collective), judging by your fractured 'non' reply to my questions. Thanks for supporting my contention that you have scant credibility here.

Your "opinion" is that David Gallop, Tracy Grimshaw, Miranda Devine and the management of Channel Nine have all colluded to produce a concocted sex scandal in a conspiracy to get women into "unassailable positions of power".

You have yet to produce one tiny bit of "actual" evidence: Lots of "opinion" only.

Because you have displayed can't prove your false allegations, which are based on your "opinion", you can now return to the brotherhood at the USMC and plan your next move

All this goes to show that this earlier contribution by another poster - - - - -

"I hate my ex wife for leaving me. Why did she leave? Because feminism gave her the right to. I now hate feminists.

Feminists are women, so I now hate women.

I will get back at my wife by attacking women who are feminists - and therefore my wife by proxy - by claiming in an internet forum that a scandal was fabricated to force women into that proud bastion of masculinity, Rugby.

Now everyone will hate my wife, and no one will think that I have allowed my anger to consume me at the expense of all other thought"


- - - - - - - - sums up the matter quite nicely indeed.

SJF, you are a classic example of the old Jesuit saying, “Give me the child, I’ll give you the man”, to paraphrase.
You have been indoctrinated into the feminist view of the world from an early age, and are thus incapable of taking an objective standpoint, or even seeing things in any other light. That is your loss, yet you should make an effort to try and “walk a mile in their shoes” before you decry men and their problems, you have no idea at all, and are hardly able to offer an opinion on them and their related issues, IMO.
Your interpretations of men’s groups and their history and motives are as far from the truth as it’s possible to get. All the advances feminists made were with the assist of many many men too, just as there are many women involved in and supporting men’s groups.
Injustice does that, doesn’t it.
As for the young women of today, I’ll listen to my daughter and her friends for an objective, reasonable assessment, not a staunch, dyed-in-the-wool feminist, lol.
Hasn’t it ever occurred to you that a lot of the young ones you “listen to” are probably just agreeing with you to get away, that they tend to avoid dispute over things that seem silly to them? I’ve watched it happen often enough, lol, because, yes, there are some feminists among my family and friends too, though they seem less one-eyed than you.
Start that feminist caper and the young ladies’ eyes glaze over, the heads starts to nod, and whoosh, they’re gone!
When it comes to “-ists” I’ve always felt that those who ARE committed, …SHOULD BE!

Antiwomen's still carrying on like a Turnbull with a fake email - lots of conjecture but absolutely no evidence with which to back it up.

In addition to Master's unanswered questions, I'd like to see some substantiation of this one from the original silly post:

<< I suspect that if we were to check the backgrounds of all the boards of Australian companies we'd find that most, if not all, the high flyers played football at a high level. >>

Care to name some, Antiwomen?

Maximillion, I'm a bloke who doesn't feel in the slightest bit threatened by feminism, and I've been married and divorced a couple of times. I also have a daughter in her 30s who would probably call herself a feminist, and who is a mother and corporate lawyer. She recently married a very nice young man who doesn't seem hung up about independent, assertive women.

In fact, I don't know many men who are. Then again, I don't hang out with whining losers.

SJF - it was a typo, it's Sancho that Pynchme was talking about.

Maxi

Projecting just a little? You are making exactly the same generalisations about feminism, that you claim SJF has made about men's groups. I don't think SJF means ALL MEN, there are some toxic organisations around who see women's equality as a threat to their power base. For example, if I had a dollar for each time that Julia Gillard's appointment as deputy prime minister is used as an example that there is 50/50 balance of power between men and women throughout the world, I could be relaxing on a tropical island instead of sitting here typing to people who do not respect a single thing I write purely because I happened to be born a woman.

Any woman who believes in equity for herself and all other women is a feminist. There's no indoctrination, you either believe in equality of opportunity or you don't. Sort of like atheists really, they don't believe in supreme diety, there is no dogma per se and atheists are just as diverse as feminists.

That's not to say there aren't some women who carry a big chip on their shoulder regarding men. However, what we have here is a man who wears his anger like armour and makes statements like:

<< The real reason for the NRL group sex 'scandal' was to get women into unassailable positions of power within NRL clubs. >>

<< I suspect that if we were to check the backgrounds of all the boards of Australian companies we'd find that most, if not all, the high flyers played football at a high level. >>

A-septic offers not a shred of evidence, as others have pointed out.

This is what the topic is about: are women creating sex scandals to gain power? (Just typing that assertion feels stupid), but that's apparently what A-septic wants to debate.

Assuming he is sincere and not just having a "all-women-are-evil" tanty yet again.

Therefore, Maxi, I will finish this post with a question:

Do you think the NRL group sex-scandal was engineered to provide women with "unassailable" positions of power in the sporting league?

"Do you think the NRL group sex-scandal was engineered to provide women with "unassailable" positions of power in the sporting league?"

What if the answer was yes? The next question to me would be; Why? Or should that have been the first question I asked?

Is it an attempt to get into power so they can put a stop to males raping females?

The evil cows.

Piper

ROFL

You have made my day.

Imagine a world where women and men don't have to fear any form of intimidation.

SJF:"My denial of Maximillion's comment that 'Feminism has only one rule: Women are right, no matter what they say or do' is rebutting his view that feminism is about WOMEN always having to be right."

Oh, I see. So WOMEN aren't always right, but even if they're wrong, they're still not MEN, and so you'll take their side because you're a WOMAN, not because you're a feminist. Thanks for clearing that up, I can't understand why I could have thought you'd think any differently...
You do squirm a lot, don't you dear? Wouldn't it be simpler for you to just keep your story straight?

sock-puppet:"Your "opinion" is that David Gallop, Tracy Grimshaw, Miranda Devine and the management of Channel Nine have all colluded to produce a concocted sex scandal in a conspiracy to get women into "unassailable positions of power"."

Nope. Try again, socky. You're really, really close to having a thought of your own...

Fractelle:"There's no indoctrination, you either believe in equality of opportunity or you don't."

What a lot of dimwitted nonsense. There is a massive program of indoctrination that has been going on since before you were born. It's been enormously successful to the point that twits like you can't even discuss the topic sensibly, but you "believe" fervently in "equality", as long as that means women getting more - if men get less, so much the better. IOW, what you "believe" is nothing but self-interest parading in a clown suit of altruism.

fractelle:"are women creating sex scandals to gain power?"

The topic was about "have women in the media created a scandal to manipulate public opinion to achieve female penetration into a male-dominated field". Do try to keep up. Then tell us why you think it is so far-fetched that they may have done so.

It's amusing that so much effort has been expended trying to avoid answering a simple question. hardly surprising, of course, given who's been responding, but very funny to watch.

Fractelle, I refer you to my previous posts in this and other threads, re-read them, you’ll see we do not disagree. If you claim all feminists are moderates and rational, I suggest you get out to the coal-face and meet a few, you’ll soon change your tune. You’ll also note I nowhere expressed support for the extremists among the menfolk either. I merely acknowledged their gripes, and their tactics, which were quite deliberately based on the successful tactics used by the feminists, for that very reason, success, and it’s working, isn’t it?
These days men are getting a much fairer hearing in the FC.
Believing in equality DOES NOT make a woman a feminist, it makes her rational.
By your definition most of the Australian population are Feminists, ludicrous isn’t it?
It would mean that I’m a feminist too, but I’d be insulted if you called me that.
As for your final question, I’ll assume you’re joking, or you really haven’t read anything I’ve been trying to say.
CJ.Morgan.

If you were trying to tell me something, it escapes me. Virtually every woman in my life, mother, sisters, wife, daughter, friends, g/f’s, has been of the type you describe, and I love it, wouldn’t have it any other way. The simpering dependent “girly” types just frustrate me, I want to tell them to cut it out and get some spine, I certainly don’t find them attractive. If your final comment was in any way aimed at me, you can shove it where the sun don’t shine.
Why am I being attacked for offering an opinion?
The opening post was silly in the extreme, and provoked a discussion of the issues, in which I joined. Surely it can’t be that because I took a stance against over-the-top feminism I am automatically in the wrong?
Because I tried to inject a little balance between extremes I am pilloried and assumptions made that I must be a misogynistic chauvinist? That I feel threatened? Get a grip, people, I'm only offering a point of view, and an extremely common one at that.

So, antiseptic has just written, in an above reply, that he doesn't think David Gallop, Tracy Grimshaw, Miranda Devine and the management of Channel 9 have "colluded". Therefore, the assumption must be that he believes all these people acted "independently", in order to concoct the exact same sex scandal for the exact same reason (to get women into unassailable positions of power within NRL clubs.

Now antiseptic, if you now go on to state this assumption of independence is not the case, it means that these people acted neither independently nor in collusion with each other. It has to be one or the other.

Or, are you now asserting that these people did not help concoct a sex scandal for the purpose of getting women into unassailable positions of power?

Now if you truly desire to be clear, and my questions in this post are not helping you to be precise and clear regarding your allegations, then please tell us - - -

1) Has any of these named people concocted a sex 'sacadal' (take note of the inverted commas)?

2)Have any of these named people used a phony sex 'scandal' in order to help women into unassailable positions of power?

By actually answering those 2 questions "seriously" we will have a better understanding of exactly what you are, and are not, asserting.

why can't women have assailable
positions of power too,
is this the army?

Given the non ending squabbles between men and women in relationships,
it seems to me that we need a more practical model in today's
society. Lets face it, it many cases, the amount of money involved
in many splits, has effectively turned the whole thing into a business
for some, a long time ago.

Even CJ, the star feminist pin up boy, was seemingly driven to drink
in past relationships and only relatevely recently got lucky.

So its perhaps time to be practical and rational. We'll simply
pay you so much for a nooky, so much for cleaning (you make half the
mess) so much for cooking (you eat half the food) etc.

Then everyone knows where they stand at any time and there won't
be all these disputes about splitting up etc. The feminist lobby
should be thrilled by all this, their members are being
compensated for effort after all.

Yabby, there's plenty men
who would be delighted if you would pay
"so much for a nooky, so much for cleaning (you make half the
mess) so much for cooking (you eat half the food) etc",
if you don't like women.

Whilster, there well might be men who just love that concept with
other men, just not in my case lol.

OTOH today, market forces decide many things in our lives.

Some really attractive young things in the US are charging up
to 60'000$ a night, which is hardly exploitation.

Our old fashioned society, just still has problems getting its
mind around these concepts.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25688852-401,00.html

But its certainly practical and solves many of the squabbles
or claims of exploitation or being under the thumb, as you
seem to believe.

If women are paid for services rendered, pricing decided by
market forces, that sounds a pretty modern kind of concept to
me and a fair one too. The feminist movement should be thrilled
by the end of exploitation of women!

A bit of a sticking point seems to have been reached on the discussion title and opening statement - “The real reason for the NRL group sex 'scandal'” is “to get women into unassailable positions of power within NRL clubs”.

Understandably so, Antiseptic. Most people commenting here are anti/sceptical including my totally impartial and logical, good self.

Looks like more like a byproduct to me. Not the main reason. As I said on that other thread (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=9030#144483), which may have inspired this one (not my comment, but the subject of discussion, of course), I think it is more about protection of the female reputation and general attempts at reframing, than taking over the administration of football. You know, sugar and spice, and everything nice… victims all, at any price.

Having said that, I don’t think there is much wrong if they do take a couple of “unassailable” positions of power in running football. I’ll be waiting for news stories about these women cornering some young naïve male or female within that particular corridor of power, stepping on their toes, and accidentally elbowing them in the eye. Good for business.

As for another of those funny but uninstructive TPP comments “Is it an attempt to get into power so they can put a stop to males raping females? The evil cows.” … I say pfft. Unless these legally trained thoobs can stop their longer-haired non-feminist groupie comrades entering team changing rooms and male toilets at clubs and pubs where footballers frequent to expose themselves, what possible good can they be? Evil, bovine, or otherwise – it matters not.

Maximiliion:"Because I tried to inject a little balance between extremes I am pilloried and assumptions made that I must be a misogynistic chauvinist?"

Ah Max, welcome to my world. When I started posting on-line, here and elsewhere, I simply expressed my pain at the horribly biased process that Feminist doctrine has made of the Family Law, especially for men seeking to maintain a relationship with their children. The immediate reaction of dozens of feminasties and their sidekicks was to accuse me of misogyny, while in the same breath praising my ex-wife for "standing up to me", never once even acknowledging that men may be capable of feeling such pain or that women may be capable of wilfully inflicting it. I used to get bothered by it, until I realised theirs was the response of the schoolyard bully girls chanting insults. It's childish and contemptible.

Once it became apparent that any comment that wasn't gushingly in praise of misandric feminism was going to be called misogynistic, it was quite liberating, since the lack of any kind of graduated response allowed me to play with them at will, secure in the knowledge that the best argument they could mount was a straw-man, "full of sound and fury, signifying nothing" except their fear of an open discussion.

What's less amusing is that through laziness, the manipulation of the fine drive to helping those less fortunate and the hope of being allowed to get the odd bit of connubial bliss, a whole lot of men who should have stood up to the nitwits years ago have instead handed them buckets of money to brainwash more nitwits to demand more money and so it goes on. The rise and rise of this stupidly destructive ideology is one of the great failings of public policy and comes down entirely to men not taking the subject sufficiently seriously.

My advice is to ask your questions, but don't expect any kind of reasoned response from the grrrls brigade. Be satisfied that you are expressing the view of the silent majority and empowering other men to speak up.

Speaking of whining losers... and I wasn't referring to you, Maximillion.

Still no names of at least some of the corporate high flyers who were formerly high-level footballers, Antiwomen? I would've thought that would be a doddle for someone with such prodigious research skills, given your claim that "...most, if not all, the high flyers played football at a high level".

Mi tingting yupela tok mauswara tasol.

“As for another of those funny but uninstructive TPP comment… Unless these legally trained thoobs can stop their longer-haired non-feminist groupie comrades entering team changing rooms and male toilets at clubs and pubs where footballers frequent to expose themselves, what possible good can they be? Evil, bovine, or otherwise – it matters not.”

I couldn’t instruct anyone Seeker, I don’t fully understand the issue. Anti suggests this is a feminist plot for women to work within the NRL. Actually he asked rather than stated didn’t he? You’d have to wonder why women would need to plot such a thing.

My personal belief is that it is mostly male run because they have a real passion for the game and even though they may have obtained better jobs elsewhere they didn’t because they wanted to be closer to what they love. Seems rather simple and acceptable but it has also lead to this bad behaviour. They have spoilt their boys for their love of the game and winning the game.

If the females want these jobs because they want to stop the men abusing the females then I wish the best of luck to them. I’m sure they can manage to put a lock on a changing room door too, do you think the men would use it? But to suggest that a business women has a counterpart with a younger groupie type chick is like me comparing a business man to a male stripper.

I think maybe if they have more females within their ranks the lads may even learn a little more about the grown up women professionals in society.

On one of those comment things you get on the news sites I read a comment from an air hostess saying about how sick she was of them when they travel and the filthy remarks they make about females and pass around magazines. They’re a bit cocky aye, what other groups would do that in public?

What is a thoob?

Seeker:"Looks like more like a byproduct to me."

And you may be right. I have offered a chain of reasoning that has assumptions, but no one has tried to disprove those assumptions. For example, is it normal for "everyone" to know about an upcoming Four Corners story for "weeks" before the piece is even compiled? If so, how do Four Corners stop themselves getting regularly gazumped by other outlets? Seems unlikely to me.

Given that Grimshaw and ACA joined in boots and all the next day with well-prepared and edited hatchet-job on Johns that must have taken some days(Grimshaw was going about the radio and TV stations the very next morning, calling for women to be installed).

The media-grrls like Grimshaw and Ferguson are well-used to manipulating public opinion - it's what they do for a living. Why would anyone find it strange that they may have chosen to do so in this matter?

Gallop has been instrumental in getting women onto the NRL Board and yet he had, till now, failed to get any of the clubs run by women. As Foxy pointed out, his role is to get bums on seats at NRL games and the AFL has largely captured the women's market. IOW, he is also a skilled manipulator of the public. I don't think it's a very long bow to draw that he chose to use the long-dead "scandal" to get a more visible female presence in League.

Seeker:"I think it is more about protection of the female reputation and general attempts at reframing"

Footy is a big target for feminists, being such a macho-male activity. Getting women into the "boys club" has lots of symbolic significance for them. Why do you think they are so keen not to discuss the possibility it was all a set up?

Whatever the long-term impact on the sport, this was a clear demonstration of the power of the media and the way that can be used to achieve outcomes. I expect we'll be seeing a lot more of it as the media-grrrls feel their oats.

Ahhh, now antiseptic is changing his story.

According to his last post, in his own words, he has been merely offering "a chain of reasoning that has assumptions". Not "FACT", but "assumptions" instead.

I guess this is why he can't answer the questions I've put to him. I have been trying to get him to provide the evidence that shows his NRL conspiracy theory to be "FACT". His true colours have been shown by his complete inability to do that, or even try. He gives page after page after page of "OPINION". And now we have his belated admission it's all "assumptions" on his part.

But we should all notice that these so called "assumptions" are NOT presented as assumptions by hin. Everyone here, please go back and read all the posts on this topic written by him - - - - - and you'll see they are written in a style that attempts to present his "opinion" as "FACT".

He's now been pushed into a corner, because he can't offer the facts and evidence to back up his "OPINION". Therefore, he's had to FINALLY admit his NRL conspiracy theory is just an "ASSUMPTION".

As we all know, this entire topic is NOT really about the NRL.

The topic is about "antiseptic"; it makes him the centre of attention. The topic gives him a podium to vent his fear of women who possess self determination, or any power whatsoever over men.

This very disturbed man stated his views are shared by the "silent majority" - - - - - well I have spent time reading quite a few of his old, past posts in order to try to see where this disturbed man is coming from, and if other people here did the same they'd realise his sad and lonely views about women who possess any power or self determination are embraced by a only mere "TINY MINORITY" of people in this 1st world country.

He's a quite disturbed and bitter person.Maybe the brotherhood at his USMC (United Socialist Men's Collective) can offer him more hugs at the next meeting.

sock-puppet:"now antiseptic is changing his story."

Nope. Shame, you were so close to having an actual thought, too.

sock-puppet:"According to his last post, in his own words, he has been merely offering "a chain of reasoning that has assumptions". Not "FACT", but "assumptions" instead."

Quite so. It's called drawing an inference from available data. It requires actual thinking, so don't bother trying it for yourself, you're not quite equipped, poor thing.

sock-puppet:"I have been trying to get him to provide the evidence that shows his NRL conspiracy theory to be "FACT"."

which clearly demonstrates you're not very bright.

sock-puppet:"He gives page after page after page of "OPINION""

Well, yes, I think that's appropriate on a site called "On-Line Opinion". It's a shame you're not adequately mentally equipped to hold an opinion of your own. I guess some of you have to fall on the far left of the bell curve.

sock-puppet:"The topic is about "antiseptic""

YOUR topic is antiseptic, the rest of us are discussing the NRL and the media. It's flattering, dear, but I prefer women with an IQ bigger than their waist diameter.

sil...sock-puppet:"I have spent time reading quite a few of his old, past posts "

I'll happily send you a pair of used undies to sniff while you're doing it if you give me your address. I'll even guarantee skidmarks. It's the least I can do for such a devoted fan.

Anti, while I may have supported some of your claims to a degree, we are actually poles apart, sorry.
CJMorgan, thanks, I did wonder.
And that’s me finished on this topic, I don’t feel I have anything further to contribute.

Well, now at long last we've established that his NRL conspiracy is all in his own head, just an opinion based on his made up "assumptions". ALL OF COURSE PRESENTED AS 'FACT'- - - - up until his forced admission.

He had no choice but to finally admit he had ZERO proof that shows an actual NRL/Channel 9 conspiracy exists to gain unassailable power for women within NRL clubs.

The topic itself is of course ludicrous, and it's interesting to note that after I finally forced him into his admission, he's now degenerated into juvenile 'attempted' taunts and defensive invective.

By the way, he keeps referring to me as "sock puppet". Is this a term of abuse, or something else? Does anyone know what it means?

Edit for my above post: "He had no choice but to finally admit he had ZERO proof that shows an actual NRL/Channel 9 management conspiracy exists to gain unassailable power for women within NRL clubs based on a fabricated sex 'scandal' No proof whatsoever. Nothing. Not one word of proof.".

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Now, let's revise the 'real' reasons for the existence of this topic here:

"I hate my ex-wife for leaving me. Why did she leave? Because feminism gave her the right to. I now hate feminists.

Feminists are women. So I now hate women (women who like self determination or women who have any type of power whatsoever over men).

I will get back at my wife by attacking women, who are feminists - and therefore my wife by proxy - by claiming in an internet forum that a sex scandal was fabricated to force women into that proud bastion of masculinity, Rugby.

Now everyone will hate my wife, and no one will think that I have allowed my anger to consume me at the expense of all other thought".

“By the way, he keeps referring to me as "sock puppet". Is this a term of abuse, or something else? Does anyone know what it means?”

I so have this, they wont tell you for some reason. I had to ask someone in a private e-mail.

Here is Wikipedia :

• Sockpuppet (Internet)
A sockpuppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. In its earliest usage, a sockpuppet was a false identity through which a member of an Internet community speaks with or about himself or herself, pretending to be a different person, like a ventriloquist manipulating a hand puppet.
In current usage, the perception of the term has been extended beyond second identities of people who already post in a forum to include other uses of misleading online identities. For example, a NY Times article claims that "sock-puppeting" is defined as "the act of creating a fake online identity to praise, defend or create the illusion of support for one’s self, allies or company."

irregardless of psychotic misogynist conspiracy theories
NRL clubs should obey the same regulatory rules
as every other corporate body.
moreover, to achieve equality between women and men
government should require corporations
to make decisons by agreement
between a women's committee and a men's committee.
furthermore, government itself should be required
to make decisions by agreement
between a women's legislature and a men's legislature.

we've all just witnessed men collapse the global economy.
no-one, including the author of this thread,
wants to see the NRL collapse.

This is my first post in this thread.
Looked in a few times.
First second and third thoughts?
Humor, had to be.
Well it appears if it is few are laughing.
I believe just maybe women in club leadership rolls , the call at least is a symptom.
An attempt to help change the culture of the game.
Or the way some women see it.
In every thing the best person for the job should get the job, biases in favor or against one sex will not work.

sock-puppet:"I'm obsessed with antiseptic and he hates his ex wife"

Whatever you say, socky. Give me that address and the skid-marked undies can be yours forever.

Jewels, this particular sock puppet was here a few months ago posting under the handle "JW", which she abandoned after she was shown to have asked GrahamY to remove a post of hers that contradicted a later post. (Is your hubby still a fat bastard, JW?)She left in a hurry, claiming she was off on a world trip, but changed her handle to "Sallyg". That one got kicked off for being obsessed with all things antiseptic, so she changed again to TZ52HX and then, just a couple of days ago, bless her, she thought she'd try again, first with the old TZ52HX and then with the brand-new "Master". The poor dear really is obsessed, but she's not very bright. Sad for her, funny for the rest of us.

Belly:"In every thing the best person for the job should get the job, biases in favor or against one sex will not work."

Absolutely right. Don't let Sharon Burrow hear you say that, though...

We'll see a lot more of this sort of behind-the-scenes media manipulation of public opinion to achieve feminist goals. The media-grrls are now dominant in everything except "hard news" and finance journalism and they are going to want to flex their muscle to help their "sisters" in all those entitlement-based groups.

Just as an example, try to find this story anywhere in the on-line press as a clickable link

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,,25669606-23272,00.html

The story was not available as a clickable link on the News Limited or Fairfax sites within 2 days of being published and I've seen no analysis whatever of the fact that female violence against men has risen at an annual rate of over 11% for the last 10 years, while male violence against women has not increased other than in sync with population growth.
IOW, the factual data provided by the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics will be ignored in favour of a doctrinal position, solely to manipulate public opinion.

Journalism?

Whether or not Master is a sockpuppet, s/he certainly has Antiwomen's measure (although I'm doubtful about the 'socialist' bit).

More conjecture from Antiwomen about his imagined feminist conspiracy in the media. I read that story early in the week on the ABC News website, and it's still there: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/22/2604559.htm .

I think that you might find that the story was eclipsed in the Australian media, like almost every other event in the world, by the endless coverage of boys playing dirty tricks on each other in Federal Parliament. Not to mention the overwhelming coverage of a certain football match, in Queensland at least.

Rather than producing non-evidence for his purported feminist conspiracy, perhaps Antiwomen could find time to name just a few of the supposedly numerous corporate high flyers who were previously high level foootballers?

I won't hold my breath.

Pomeranian:"I think that you might find that the story was eclipsed in the Australian media"

Oh, it was eclipsed all right, not by political stories, but by atrociously unethical quasi-journalists with an agenda.

The same sites that have buried that story about the massively escalating violence being perpetrated by women against their male partners have much older, much more frivolous stories that have attacted almost no comments remaining up on their sites for weeks, including such important stories as this one:

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25660994-23272,00.html

The Courier-Mail is probably the worst offender in this regard, being stuffed to capacity with quasi-journalist agenda-pushers like Janet and Matthew Fife-Yeomans and Melanie Christensen, who have the grave responsibility of putting their byline to selected press releases and puffing them up or squashing them. By comparison the Fairfax press is positively brimming with professionalism, although it too has been largely taken over by the would-be sistergirls and standards are beginning to drop sharply.

The ABC has an editorial policy of not removing published stories unless they are found to be incorrect. I wonder how long that's going to last with the rise of the media-grrrls?

Now down you get, little fella, those skidmarked undies are already promised to your new "Master". Ask her nicely and she might let you have a sniff.

Anti I found one, if Rugby counts:

http://www.fxj.com.au/corpinfo/kirk.htm

David Kirk
CEO, Fairfax Holdings Limited

Apart from the business arena, he represented New Zealand in rugby union from 1983-1987. He played for the Otago and Auckland provinces and captained the All Blacks in 1986 and 1987. In 1987, under his leadership the All Blacks won the inaugural Rugby World Cup. In 1987 he was awarded an MBE for services to rugby. In 1987 he took up a Rhodes Scholarship at Oxford University, studying Philosophy, Politics and Economics. His first degree was in Medicine. He graduated from the University of Otago in New Zealand in 1985.

<"The same sites that have buried that story about the massively escalating violence being perpetrated by women against their male partners... ">

It's not buried, the story with absurdities quoted by your Menz Nutz is still there.

The report says that women now perpetrate 2,336 (up from less than 1,000) out of more than 25,000 cases of domestic violence.

If you were the least interested in mens safety, you'd be spending at least equivalent time ranting about the other > 40,000 cases of assault perpetrated against men by OTHER MEN.

As I have told you repeatedly, there are shelter services for men. Services will broker accommodation if needed. However, bear in mind a few other aspects:

1. Most men have the physical strength and financial resources to leave the situation; most female victims, especially from lower socio-economic groups, don't.

2. Men are less likely to have to leave with children in tow because women do about 75% or more of the child care.

3. There is a difference between a single incident and a reign of terror. While it's become menz mythology (lies) that women use emotional and verbal abuse, men are just as capable of using those methods of abuse as well.

IF U R CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF MALES, WHY R U NOT RAILING AGAINST MEN WHO R VIOLENT TO OTHER MEN ??

- and please stop talking about your crotch and skid marks. It's barfable and portrays you as a very unattractive person.

Pynchme

<< IF U R CONCERNED ABOUT THE SAFETY OF MALES, WHY R U NOT RAILING AGAINST MEN WHO R VIOLENT TO OTHER MEN ?? >>

I have asked this question before on OLO, the likes of A-septic are far more concerned that women just might achieve equal power with men, that they fail to notice what has always been.

A-septic if you think the Master is a sock for JW how do you explain these posts?:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2893#65499

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2887&page=0#65269

I see my mistake, I have asked A-septic to partake in some rational thought. Well, I can still hope.

Who does Antiseptic think Master is a puppet for?

I'm enjoying this thread immensely. I can't help feeling that Anti's made a bet with someone on how many conspiracy theories he can invent to support his bizarre statements before people start refusing to talk to him.

If not, it looks like his wife left him AND he was smacked around by her. No wonder he has such rabid opinions about men hanging on to their strength and dignity.

"There were of course many people who opposed the idea of women’s suffrage. They were known as the 'Antis'."

http://www.johndclare.net/Women1_ArgumentsAgainst.htm

Thanks Pied P for giving a definition of sock puppet. I'm quite new to all this computer related terminology, as I only started using a computer just over a year ago. I've been too busy working the land to bother with things like computers, but I'm semi retired now, but my son and daughter in law are trying to make it 100% retired. They now run the properties and think I'm too old to lift a finger, but I must admit they do a better job than I can do at this stage in my life.

If you believe antiwomen, then I am posting here under the names of JW, sallyg,tz52hx as well as Master: By the way, Master is my wife's maiden name. Also, he says I am a woman - - - I think that revelation would certainly amuse my deceased wife if she was here. This topic, from the moment I forced antiwomen to admit the topic's premise was based on "assumption" and not "fact", has developed into a very humourous representation of a very sad man, antiwomen. With almost every post he is now putting his foot well into his mouth.

And now we have the latest conspiracy theory (and just like his original premise for this topic, he tries to present it as "fact" and not as assumption), that I am a "woman" consumed by obsession for him and have gone to the lengths of fabricating 4 on line identities for the purpose of pursuing him. This is just so funny, yet it's really sad too, and provides an insight I suppose into his mind and mental health. I bet he thinks all these 4 people are "women" - - - of course he does.

Hi Master, nice to meet you. I wish there was a section on here for like maybe a quick intro. Someone will probably point out that there is and I’ll feel like an idiot. I’ve been online about three months now and struggle lots with navigating different sites and working out what people are on about. Some on OLO have been here a long time so they kind of have their own inside jokes. This is a really interesting little community.

I didn’t believe Anti but I must admit to wondering if you were a female. It’s a bit shocking but without being sure, when someone is nice about females you kind of assume they are one. Master is a very cool name, brilliant for debates.

I am an early forties mum and housewife with two older teens in NSW and I foster little kids. I am here catching up and learning how Aussie works, moved here from NZ three years ago and love it – ‘sept for the spiders.

Oh and my previous name on OLO was Jewely which I changed recently but most people still call me Jewely anyways.

Hi Jewely, well I doubt I'll be sticking around too long on this type of site. I've been looking at a few discussion sites over the past 2 weeks, now that I have more free time. And one thing I've noticed is the anger, misrepresentation and agendas within the posts of many people. I'm now pretty tired of navigating my way through all that nonsense. There's better and more fulfilling things to do with my life. Initially I thought I'd find discussions forums interesting, but I've lost my interest.

As an example, in another topic here I wrote that the topic's subject was "not race specific", meaning it applied to everyone. Then a poster wrote saying it showed I was a racist. He wanted to bring up a specific "race" into the issue and pit that race against another race. Whereas I considered everyone equal and thought the issue should not be "race specific". Now, I was going to write a long winded rebuttal to the person's use of the abuse "racist", but I now realise that doing so would just spur him towards more inaccurate assumptions.

So I think these types of forums are probably not for me, but then again who knows. Anyway I have a lot of interesting things to fill my life with, and the computer will only ever be .0001% of it. I might be getting on, but there's still a few things left to accomplish.

Antiwomen's a strange character isn't he. He doesn't exactly attract love and empathy does he. That could be why he's so bitter and confused - - - - some people attract negativity. I think it's really sad.

No, you certainly won't find much satisfaction if you keep misrepresenting or misinterpreting others posts. I was merely pointing out that it was you that was defining the subject by race, and I wanted to make it inclusive, I suggest you go back and read my latest post, perhaps there's a chance you might finally understand. We all feel our way into these forums, it's a learning curve. Don't give up, you obviously have a capable mind, perhaps it's only learning to express yourself more clearly, and learning to take others more thoughtfully, that is lacking. We are all beginners first, persevere.
It can be rewarding, and certainly entertaining!

Hahaha… you know what Master I really really get what you mean. You end up double checking what you’ve written cause others will pounce on any word out of place. Wish you would stay around though or at least come back from time to time, I need a more balanced education about Australia and Australians.

I really don’t have much else to do with myself at the moment. But I really am learning stuff… wouldn’t want the others to find out that even when I am getting told off for something it still helps me learn. Mostly I think I am learning to debate rather than discuss an issue and there is a tendancy to want to be right rather than show another how they could be mistaken. I knew that racist remark was coming, and I was just waiting to see who would make it.

The worst thing is that it isn’t often I can get help understanding something and I often annoy people by being ignorant of commonly known information. I think I don’t really understand this NRL thing or how Australians perceive it as an organization. It is probably more emotive than what I can see on the face of it.

I can’t think of a comment on Anti, I kind of enjoy his posts even when I don’t understand him or do disagree with him. But my favourite kids are the naughty ones.

Actually Max, the entire point of me commenting on your posts on that topic, was that YOU were defining the topic by "race". YOU were person who mentioned "aboriginal" and "whites", and YOU were the person who tried to pit one against the other claiming that the apology to aboriginal people should have been enough and that it covered the "forgotten Australians", who include my deceased wife who was a child migrant. My wife was not of aboriginal descent, obviously, and the aboriginal apology by Mr Rudd did not apply to her or her situation.

The aboriginal apology WAS race specific. It applied to aboriginal people. The "Forgotten Australians" topic is NOT race specific. It applies to people of ANY race.

I told you the topic was "not race specific". The "Forgotten Australians" encompass ALL, yes ALL races. The issue is NOT, NOT, NOT about "race".

And because I pointed this out to you, you said of me the following:

"You're betraying your underlying racism and shame us all thereby, even your're (sic) nom de plume is a Freudian slip surely"

"Like all closet racists"

"Typical of the closed-mind approach of racists"

"Your racist outlook"

So, according to Max I'm a horrid, evil "racist" because I specifically told him that race is NOT an issue. Go figure!

By the way Max, you may, or may "not", be interested in knowing that my wife and I, in conjunction with local aboriginal elders, raised two orphaned aboriginal girls in the 60's/early 70's on our properties in outback Australia, in the Broken Hill area.

Onya mate, it is relevant, and I applaud you.
But I'm still confused by you focusing on white kids, separating it from the "apology" to the stolen generation, and then claiming it wasn't race related?
I include ALL kids, and you claim I'm making it a race question?
Figure that one out?
Stick around, gather ye wisdom, keep trying to make your point, dispute me or anyone else, you'll find it worthwhile, and I and others will be grateful for your input.
You have my respect, even though we may seem to disagree on some things, though I'm not entirely sure we do. Time will tell.

Max, I never for one second "focused on white kids". I never once mentioned a child's specific race. My point right from the beginning was that ALL kids are included, regardless of race, in the "Forgotten Australians" saga.

I think there's been a huge misunderstanding between us, and this is one reason why I've come to not like discussion forums very much. It just takes too much time to make things perfectly clear. And I have many other things to do. I wish you well, and apologise if what I've written within the other topic has offended you.

Hiya Master,

Welcome. I'm not a regular here either really; I come here mostly when I should be doing something else:) - but I like being here and have visited on and off for quite a long time now :) I read more than I post; and the point I want to make now is that there are others reading your posts - it's not all just about the posters who are oppositional.

I enjoyed your posts very much - the clarity, wisdom an kindness. I read your posts over on the other board too; I understood what you were saying and agree with you.

There are some I am always keen to read - SJF; CJ Morgan; Fractelle, Romany and several others - Sancho lately (I *must* try hard not to call Sancho Pancho - lol I used to know a dachshound named Pancho you see; apologies to Sancho).

As bizarre as it may be I like reading Antiseptic's posts in a way - responding to them (when I have time) is like revising Feminism 101.
His posts renew my sense of purpose. However, I find him a tragic figure and I often feel very sad for his young daughter and son.

Anyway thank you for your posts. I hope you do get 'hooked' - it would be great to have another nice bloke around.

No offence taken. I ask you as one person to another, stick around, I think you have much to contribute.

Master - add me to those who welcome you to OLO. I don't blame you for being put off by some of the stuff that's posted here, but I've found that this is one of the most interesting Australian internet forums, in part because there's a pretty diverse range of opinion here. I hope you come back again.

Antiwomen - something else bothered me about your latest feminist conspiracy delusion, and now it's come back. On the same day as your 'violent women' story, this one was also published:

<< FORMER NRL star Greg Bird has been sentenced to 16 months jail for glassing his girlfriend in the face. >>

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25670133-601,00.html

It didn't seem to get much attention either (notably from you). Was this part of the feminist journalist conspiracy too?

Still no names of former high level NRL players who are currently corporate high flyers?

i didn't publish this view
on the relevant thread because its hurtful
and there's already been too much hurt.
this thread seems ok.

the Commonwealth of Australia counted Aborigines as fauna
when most of the migrant children were abused.
perhaps the law requires retrospective apologies
to both Australian citizens and fauna?

and the best person for the position
crashed the global economy
so that why we now play
the best person for the gendered position.

Whistler what has happened here? Are my encounters tainted somehow being on OLO? Did I pick the wrong place to learn this country? Racism, sexism, the forgotten and the stolen and add to this that in three years I have experience more pain fostering and witnessed how badly children are treated here than in over 8 years fostering in NZ with three times the number of children and situations.

To my face I have been told by DoCS staff that, given how your average Australian feels in general, an aboriginal child is safer with me as I understand and respect cultures due to my background.

I feel in general that I am swimming with sharks in this country. I am on my own bleating at every opportunity about state wards and getting little back. It feels as though abuse is common place and not worthy of response, the feeling is one of acceptance of the norm.

Peter and OUG have helped a lot and continue to help. But I really don’t understand what this country is doing to people or why everyone appears so helpless.

You cannot name the hurt in a thread where it may be felt, this shows you are to be appreciated. But it also means the ones that can be hurt have no support when a truth is told.

What my culture tells me is that one complains, others support and something is bloody done, it isn’t like that here is it. I am so frustrated by this freedom to complain and the right to be heard. The hearing does not equate to action. No wonder Antonios rages, he also would not understand this acceptance of how things are here.

This country still wears its chains.

Actually, Pynchme, it's Sancho P. Anchovy, fundamentalist rationalist and charity opinionista. My opinions are freely distributed and widely available at no cost.

While I adore dogs, and feel sympathy with the endeavours of one Sancho Panza, I am related to neither.

I see antiwomen has run away. Nice to know he's admitted defeat, after all he's been unable to back up his "assumption" with even one credible word.

But his motivation for posting the topic was of course not the actual narrow confines of the topic itself. He obviously posted it in order to have a 'gereralised' attack against womens' self determination and women who possess any type of power whatsoever over any men. He rambled on and on with his wide ranging attacks, stereotyping and bitter hate towards women who don't fit 'his' mould.

He's been made to look like a fool. But it's a 'tragic' fool. And therein lies the sadness of the situation. He's so consumed by extreme bitterness I doubt that anyone can ever penetrate the defensive, emotional armour he's erected around his feelings and ego. Even he himself probably can't penetrate it, and that's why he'll never, ever admit he's wrong; either to himself or anyone else.

It's extremely sad when one comes across these type of individuals in life, as you know they have little hope of recovery.

The Pied Piper,
a couple of decades ago the Parliament of NSW
passed legislation that wherever possible,
Aboriginal children should be removed into Aboriginal care.
this sparked an ongoing drive
to recruit and train Aboriginal carers.

the legislation was enacted
not in the least to reconcile the perception
within Aboriginal communities
that the removal of Aboriginal children from Aboriginal care
is an act of genocide.

the fear and loathing you read on this forum
is the legacy of the Howard government.

In addition to Greg Bird, who glassed his girlfriend and tried to blame his mate for it

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/28/2610772.htm

here's another budding corporate high flyer in action:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/28/2610772.htm

Clearly, these exemplary young heroes were innocent victims of the vast feminist conspiracy, whereby women submit to abuse by footballers in order that the secret sisterhood gain control of the NRL.

Hey Ceej - did you mean to post two web addresses that were the same? Both deal with the the girl who got in the way of a flying fist apparently, but neither mention the glassing incident.

Master - yes. Do hang in for a while at least. I also fully understood your point in the other thread but, the thing is, those of us who take no issue with a statement are not all going to leap in like a Greek Chorus or one of those Evangelical congregations saying "Ameennn, brother" or "Hallelujah".

So it often seems as though we are misunderstood or out of step with other opinions when this is not, in fact the case. Even if 5 or 6 people misunderstand, there are scores more people who read and do not comment because they are in agreement. (Does that make any sort of sense at all?)

Also, take absolutely no notice whatsoever of Pied Piper when she says how clueless she is. She has more nous that most. She is also more honest than many others and makes no bones about a word or a statement she doesn't understand, unlike those who try to waffle and weasel and BS their way out of admitting they don't know something. And, while I can, of course, only speak for myself on this next issue; - but she has certainly never annoyed me with her questions.

Welcome.

Dang, Romany - here's the right one:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/22/2604656.htm

Bugger!

I always thought that the stereotype football hero usually bought a pub, but I am always open to further enlightenment... A-septic would you care to disabuse me of this opinion? - with facts of course.

Master, Romany is right about Piper she's a smart person who has the uncommon ability to be directly honest. Another thing that Romany is correct about is that number of people who simply read and not contribute is way larger than those who actually take time to post. Therefore, you are writing for an invisible audience, one that is far more discerning than the likes of Vanna or A-septic would indicate.

CJ - a person who feels that violence is the way to settle disputes is probably a shoe-in as a corporate high flyer - just a thought.

Cheers m'dears

Fractelle I am clueless... I just posted my reply over on the Forgotten thread by mistake and feel like a right dork.

"I always thought that the stereotype football hero usually bought a pub, but I am always open to further enlightenment... A-septic would you care to disabuse me of this opinion? - with facts of course."

That's the Aussie footy players, the Kiwi ones end up being CEO of Fairfax and stuff. There's probably more women involved in NZ Rugby so the players are all grown up when they leave the game.

I couldn't, I just couldn't not say it.

Hey where is Ginx?

<< That's the Aussie footy players, the Kiwi ones end up being CEO of Fairfax and stuff. There's probably more women involved in NZ Rugby so the players are all grown up when they leave the game. >>

Haaaa Haaaar!

Ginx said she was taking her bat and ball and going home - but she has returned before, so we can hope that her quirky humour will again grace these pages.

PS

We have all mis-posted at some stage - very easy to do. But feeling like a dork is much harder and takes practise.

;)

“Ginx said she was taking her bat and ball and going home - but she has returned before, so we can hope that her quirky humour will again grace these pages.”

Oh well I missed something, did something upset her Fractelle? I didn’t miss her absence though and I want her back now. Gosh that sounded terribly grown up. The more hysterical side of my nature decides quite often that if a user disappears it is because they have died. I hope everyone has instructed family members to make it clear online if there is a userdeath.

Years ago now a young fella who ran a busy social site killed himself. His sister did an amazing job of tracking through his user list and letting people know.

“We have all mis-posted at some stage - very easy to do. But feeling like a dork is much harder and takes practise.”

I’m a bit special; it comes naturally to me as well as all too frequently. I completely missed at the start of this thread that Sancho was in fact mocking Anti. I felt more like an idiot at that stage though.

Hey where did Anti go? Oh gawd, he’s dead isn’t he.

Piper

Ginx said she had had a gutful. I know I often feel that way and take little breaks to preserve what sanity I have left.

Assuming people who haven't posted for a while are dead is a common response. Although in your case you have good reason. However, I haven't heard of rising suicide rates of OLO contributors - maybe Graham could tell us. I would like to know where Boaz David aka Polycarp has disappeared to; he was virtually an institution around OLO. Col Rouge used to meet him for coffee, now Col seems to have dropped off the perch...... oops, very tactless of me, I mean has been absent for a while.

All I am saying is that if the absence of posters to forums was always caused by death, then I would propose that posting is a health hazard.

The Pied Piper wrote [elsewhere]:
"Hey Whistler, I view it as an Act of attempted cultural genocide I think. Nah I don’t, I’m an immigrant and they could train me about the aboriginal heritage and basic culture so the children keep their family identity intact. But then they could teach all school children here that one.

I don’t know how successful the drive is for aboriginal carers or how much aboriginal blood one is required to have. Even little kids in foster care with a smidgeon have to be viewed a different way in the department and a different act or a different part of the act followed.

What advantage did it give the government to create legislation that furthers a segregation of the aboriginal peoples?

Now one of my maybe stupid questions… is Rudd better – will he do better for the aboriginals?"

The Pied Piper,

the first Parliament of Australia
enacted the White Australia Policy
in the form of the Immigration Restriction Act 1901
with the intention the nation would become populated
exclusively by people with white skin.

coloured people were prohibited citizenship
and it was assumed Aborigines would die out.
Aborigines didn't die out and by the late 1950s
the policy was abandoned to allow coloured immigration
as labour for nation building
since anglo-saxon sources were drying up.

[the Forgotten Australians were probably a last resort
of anglo-saxon immigration and treated as such]

following a Referendum in 1967,
Aborigines were granted Australian citizenship.
the First Australians had survived racial genocide.

the modern, government imposed definition of Aboriginality
is threefold, comprising a component of Aboriginal ancestry,
self-identification as Aboriginal
and acceptance by an Aboriginal community as Aboriginal.

most communities emphasise identification and acceptance
and may be embarrassed by the ancestry component
when confronted with the discrepancy between
competent culturally sensitive non-Aboriginal carers and government policy.

Aboriginal communities are segregated by dispossession.
government policies which support Aborigines
support Aboriginal integration through self-determination.

the apology is a start even if it seems evident
many Australians aren't quite sure
how or for what the apology was received.

I haven't posted as much as of late.

I'm not dead though. Life's just busier sometimes.

Well crikey. For starters, the notion that the sex-scandal was an attempt by women to infiltrate NRL seems rather preposterous.

Without commenting on gender issues, most elaborate conspiracy theories tend to be crap, because elaborate plans are the ones that are the most prone to failing.

Same goes for the 9-11, grassy knoll and freemason conspiracy theorists.

Actually, in relation to the group sex scandal, I was one of the few feminist-ish men to play the event down, especially when other feminists were making the point that the woman couldn't have given consent in that situation.

See, that's the thing about feminism. There's a wide variety of views. Yes, the woman could give consent. That's the responsibility of being an adult.

Frankly, my issues with NRL are in the situations where A) there has been violence committed by players and B) the glorification of people who play sport.
I don't like seeing sanctions against players when they do actions such as this as I'm a freedom-of-choice kinda guy.

I just wish more people would see them as the boofheads they are when they do these things.

As for the other comments and so forth that seem to have arisen on this thread, I can't seem to take it all too seriously.
By and large, men and women get on pretty well. Sometimes they don't. As with other things, it ain't a conspiracy or a gender war, it's just life and the sooner we deal with that, the sooner we get back to living it.

Well, i waited to see if anyone was going to have an independent thought and read what I wrote.

124 posts have gone by and only belly has worked out that I was being facetious, just as I said at the start of the third paragraph in my first post. The serious part of the post was what Foxy and I discussed, which was whether women in management would have a good or bad effect on the game. All the rest of you, including the freshly-minted sock-puppet (hubby still a fat bastard, Hon?), the Pomeranian (hump hump hump little fella), Sancho, who revels in the thought that my wife may have bashed me (she didn't, just yelled a lot) and the rest of the "conga line of suckholes" have been overcome by a severe and strangely comunal case of jerking knee. Must be all that leg-humping...

You've convinced me: any reporter getting a high approval from you lot can't possibly be smart enough to think far enough ahead to plan a Feminist coup in the NRL. As you were...

So Antiwomen was really "being facetious", eh? Riiiiigghhht.

Just like he obviously was with his claim about corporate high flyers, which is why he hasn't been able to name any. I do, however take Fractelle's and Piper's points.

There is a joke here, and it goes by the pseudonym of 'Antiseptic'.

“Ginx said she had had a gutful. I know I often feel that way and take little breaks to preserve what sanity I have left.”

Message for Ginx: COME BACK GINX! Yeah not with a full gut though.

Fractelle I think just as I came along you had something going on over in the Article section (might be why I never go there). A few years ago I got in a huge fight with another Sysop and demanded to be deleted, said a few very choice words and left forever. Was err… I think he edited one of my posts and I went beserk. Looking back I have no idea what I was thinking.

Now the Law seems to become part of it all and suggestions of defamation.

I have even spotted two “[deleted for defaming]” so far amongst old posts here.

“Assuming people who haven't posted for a while are dead is a common response. Although in your case you have good reason.”

Just keep talking to me as it has already happened to me once (that I know of) so the odds are you’re safe!

“However, I haven't heard of rising suicide rates of OLO contributors - maybe Graham could tell us. I would like to know where Boaz David aka Polycarp has disappeared to; he was virtually an institution around OLO. Col Rouge used to meet him for coffee, now Col seems to have dropped off the perch...... oops, very tactless of me, I mean has been absent for a while.”

Oh yeah Polycarp but I kinda cringe when Col is around. Maybe an option to leave a public note in the user profile.

“All I am saying is that if the absence of posters to forums was always caused by death, then I would propose that posting is a health hazard.”

Nice one. It’s a fitness hazard for sure, you feel like you’re busy when posting but the lack of movement is shocking.

Hey TLTR, phew. And Anti is okay. Good weekend? And the femalefav CJ!

EVERYONE IS ALIVE! Independent thought be damned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0spFY1I2NQ

No. No. No! I am gonna stamp my little foot and categorically refuse to join the conga line of suckholes.

I did SO out you, Anti. Right at the very beginning an' all. And your rather prissy reply was "You should know by now that I am sincere in my views and they're well-supported."

So there!

Romany, I am sincere in my views about feminism and about football and they are well supported. I do strongly believe that top-level football in all codes is being feminised out of meaningful existence. I do believe that there is a large group of powerful feminists in all walks of life, including the media, who see their principle function as promoting feminism.

See:
http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/women/progserv/equal/Pages/engaging_womens_org.aspx#1

Scroll down the list, all of whom receive Govt funding to promote feminism. Try to find any similar listing for men.

That doesn't mean I think they organised the Four Corners story just to get women into positions of power: as I said at the start, I was being facetious, but it does mean, as seeker said, that they took advantage of the situation once the conditions were there to do so. It's amazing to me that so many, including you, jumped in without ever reading that phrase or comprehending what it meant. Only Foxy and belly addressed the actual topic.

I do think it's interesting that so many felt so threatened by my facetious statement though. I can't recall being attacked so aggressively or with such personal venom on any other thread. Sancho even expressed delight at the thought my ex may have been violent toward me. Charming, eh?

Could my facetious statement have hit a little too close to the bone for some?

Now stamp your little foot (no the other one, you have to keep in time) and join the conga line, dear. We can't have any non-conformists thinking independently around here.

Well, well well, Antiwomen is now claiming his conspiracy theory was merely him being "facetious".

Boy, he even went to the trouble of saying "faetious" 3 times in his last post - - - - - just to make sure we really understood he was only being "facetious".

He got soundly annihilated in the debate, couldn't come up with any original or coherent thought, and looking for a way out to save face he re-read his posts and noticed he used the word "facetious" on one occasion. So he's now "trying" to claim he was just being facetious.

Let's examine his bogus "facetious" claim.

IMMEDIATELY before he wrote "I'm being facetious" in his first post on this topic he wrote - - -

"Come on girls, surely some of the ten ton Tessies from the Women's Studies Department could fund their education with a contract to play front-row for one of these clubs". IMMEDIATELY after this he wrote "I'm being facetious".

THAT quote is the sentence that was "facetious", and THAT was what Antiwomen was * * *INITIALLY* * * referring to when he wrote "I'm being facetious" in his first post.

I ask everyone to go back and read his first post and you'll see I'm correct. If you read his entire first post you'll see he was NOT being facetious about his NRL/Channel 9 conspiracy theory.

Antiwomen is now PRETENDING his use of the phrase "I'm being facetious" applied also towards his conspiracy theory.

Poor old Antiwomen changes his stories and twists things around whenever he thinks he can gain advantage or, in this case, save face. This is obvious from just reading this one topic.

The poor bloke's ego is obviously fractured from the bitterness that's consumed his life. It's obvious he'll NEVER admit he's wrong. He barely possesses an original thought; it's all dogma and doctrinal "men's movement" talk.

So Antiwomen, I think you should now go back to the blokes at the USMC "United Socialist Men's Collective" where you can get together with your comrades to plan your next move.

sock-puppet:"Boy, he even went to the trouble of saying "faetious" 3 times in his last post - - - - - just to make sure we really understood he was only being "facetious".
"

Yes, aren't I considerate? You all had such trouble reading the word in the first post that I thought I'd best repeat it a few times for you.

In case you still missed it, I'll repeat the words from the first post, third paragraph: "Yes, I'm being facetious". Glad to have cleared that up fo you.

sock-puppet:"THAT quote is the sentence that was "facetious", and THAT was what Antiwomen was * * *INITIALLY* * * referring to when he wrote "I'm being facetious" in his first post."

Oh dear, obsessed much, dear? Would you like to have a go at what I'm thinking now? Here's a clue: it involves a sock-puppet and a Pomeranian...

Now, I'd like to see some proof of your claims:

1. You claim to be a man - no evidence offered in support, rather a lot to the contrary
2. you claim to have a deceased wife - no evidence offered. it seems unlikely unless you're a lesbian
3. you claim to not be a sock-puppet - yet apart from a couple of dishonest smokescreen posts, all you've done from your first post is regurgitate the rather feeble "antiseptic hates women cos he does, so there" which is so beloved of the dimwits and the nitwits in the conga-line
4. you claim to be "new to the internet" - no supporting evidence offered and the rather strong contrary evidence that you started the sock-puppet "Master" solely to attack antiseptic
5. you claim to not be obsessed with all things antiseptic - sadly, lot's of contrary evidence offered

Now, off you go dear, you'll have to join the rear of the conga line now, there are lots of suckholes already ahead of you. Do try to keep up, won't you?

Come on , shake your body baby, do the conga
I know you can't control yourself any longer
Come on , shake your body baby, do the conga
I know you can't control yourself any longer
…Anti, gawd. C’mon baby….

Come on , shake your body baby, do the conga
I know you can't control yourself any longer
Feel the rhythm of the music getting stronger
Don't you fight it 'til you tried it, do that conga beat
…dude get your hand higher or you’ll get a smack…

Everybody gather 'round now
Let your body feel the heat
Don't you worry if you can't dance;
Let the music move your feet

It's the rhythm of the island, and like the sugar cane so sweet
If you want to do the conga, you've got to listen to the beat

...Anti for the love of god! Lower babe…

Come on , shake your body baby, do the conga
I know you can't control yourself any longer
Feel the rhythm of the music getting stronger
Don't you fight it 'til you tried it, do that conga beat

Feel the fire of desire, as you dance the night away
'Cause tonight were gonna party, 'til we see the break of day

Better get yourself together, and hold on to what you've got
Once the music hits your system, there's no way your gonna stop

…Look you get in front of me… ...yeah see you don’t like it do ya…

Come on , shake your body baby ,do the conga
I know you cant't control yourself any longer
Feel the rhythm of the music getting stronger
Dont't you fight it 'till you tried it, do that conga
Come on , shake your body baby, do the conga
I know you can't control yourself any longer
Feel the rhythm of the music getting stronger
Don't you fight it 'til you tried it, do that conga beat

Come on , shake your body baby, do the conga
...YAY! ANTI!

Pynchme, I missed this while I was waiting for the conga line to form; you said:"The report says that women now perpetrate 2,336 (up from less than 1,000) out of more than 25,000 cases of domestic violence. "

Actually, if you look at the report, it shows that females are about twice as likely to be victims of DV as males. In other words, 1/3 of victims as recorded by COPS (the police database) data are males. Take a look at it for yourself

http://www.bocsar.nsw.gov.au/lawlink/bocsar/ll_bocsar.nsf/vwFiles/CJB127.pdf/$file/CJB127.pdf

Pay attention to figure 4.

Have a look at page 3, which contains the following quote:
"Between 1995 and 2007, female victims
of domestic related assault increased
from 236.8 to 607.3 per 100,000
population (an increase of 156%), and
male victims from 46.1 to 266.1 per
100,000 population (an increase of
478%)."

IOW, male victims of DV now represent 30.5% of the total number of DV victims, not 1/10 as you claim in your post. I'm frankly appalled that you are so willing to minimise what is obviously a serious problem becoming a very serious one.

I'm also amazed that you have finally acknowledged that the greatest violence problem in our society involved men as victims. That has been pointed out by myself and others countless times, yet you are the rest of the grrls brigade have never accepted it as a valid issue. We seem to be making some progress.

Yes, men are no doubt responsible for most of that violence against other men outside the home, yet we don't seem to have any campaigns saying "violence is never acceptable" only "violence against women". The report referenced is a clear indication that isn't working; it's time for a rethink.

Do you have any suggestions now that you've accepted there is a problem?

Thanks for supplying the music, Jewels. The poor things have so much trouble keeping properly in step without it and it makes them very uncomfortable. As host of this party I should have been more considerate.

This is just priceless:

Poor, sad Antiwomen in his reply couldn't offer even one original thought of rebuttal. I have proven his claim that his NRL/channel 9 management conspiracy theory is something that's thoroughly believed by him to be true and factual. I repeat, all anyone needs to do is read his entire first post, and all his subsequent posts. They'll then see his phony claim, and change of story, that it's all now just "facetious" is merely a face saving ploy on his part. He's been backed into a corner, made to look silly, and had to try some way to "get out".

But why stop at just one conspiracy theory? Nah, half way through this topic, after realising he was thoroughly out debated, he introduced his new conspiracy theory that I was also sallyg, plus someone called txy etc etc etc (a whole bunch of letters, I can't remember them exactly), plus jw , plus Master. I'm really 4 people he thinks. Maybe antiseptic suffers from multiple personality disorder and thinks everyone else is the same.

And get this, it's really, really funny - - - now he's DEMANDING

1) proof of my gender

2) proof that my wife is deceased (suggests I'm probably a LESBIAN)

3) he insists I MUST be his sock puppet because I've posted about HIM

4) he demands I offer evidence that I am new to the internet

NOTE: None of these ridiculous requests has anything to do whatsoever with the Topic. It merely shows an obsession for conspiracy theories when things don't go Antiwomen's way.

Yes people, he's been soundly trounced regarding his NRL/channel 9 management conspiracy theory, so he feels he's got no option but to obsess over his latest conspiracy theory.

I haven't laughed so much for - - - - well, a week or two.

Antiwomen, you should have returned to the USMC for advice, before putting your foot in your mouth yet again. Never mind, keep up the anti women dogma and rhetoric. I'm sure your comrades at the United Socialist Men's Collective admire you.

Hilarious. Priceless.

“Thanks for supplying the music, Jewels. The poor things have so much trouble keeping properly in step without it and it makes them very uncomfortable. As host of this party I should have been more considerate.”

Anytime Anti baby and you’re right you’re hosting skills are lacking, Master is only new here and you’ve hardly been polite. Problem with the line started when I made you go in front; obviously everyone was doing fine when following me.

Now go get Romany a drink of coffee and apologize immediately, you gave her far too much wine in that glass before and she became quite colourful with her language skills after that. You stepped on her foot too you clumsy bugger, you shouldn’t dance with someone that graceful as you’re bound to be the one to put a foot wrong.

I spotted Col before in another room, I think that Aussie lady that arrived alone is gonna slap his face soon. Fractelle will not be happy if she isn’t there to capture the moment.

Hey I tried to get in to the bathroom before but Antonios and Banjo were having a blue out front and Banjo said I should go outside and supervise the kids. I thought Ginx had gone to do it with the sporting equipment; she looked a bit green around the gills though.

I’ll catch ya later Anti, gotta go hang with OUG, he was going to show me how to moonwalk.

Can’t quite work out if Master is a farmer at a machinery sale or a woman in a football dressing room. Her name implies some sort of serious power imbalance, and he talks of comrades as if they are about to take over his farm. She prefers the pole to the conga, and Anti’s once again blamed for his antisocial party hosting skills.

Great party guys, but I’m sure Sancho is about to reappear to expose it as an all-in-love-romp, tantamount to allegorical group sex that it is. Enjoy until then.

Women's Rugby League Game at Harold 'Crow' Williams Knockout

Olivia from the ACT is after:

"any women interested in playing a women's rugby league game at the Harold 'Crow' Williams Rugby League Knockout being held at Vikings Park in Erindale on Saturday 19 September 2009".

"This game will be played in memory of Pauline Lupton, an immensely talented sportsperson who played Rugby League at the highest level in representative championships."

"Indigenous women and non-indigenous women are all welcome to participate."

sock-puppet:"I have proven his claim that his NRL/channel 9 management conspiracy theory is something that I made up because I'm not very good at thinking or reading, just knee-jerking. BTW, what does facetious mean?"

Dance litlle sock-puppet, dance.

From dictionary.com, just for you, socky
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/facetious

–adjective
1. not meant to be taken seriously or literally: a facetious remark.
2. amusing; humorous.
3. lacking serious intent; concerned with something nonessential, amusing, or frivolous: a facetious person.

Next time you see the word, you'll be a much better informed little sock-puppet, won't you dear? No, no need to thank me, I do these things purely as a service, burdensome as it is.

Now, do try to keep up dear. Shake the Pomeranian off your leg and take that scowl off your face. He'd be happily humping a chair leg if you weren't so slow.

Jewels, I'd never have stepped on Romany's toes if she hadn't been trying to do a cha cha during the waltz. All that whine went to her head, poor thing...

Is OUG the new MJ?

Nobody's attempting anymore to seriously debate (including me) with Antiwomen about his conspiracy theories.

Why is this so?

It's because he has been incapable of producing one original thought to back up his NRL/Channel 9 management conspiracy theory. He has been soundly out debated. The result is final.

It has also been shown that his recent bogus claim of "I'm just being facetious" has been fabricated out of his embarrassment for posting such a ridiculous conspiracy theory, thus forcing him to defend it page after page after page.

So, two things have been shown

1) the conspiracy theory can't be backed up with facts

2) the conspiracy theory was NOT intended as 'facetious'

He's now reduced to the tactic of merely providing a definition of 'facetious' in a vain attempt at self defence. It seems that's all he has left in his arsenal, apart from his juvenile manner/language of course.

I think he needs to go back once again to the USMC (United Socialist Men's Collective), and slowly go over what went wrong for him in these 23 pages of hogwash posts we've received from him. Maybe his comrades have been giving him bad advice. I think he needs a girlfriend

Hey Whitsler, hope they get a turn out for the game. Get some Maori chicks in there to show them how it’s done. This will be in Canberra... is that where that park is?

“Jewels, I'd never have stepped on Romany's toes if she hadn't been trying to do a cha cha during the waltz. All that whine went to her head, poor thing...”

Anti ya know what I’m wondering, besides where I last put my drink down, when you sent out invites for an NRL group sex scandal gathering did the people make time because of the sex bit or the NRL bit? When Belly had a bash with a similar theme he had 363 show up but I know the men didn’t behave and some of the women got annoyed and left…. Oh crap, they didn’t even tell me they were leaving!

I might just go over and stand with Master and glare at you for awhile.

“Is OUG the new MJ?”

Better, no pet monkey and prefers conversations with grown ups.

sock-puppet:"That darned antiseptic, I'm so obsessed I've started 4 separate sock-puppet accounts just to get him and he keeps seeing theough my cunning plan"

That would be because you are not very bright, socky. Glad to have cleared that up. If you have any further questions, please feel free to ask and I'll feel free to mock you. That works for me.

As my grandmother always said, sour grapes make the best whine. Thanks for showing me, yet again socky, that my Nanna was a wise woman.

Now off you scamper, you obsessive little scallywag, you have cutting and pasting to do. After all, it's not as if you're up to anything else...

socky:"I think he needs me to be his girlfriend"

I'm sure you do, socky, you obsessive little thing. I was wondering how long it would take you. Sorry, dear, I'm not available, but the Pomeranian has been showing all the signs of wanting a new crotch to sniff; perhaps you could wean him away from humping legs? I know he's not too choosy, so you're in with a definite chance.

Majority of NRL players embarrassed to be playing top-level football
NEWS.com.au
July 01, 2009 11:30am

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25717473-421,00.html

"NEARLY two-thirds of rugby league players are embarrassed to be associated with the sport and a quarter say they know team mates who have had group sex, according to a new survey.

Of 100 current players surveyed by magazine Rugby League Week, 60 said they had felt embarrassed to be a part of the NRL in the last six months."

Anti: I don't think those players are feminists.

The latest USMC (United Socialist Men's Collective) advice to Antiwomen seems to be - - -

1)Make up a phony quote, and attribute it to Master

2)Obsess about Master, post after post, and then claim Master is obsessed with Antiwomen

Antiwomen = Thouroughy defeated on the conspiracy theory issue and thoroughly exposed on his bogus "I was just facetious" late claim. Also, made to look ludicrous about his multiple personality conspiracy theory.

He really has a 'thing' for conspiracy theories it seems.

It just hasn't been a good topic for him I'm afraid.

Back to the USMC now my boy. Don't worry, your comrades won't reject you.

Jewels, i read the same report as you did. I'm not surprised the players are embarrassed, there has been a strong and concentrated campaign to make them feel that way, whether they have done anything to be ashamed of or not.

Do you think that most of those young men have got anything to be ashamed of? If so, what is it and if not, why should they feel ashamed because some of their colleagues have behaved badly? Do you think Anna Bligh feels ashamed of being in politics because one of her colleagues is facing Court for behaving badly? Should she?

Sock-puppet:"antiseptic antiseptic antiseptic"

Yes, dear, we know, you feel rejected and hurt. Do try to get over it, I'm sure it's not the first knock-back you've received.

HA ha, here we go again.

He's now invented ANOTHER conspiracy theory.

This time he claims "there's been a strong and concentrated campaign" to "embarrass" NRL players "whether they have done anything to be ashamed of or not".

Now, I looked, and looked, and looked for the word 'facetious', and it was nowhere to be seen.

Therefore it's definitely a new, and believed conspiracy theory from Antiwomen.

So Antiwomen, tell us

1) Who are the instigators of this 'strong and concentrated campaign to embarrass NRL players"?

2) When and where did they meet to organise the campaign?

3) Tell us what was said at the meeting?

4) How did you come to be in possession of what was said?

In other words, back up your conspiracy theory with "FACTS".

Or will we get your usual non-reply totally lacking in even one original thought?

People, do you think he realised he was writing another conspiracy theory when typing that post? Ha ha, it's so funny.

sock-puppet:"I have no antiseptic idea what I'm talking about antiseptic so I'll put a whole lot of questions down in antiseptic point form to make myself feel antiseptic important cos I rock, I do, i really do antiseptic, even if I do say antiseptic so myself cos no ones else says antiseptic so I really rock much more than antiseptic"

Poor obsessive you. Do try to get over me dear, there are plenty more fish in the sea.

“Jewels, i read the same report as you did. I'm not surprised the players are embarrassed, there has been a strong and concentrated campaign to make them feel that way, whether they have done anything to be ashamed of or not. “

Do ya reckon? Okay I’m having a think about it because I can see sort of where you are coming from. Like with kids it is the way you ask the question and the reply they imagine you want that counts?

“Do you think that most of those young men have got anything to be ashamed of? If so, what is it and if not, why should they feel ashamed because some of their colleagues have behaved badly? Do you think Anna Bligh feels ashamed of being in politics because one of her colleagues is facing Court for behaving badly? Should she?”

Bligh is the Queensland chick? Nah she wouldn’t. But being in politics you get used to bad behavior and I imagine they all ignore it as often as any equally bad (although not as mass damaging) NRL behavior. Course in politics the girls are in on it too aye… must be a personality type that is drawn in to that arena.

What if the women have pulled a few strings and it is for the better? Might stop all the girls that do get raped yeah?

Oh, you weren’t arguing the right or wrong though were you just saying that it might be happening?

Were you saying it was wrong?

Antiwomen: 'sockpuppet pomeranian leg-humping I-was-really-being-facetious nobody-loves-me look-at-me look-at-me'

Still no former NRL corporate high flyers. How's your love life?

What a loser. A poor one at that.

Yep, he is a sore loser CJ, but, keep in mind that he really thinks he's won. Notice the non- answer to your question from him, and his non-reply to my questions about his new conspiracy theory. Notice how he tries very, very, very hard to appear "clever", not realising that it makes him look very, very , very "young" and without maturity. Notice how everyone's deserted him, but he battles on trying to appear "clever", paying extremely close attention to EVERY word that's written about him, and replying again and again and again, even though the debate was over and lost for him pages ago. He's now not even bothering defending his conspiracy theories any more. I'd be embarrassed too if I had to defend such rubbish.

Like I said in an earlier post, he appears the type of individual who can't admit he's wrong, not even to himself. So CJ, I doubt you'll ever receive a lucid answer to your question from Antiwomen. He's run out of original thought.

I wouldn't be surprised if even his comrades at the United Socialist Men's Collective have now deserted him

Oh look, the Pomeranian and the sock-puppet are playing together. I said they'd make a beautiful couple...

sock-puppet:"He's just mocking me and i'm getting all upset about it, cos he hates women, he does, I should know, just ask me"

Keep dancing, little sock, or the Pomeranian will be on you like a shot - hump, hump, hump.

Antiwomen: "Look at me, look at me".

Pathetic.

We can call it off anytime you like, little fella.

The thing is, you really can't, can you? You started the silly yapping that got you the name pomeranian and just like a pomeranian you can't stop. Also just like a pomeranian you're only to be seen when you think there's someone around to protect you, usually a woman with a thick skirt you can hide behind.

Now tell me again how I hate women blah, blah, blah.

Let's face it, little fella, you and the sock-puppet are the only ones obsessed with all thinga antiseptic. As I said, you show time after time that sour grapes make the cheapest whine.

Oh look, A-septic still hasn't answered any of Master's or CJ's questions. I guess after having his credibility shredded due to lack of evidence all he can think of is dog.

And there she is, sweeping her skirts for the pomeranian to hide behind.

Fraccy, do try to keep up: your little pet's question is fatuous and irrelevant to the discussion. If he wants to know, he is welcome to look - I couldn't give a toss. As for the sock-puppet, her questions all flow from erroneous assumtions and fallacious reasoning arising from a bitter obsession with all things Antiseptic.

Flattering, but hardly to be encouraged, don't you think?

Antiwomen makes fatuous claims which he can't back up, then just hurls childish abuse when asked for some evidence. This is the same guy who badgers others - typically women - for answers to his fatuous questions.

Still, he's getting some attention - even negative attention is better than none to a loser like him.

At five minutes and six seconds after 4 AM on the 8th of July this year, the time and date will be 04:05:06 07/08/09.
This will never happen again.

And that my friends is the most interesting post in days in this thread.

Seriously if you were all at my house you'd be sitting on your beds right now.

Agreed Pied Piper.

You've all outdone yourselves.

Geeze man it's not even entertaining to me!

I did think Seeker was on to something though.

Antiwomen quote: "Hey people, look at "me", I've got a conspiracy theory about the NRL and Channel 9 management. Look at "me"

OLO members reply: We don't see a conspiracy there. Show us the evidence.

Antiwomen then replies " Evidence? - - - here it is, you're a pomeranian, you're a sock puppet, look at "me". If you question me it's fatuous and irrelevant, if you bring me to account you're 'obsessed'. Look at "me". She's sweeping her skirt for the pomeranian to hide behind. Tell me again how I don't admire women. Look at "me". Boy I've really shown the forum how clever I am now, and they'll all think I'm ever so smart. Look at "me" . There you go - - - that proves I am right. Look at "me" ".

OLO members then reply " The time is now 4.05AM, and this piece of info. is the most intelligent post in this topic in a long time ", and, " Gezz man, antiwomen's now juvenile posts are not even entertaining to me" , and " still Antiwomen is getting attention, and with him being one of life's losers, any attention is better than none".

To which Antiwomen will reply in his next, upcoming posts , "LOOK AT 'ME', LOOK AT 'ME', LOOK AT 'ME' ".

Yep. But it works, doesn't it?

Romany:"Yep. But it works, doesn't it?"

If you mean there are lots of people obsessed with antiseptic, then I suppose it does. The fact is, that I'd just as soon the poor feeble-minded buggers would just let a conversation take its course, instead of diverting it into a discussion of what a terrible person antiseptic is because he doesn't much like feminism and isn't afraid to say so. Oh yeah, there was a failed marriage, so that means he hates women and he mentioned violence perpetrated by women so that means his wife must have "smacked him around" (heehee).

I try to respond with good humour and to answer the odd worthwhile poster seriously, but the constant barrage of witless sock-puppets and others is trying, I must say. This latest version complains I have no "FACTS" screamed loudly and then immediately starts with the "antiwomen" garbage and the rest of the hoo ha designed to remove any possibility of discussion. Tell me, Romany, do you reckon that sort of crap deserves anything other than ridicule?

As long as the sensible posters give the sock-puppet oxgen, she'll continue to post her obsessive rants about antiseptic.

Sheesh, there’s a lot of projection going on here. If I’m not mistaken, Antiseptic and I coined the term look-at-me-feminism a few threads back. It’s a bit juvenile now to project that “look at me” characteristic back on him, isn’t it? You know who you are.

Nothing wrong with Antiseptic - he’s just helping remove a few blinkers, and I personally hope he remains strong enough to continue doing so. If you read carefully (I’m being a little more diplomatic here then Anti may have described your unwillingness to comprehend), you will realise that he is more a pro-equity-feminist than most of us put together.

I’m in the middle of rescuing my young adult feminist daughter right now. My son in a similar situation would most likely have earned a lesser response from me. I love them both, and both have had the same opportunities, but I keep asking myself why I need to be more protective and supportive of her. It puzzles me to no end, because in every respect other than gender, they are equals. Why do they not act so? Is feminism, hindering or helping - discuss.

Sadly, I don’t think the girls will take over football administration, just as they haven’t taken over anything else much. I wish they would, because then there would be less justification for hijacking the family unit, or public funds. Even Grimshaw would need another angle.

“I’m in the middle of rescuing my young adult feminist daughter right now. My son in a similar situation would most likely have earned a lesser response from me. I love them both, and both have had the same opportunities, but I keep asking myself why I need to be more protective and supportive of her. It puzzles me to no end, because in every respect other than gender, they are equals. Why do they not act so? Is feminism, hindering or helping - discuss.”

Same here Seeker, I see my daughter as requiring additional protection. You ask as if surprised by this outcome, you know the answer. Of course you need to be more supportive of her, she is weaker. Feminism points out continuously by its very existence how much weaker females are or it would not be required, wanted, requested, supported, and embraced by those in need of it.

My son I know to be a more sensitive, kinder person, my daughter a take no crap hard arse. My son feels the power a young white male has in society, my daughter does not have society backing her only her own sense of self worth and self gifted empowerment. It is not enough in a community to know your own worth it is only adequate to feel the worth others have in you.

Feminism is hindering, it points out a personal lack in all females. They can shout from the rooftops they are equal. They are mistaken for now.

Anti what did I say? Why can’t you listen? It was good advice over in the Jackson thread, did you read it?

What Romany said lead you back in to proving her point but she obviously can predict human nature well or at least she knew how predictable you were? I am so ashamed! Then you ask her a loaded question, you fool, she is going to vaporize you and if she doesn’t someone else will like CJ.

There was always a reason I liked them both so much.[smile]

TPP, "My son feels the power a young white male has in society.."

Has he said this to you or are you so informed by your feminism and don't need to ask? It is worth knowing in view of the number of males who cop out or suicide. Handy too to ask hubby what he thinks of while he is driving - there are many wayward vehicles being driven by men these days.

The 'power of a young white male in society'?! What a load of old cobblers. Still, it is the reason why the state of Victoria is enshrining in legislation positive discrimination against white males, which doubtless you also agree with on behalf of your son. So much for equality.

Your son sounds quite normal to me, most boys are kind, gentle souls. They can also be vague, lacking in direction, vulnerable and romantic. Feminism doesn't 'get' boys at all, it could dangerously undermine the rhetoric if boys were made of anything better than 'Snips and snails, and puppy-dogs' tails', as the old nursery tale would have it.

Have you considered that maybe your daughter's 'take no crap hard arse' attitude will handicap her more than any imagined discrimination against women. After all, teamwork is important and people do need to communicate. Do we really need girl 'suits' as the new corporate bullies, or women carbon copies of the lack lustre political yes-men who waste parliamentary time on faked emails? Nothing wrong with the strength of femininity and now there is choice. Drop the Doc Martens and put the empathy, listening skills and intuition to good effect.

Perhaps I heard you wrongly or you were overstating your position for effect. In that case I apologise ;-)

Yet another report of an NRL "corporate high-flyer" in the making:

<< Sydney Roosters forward Nate Myles may not play for Queensland again after being suspended for six matches over an incident on the New South Wales central coast.

It has been revealed Myles defecated in a corridor at a hotel on Sunday morning, after trying to gain access to a family's room while naked and disoriented. >>

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/07/2618532.htm

“Has he said this to you or are you so informed by your feminism and don't need to ask? It is worth knowing in view of the number of males who cop out or suicide. Handy too to ask hubby what he thinks of while he is driving - there are many wayward vehicles being driven by men these days.”

Cornflower I don’t like feminism. Never have. They have thoughts? [grin]

“The 'power of a young white male in society'?! What a load of old cobblers. Still, it is the reason why the state of Victoria is enshrining in legislation positive discrimination against white males, which doubtless you also agree with on behalf of your son.”

This is Aussie, white and male is where it is at. Of course I like it but I’d prefer everyone felt empowered by the society they live in.

“Have you considered that maybe your daughter's 'take no crap hard arse' attitude will handicap her more Nothing wrong with the strength of femininity and now there is choice. Drop the Doc Martens and put the empathy, listening skills and intuition to good effect.“

She doesn’t have empathy or listening skills. I tried, I failed, or she just never gave me anything to work with. No we don’t need girl suits, I deal with them daily. I bet they are all lovely cuddly mums when they go home, wish they acted like that when dealing with their clients.

Hey maybe my girl has just been a big sister to too many damaged kids and decided she better be tough? I don’t know if I’m ever going to work her out.

“Perhaps I heard you wrongly or you were overstating your position for effect. In that case I apologise ;-)”

You might have, I’m still half asleep right now. My position was – this is still a male world but I’m not that keen on the females trying to be manlike to get further.

TPP

Fair enough, thumbs up and thanks for the reply.

Good to be able to chat frankly despite the aggro that surrounds us and I agree with your sentiments. Travel well.

Another day, another budding NRL captain of industry:

<< FORMER NRL star Greg Bird was less than half a metre away when he threw a glass bottle at a woman's head in a nightclub, a Sydney court has been told.

Victoria Shannon, 21, claims the former league international was swinging punches at her breasts, swearing and insulting her after the two had an encounter outside the toilets at Fusions in Cronulla.

The one-time Cronulla Shark, who now plays in France, is facing five assault charges over his alleged involvement in a fight in the early hours of January 19 last year. >>

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,,25746276-952,00.html

Thanks for pointing out that the NRL regards the sort of behaviour shown by Myles as unacceptable, little fella.

Why do you hate footballers so much, little fella? Were you one of those kids who no one wanted on their side? It must have been crushing to always get picked last, eh?

Poor little bloke, I bet Mum came to the rescue, didn't she?

Did you get that CJ? If you think there's anything untoward about a highly-paid celebrity sh-tting in a hotel corridor while completely smashed, you must hate footballers.

I love that Antiseptic, formerly a battered husband, began this thread as a way of externalising his fear of women and feminism, then mocks others with accusations of childish weakness. It's what psychologists call "projection" - "a defense mechanism which occurs when a person's own unacceptable or threatening feelings are repressed and then attributed to someone else." (Wiki)

Sancho, it's more a case of Antiwomen "obsessing", rather than mocking.

Antiwomen's "attempts" at mockery merely display his juvenile character. They are so amateurish, transparent and childlike that they don't even qualify as mockery.

It's just him "obsessing" because he thoroughly lost the debate. That's all he has left, his "obsession".

<<Why do you hate footballers so much, little fella?>>

A-Septic

Given that you are the author of this topic, the question should be:

"Why are you, A-septic, so fond of footballers, that they can do no wrong, ever, and are above criticism?"

Still waiting on your list of successful corporate footballers and evidence of any of your non-facetious conspiracies, I think the last one was...... ooops,

I looked.

WTF.

Sancho I think you can add confused sexuality to A-septic's psychiatric profile.

Fractelle:""Why are you, A-septic, so fond of footballers, that they can do no wrong, ever, and are above criticism?""

That's easily answered, dear, I'm not. Next question?

It does raise an interesting issue, though, which is why is this issue so polarising?

Why do people find football either fascinating or repellant? What were your personal experiences that gave you that attitude?

In my case, I played both Rugby League and Union and also Soccer. I was an indifferent player in all 3, but I enjoyed myself immensely and have retained the love of the game well into my middle years. I'm not blind to the faults of players, but I know they're young men doing the stupid things that young men do. As I said right at the start, let's not encourage bad behaviour, but we must recognise these are representatives of the rest of society. Go to any pub on a weekend and you'll see the same and worse than what the NRL players are being punished for.

What are others' experiences and how did they shape your attitude toward football?

Sancho:"I love that Antiseptic, formerly a battered husband,"

Speaking of projection...

For the record, I have never been "battered", nor have I "battered" anyone. Off you go and give the missus another touch-up and pretend she's antiseptic. Has she recovered from the last one yet, poor thing?

sock-puppet:"antiseptic antiseptic antiseptic"

Yes dear, so you said earlier.

I look forward to some genuine contributors having a go at my questions.

You've had 29 pages of people having a go at your questions, except they're not questions. They're statements of exquisitely paranoid belief which you won't let go of, no matter how often they're shown to be silly and truly pathetic.

You have made no substantial or convincing argument, just a continued tirade of "believe what I say or you're an idiot". If you think this thread has enhanced your credibility, then you may as well believe...I dunno...that a feminist conspiracy organises fake rape scandals to force women into positions of power within something as banal as Rugby.

Oh, wait...

Antiwomen wrote, "I look forward to some genuine contributors having a go at my questions".

Gotta love that statement from Antiwomen. Everyone here "knows" Antiwomen's statement is about as real and genuine as the topic itself.

Antiwomen is himself the person who continually refuses to answer questions put to him, eg. the question CONTINUALLY asked of him by CJ Morgan.

Antiwomen continues to put his foot in his mouth, and the sad, mixed up ol' blighter doesn't even realise it

“Why do people find football either fascinating or repellant? What were your personal experiences that gave you that attitude?”

Thank goodness for easy questions. Hey Anti, I hate it because it is rugby and my father and older brother used to watch every game back when there was usually only one TV in the house. Mum and us three girls completely ignored and excluded. Neither even entertained the fact that a female could be talked to about the game as it was “man stuff”.

And just to be clear – that is my personal experience and the why I don’t like the game or any similar game. But my brother and I were very keen gymnasts (which is gender neutral) and we would train together for competitions. But he only did gymnastics because it worked the muscles Rugby didn’t.

And! Doesn’t mean I dislike people who play the game or run the game or go to the game or enjoy the game.

AND no speeding tickets from 6pm tonight in NSW for the next week? People will die yeah?

Oh look, the school of rabid goldfish had gathered for the attack. Hit me with a flower...

Thanks for that Jewels. Most women I know are only interested in football becaue of their man's interest and would never choose to watch it if he wasn't there to switch it over. They often have quite extensive knowledge of the game and the players, mind you.

There are a few who seem to be genuine fans too, but they're not the majority in my experience.

Most men who don't like football were either poor at sport generally as kids, or were through some failing of personality unable to fit in as part of a team and so weren't included, poor things.

Sour grapes, bitter whine...

Yeah. Personally, I'm an ARL star posting anonymously on the internet.

Has it come to this, Antiseptic? Inventing grand feminist conspiracies to justify your fear of women? Boasting about apocryphal highschool sporting achievements?

>> Most men who don't like football were either poor at sport generally as kids, or were through some failing of personality unable to fit in as part of a team and so weren't included, poor things. <<

Oh, to be sixteen again.

If only NRL could fund national maternity leave, provide free childcare or cure breast cancer, its image problems could be instantly over. With women running it, maybe it will achieve all of the above, plus I’m told, the footballers will be amply supplied with padlocks, cab vouchers and re-education.

Oestrogen may cause havoc to ones body image and self-esteem, but testosterone does the same to those very same females most vulnerable to the effects of oestrogen. How unfair is that?

No apparent downside to testosterone other than its regular association with psychopathic megalomania in professional sports, business, family and social life. How neat is that?

Sancho’s windmill recognition talents suggest it could be the football code but Dulcinea remains equally insulted as imaginary. And while he may appear thoroughly comfortable with his reduced hormonal levels, he wishes to be sixteen again. How sweet.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/lhqnews/sportsmen-behaving-badly-are-likely-a-product-of-their-environment/2009/07/02/1246127636233.html

Interesting article Seeker but did sort of read as an excuse aye or maybe if I was a rugby player (hubby says this is the wrong word for NRL?) I would be insulted at the implied “oh they can’t help themselves” type theme. Not that I don’t believe it considering the hormones, additional ones in the form of drugs, and pack mentality humans have.

I did see how aggressive a female friend became when given male hormones and was quite surprised but then I am always surprised when humans can’t overcome their humanness.[smile]

Anti I don’t know about your theory, I can think of lots of examples that would prove otherwise about teen team sports but then there are exceptions to every rule. And society needs these non-team individuals. The more I think about it the more I think “team” attitudes apply to women more than men in everyday life.

Thousands of young men and women play football at school and for clubs. Out of these a few individuals have come to public attention for negative reasons. Blaming 'football' for the behaviour of the few is like blaming all car drivers for the hoons that are regularly reported in the media.

The few individuals who bring disgrace to their football code most likely would have committed similar offences if they had never played football. Similarly a cricketer sacked for his boozing and inability to obey orders would have had similar faults if he had never laid his hands on a bat. It is the same in all walks of life, for instance some Net users are cyber bullies, while others are into child porn - their behaviour generalises and doubtless if the Net didn't exist they would be up to their dirty tricks elsewhere.

Such is the competition between the football codes for business, any problem with players or management will be self-regulating. In particular, the selection criteria for representatives, players, coaches and management are already taking risk management into account. There will be more of that as NRL clubs tot up the additional risks and costs of erratic personalities. Mega-millionaire Frank Lowy's bid for the 2018 FIFA World Cup for Australia would already be putting a lot of pressure on other football codes.
http://wwos.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=829490

Football is of enormous interest to Australians as evidenced by their involvement as players, supporters or as an audience.
http://www.cultureandrecreation.gov.au/articles/football/

I played real football well into my twenties and enjoyed it immensely. Although my team-mates and I certainly weren't averse to a beer or three after a match, we never felt the need to have gang-bangs, glass our girlfriends or crap in hotel hallways. My eighteen-year old son still plays, and I very much doubt that he engages in those apparently normal (at least for NRL players and their apologists) activities either.

There are clearly cultural problems that are specific to Rugby League in Australia, and I for one am heartened that the NRL is finally taking them seriously.

However, until the OP retracts his silly and completely unsubstantiated claim about the Rugby League culture producing "most, if not all" the corporate high flyers on the boards of Australian companies, I shall continue to draw attention to the numerous examples of NRL misbehaviour that appear every week in the media.

Even if it was true, are these the sorts of people we'd want as captains of commerce and industry in this country?

TPP: “I did see how aggressive a female friend became when given male hormones and was quite surprised but then I am always surprised when humans can’t overcome their humanness.[smile]”

Your surprise doesn’t surprise me. Overcoming humanness may have been on the feminist agenda for some time, but re-education and legislation go only so far. Good for business as they were, we still veer back to a humanness defined by our genetics and chemical cocktails we produce or ingest. Otherwise we’re just not happy and produce or ingest some more

C J Morgan, "There are clearly cultural problems that are specific to Rugby League in Australia,.."

It that were so, given the number of people involved in rugby league and the close scrutiny of the media, there would be hundreds of serious problems being reported daily. You have had to scrabble to provide two cases, one of which is an allegation which is being contested. Even a man is innocent until proved guilty.

The behaviour of some Rugby League players and their supporters betray their roots in the rougher, tougher ends of town. That is the culture at fault and it is already present to be coped with, minimised and managed by football administrators. You can take the boy out of Ipswich, but how do you take the Ipswich out of the boy (or girl!)?

Why not take the crime statistics for the lower socioeconomic 'burbs from which professional rugby league draws most of its recruits and compare with the amount of crime committed by footballers? Because relatively few crimes are reported for footballers compared with the populations they originate from, it is very likely that the management and handling from the NRL saves many from a life of crime.

Go to the 'burbs on Friday night and watch the locals in their chosen places of entertainment, then try to convince me that the alleged 'football culture' is any different or worse than the 'native' culture you encounter.

The problem for the NRL is weeding out those who cannot rise above this (their cultural roots) and who do not have the will and self-discipline to put their football career, team and club first. Despite the best efforts of coaches and administrators there will always be a few who get through the mesh and do not respond to the intense efforts of coaches and administrators to swing them around. They are the problems and what is changing is the willingness to drop them like a rock despite the investment in them.

..../2

>> Why not take the crime statistics for the lower socioeconomic 'burbs from which professional rugby league draws most of its recruits and compare with the amount of crime committed by footballers? <<

Can you back that up with some evidence? My understanding is that most Rugby stars were fostered by expensive private schools who see it as good training for being brutal and unthinking in the world of business.

I'm pretty sure that only a tiny minority of them come from the "lower socioeconomic 'burbs".

2/

What is also not being recognised is that the ladettes from the lower socioeconomic 'burbs are just as rough as the lads and are more than capable of hell-raising and leading themselves and others astray. Again, go and have a look.

Talk with a coach and find out just how much they put into their players. Modern coaching responsibilities and player management goes well beyond football skills and tactics on the field because every aspect of the player's life impacts on on-field performance.

Of course football players are not saints but they are being stereotyped and ruthlessly used by the media. Anything to sell papers and get an audience. ACA boasted about its record ratings from the Tracey Grimshaw story on Johns. A splendid effort at making news.

BTW, has anyone ever noticed just how many NRL players wince at the boofheaded interviews and pranks they are subjected to on The Footy Show? Many of the players are embarrassed by the antics and show it. Other correct the misleading impressions where they get a chance.

Ever noticed the number of players who consistently refuse to be drawn into the wilful promotion of 'biff' and gratuitous violence by 'jock strap' interviewers wearing the stupid blazers of the TV channels?

Then the is the violation of players' privacy in the dressing rooms and when they are injured.

If anyone is not being professional about football it is the media, who just happen to 'make' the news. True there are others who have their own hobby horses to ride at the expense of sportsmen, but it is the uethical, sensationalist media who provide the opportunity for that.

Sancho

Hi there.

CJM is referring to rugby league not rugby union (rugby). You are right to say that rugby is the football of choice in private schools although I would much rather it was AFL (Aussie Rules).

I am a bit concerned that 'English' football (soccer, round ball) will become more popular in Australia, given the supporter and crowd problems it has had overseas and the violence we have already witnessed between certain cultural groups at soccer matches in Australia. You can solve the player problems but handling supporter violence is another kettle of fish.

Money will decide the outcome and there is a heck of a lot of money in soccer.

CJ Morgan wrote, "There are clearly cultural problems that are specific to Rugby league in Australia".

To a large extent you have written the "truth" with that basic statement. However, as you're probably aware anyway, the bad behaviour of footballers does extend to the Australian Rules code.

Australian Rules and Rugby League are the two "dumbed down" versions of football. From my lifetime observations and resulting opinion, they both attract a standard of player that, on average, is a step below the intelligence and maturity level that we see from players, on average, from Rugby or soccer. Rugby Union draws MANY more players from universities, and educated sectors of society, compared to Rugby League. The "culture" within Rugby Union is MUCH less the type of moronic, immature, dumb machismo culture we find in Rugby League.

There IS a poor culture within Rugby League. It IS, in my opinion, based on dumb bravado, machismo, immaturity and the overall lower intelligence levels, on average, of Rugby League players compared to Rugby Union players. Having said that, there's also been incidents involving Rugby Union players, but overall it's a tiny problem compared to the overwhelming culture of immature machismo and drinking of Rugby league players.

Rugby League has ALWAYS had this problem, it's "culture". It became problematic in the years after World War 2, and has steadily increased over the decades. Who remembers the incident in the 60s where a famous lock forward was caught one night on an English tour wearing nothing but a bowtie in the freezing cold?

The stories you read in the press are usually, but not 'always', the stories that attract POLICE intervention or interest: It's just the TIP OF THE ICEBERG regarding player bad behaviour.

The "ingrained" Rugby League culture of combining alcohol with immature men (often poorly educated, but not 'always') is the basis of the problem that Rugby League has. It's an ACCEPTED culture right from the bottom to the top, which will NEVER be publicly and openly admitted to by NRL administrators, and THAT'S why change is a very slow thing within Rugby League.

“Your surprise doesn’t surprise me. Overcoming humanness may have been on the feminist agenda for some time, but re-education and legislation go only so far. Good for business as they were, we still veer back to a humanness defined by our genetics and chemical cocktails we produce or ingest. Otherwise we’re just not happy and produce or ingest some more.”

You weren’t surprised by my surprise or it didn’t surprise you that I would be surprised by it Seeker? I think the feminist agenda is only about overcoming the humanness of men, most of which would be unacceptable if humans had been made under any kind of intelligent blueprint.

Has there been any re-education and legistlation, Whistler points out something is wrong… no I can’t explain it but I believe Whistler that something is out of balance – no yin and yang in parliament?

I wish they were all ingestible, I would prefer the choice.

Aborigines would probably reckon
its more about opportunity
than "dumbed down", Master.

The Pied Piper,
Australia's Parliament has struggled
to recognise Aboriginal law.
Australia's Constitution provides
for men's legislatures only,
whereas Aborigines decide law by agreement
between women’s and men’s business.
the provision of a women's legislature
would achieve equal rights
for both women and Aborigines.

That's absolutely right whistler.

Many aboriginal people come from either isolated locations (outback Australia) or disadvantaged histories. The opportunity that's presented for them to play Aussie Rules or Rugby League within their own communities, outside their own communities and even at representative levels is something to be encouraged.

Some even progress to play better games like soccer (whose "real" name is FOOTBALL) and Rugby Union - - - nudge nudge, wink wink!

Aussie Rules and Rugby League do a lot of good for a lot of players, regardless of where they come from or the colour of their skin. These are the players who rise above the dumbed down "culture" of machismo and booze.

Master

I had a grin when you mentioned an incident from the Sixties when a rugby league player was seen sans with a bow tie. Goodness, even prime Ministers have been caught without trousers or in a strip club.

As for the plebs touching their forelocks while the upper class rugby players who show them as what is below them how to act in company you cannot go past the recent Austrian national rugby team's celebration strip and rugby song in the town of Vilnius after their 0-48 drubbing by Lithuania:

http://www.break.com/usercontent/2008/5/Striptease-of-Austrian-Rugby-Team-498642.html

I am certain you must be speaking of some other rugby than the one played with the leather ball, because rugby players are notorious for their bawdy celebrations and that certainly includes university rugby where nothing with a heartbeat is safe after a match. Who could forget the chugalug drinking matches, the bawdy(?!!) songs and the tradition of pressed hams and brown eyes on the return home?

You either overcooked your reply or your memory of rugby has dimmed considerably with the passing decades. Did you ever play rugby?

2//..

CJMorgan:"until the OP retracts his silly and completely unsubstantiated claim about the Rugby League culture producing "most, if not all" the corporate high flyers on the boards of Australian companies, I shall continue to draw attention to the numerous examples of NRL misbehaviour that appear every week in the media."

So your objection is not to the behaviour, but stems from your obsession with "winning" a straw-man point of your own devising. Thanks for pointing that out.

BTW, my words were: "I suspect that if we were to check the backgrounds of all the boards of Australian companies we'd find that most, if not all, the high flyers played football at a high level."

I stand by that. The qualities fostered by football - any kind of football - are well-suited to corporate commercial life. No doubt similar benefits apply to all team sports, but football is the prime exemplar because of the physicality involved, which often means overcoming genuine fear and pain to keep functioning. Few other activities within popular reach provide any opportunity to learn how to do that.

Cornflower, your point about football being an elevating influence in our socially-disadvantaged areas seems to have struck a chord. I agree completely. Part of the reason that it works in such a way is that it has never abandoned kids who misbehave a bit. They know that the coach will have them on his shitlist for a while and they'll have to do a few more laps at training, but if they do knuckle down they're given another chance.

The punishments at NRL Premier Grade level are much more severe than for a member of the public and are in addition to any police or court sanction. Those blokes are well-paid, after all.

A-septic

<<BTW, my words were: "I suspect that if we were to check the backgrounds of all the boards of Australian companies we'd find that most, if not all, the high flyers played football at a high level."

I stand by that. The qualities fostered by football - any kind of football - are well-suited to corporate commercial life. No doubt similar benefits apply to all team sports, but football is the prime exemplar because of the physicality involved, which often means overcoming genuine fear and pain to keep functioning. Few other activities within popular reach provide any opportunity to learn how to do that.>>

You may well believe that your words are credible on their own, however without the weight of evidence they do not stand. Just your opinion - nothing more. Do you still "stand-by" your remarks regarding a feminist conspiracy to dominate the NRL?

Psychiatrists have observed that the "qualities" of psychopaths make them well-suited to corporate life:

http://www.riskmanagementmagazine.com.au/articles/de/0c0306de.asp

The above link being just one example among many discussing the psychopathic "attributes" of a corporate high-flyer. There is more evidence to support this claim than your tenuous one of football producing captains of industry.

@ Master
I think the game you favour and follow has a lot to do with childhood indoctrination. I follow Aussie Rules and adore the game, had I been born in a another state to Victoria I may well have followed the round-ball game. However claiming the superiority of one game over another is rather pointless although it can be entertaining - notice how the standard of discussion has risen without A-septic's snarling insults.

Go Saints!

Questions:

Why is Rugby called football here? The rest of the world does call Soccer Football doesn’t it?

What is required for our government to not have male laws ruling both genders?

Are the majority of aboriginals keen to assimilate?

What do aboriginals call woman’s business opposed to men’s business?

Is it okay for your place of work (NRL) to dictate your behavior afterhours?

Is the media the same all over the world? Is it just about making money?

Are women getting meaner as a reaction to feminism or have low soc. burb women always been like this?

News Flash!

I've just discovered where Antiwomen's NRL conspiracy theory came from. The poor bugger hasn't an original thought in his mind.

On another site antiseptic reproduced an article about Aussie rules football. He did it just several weeks before he devised his NRL/Channel 9 conspiracy theory.

Antiwomen wrote that the article was "SPOT ON IN 'EVERY RESPECT'".

Here's some of the things the article says:
"Football superstars become prey for beautiful young women. There is a need for men to satirise women. For some years Australian Rules football has been in the hands of feminist social engineers. Football is men's business. It is quite possibly sacred men's business and attempts to feminise it are nasty and envious attempts at weird retribution. Ben Cousins was "shunned", a particularly feminine form of punishment. Women have bullied their way into sacred men's sites. Much of the newspaper journalism and media commentary has been taken over by women.The development of the rules of the game honed it into a contest that rewarded skill and cunning as only those versed in the art of war can appreciate. Feminists seek to diminish and destroy enclaves of men wherever they exist. Feminism hates the game, it seeks to control the behaviour of men in the football community, by law, as an example to all men. During the show Sam Newman fondled a mannequin that was dressed in lingerie, with a photo of a female football journalist pinned to his head; it was designed to humiliate the Age's Caroline Wilson. It was harmless. During the last 30 years maleness has been discriminated against. Males have had to accept significant discrimination against them. Women have come to expect inequality of opportunity ("male" inequality) as their right and inheritance. They have come to expect it out of retribution. There is no better example to show young men than a fallen football star battling addictions to drugs and alcohol. Australian rules is needed to initiate boys into manhood. The AFL should be developing the game for the benefit of men".

Remember, Antiwomen thinks it's "spot on" in "EVERY RESPECT".

continued

Nice backpedal from Antiwomen. He's gone from "...if we were to check the backgrounds of all the boards of Australian companies we'd find that most, if not all, the high flyers played football [ i.e. NRL in the context of his first silly claim] at a high level" to any kind of football at any level.

Given that just about every Australian boy plays some kind of football at some point in their lives, and that Australian company boards and senior management are primarily male, then it's not exactly a profound claim in its revised form, is it? I'd suggest that it has more to do with the "high flyers'" gender than football - you know, correlation not implying causation and all that.

It's interesting, however, that he still can't name any corporate high flyers who were former high level football players. It also begs the question as to why it is that a fine, upstanding, former footballer like Antiwomen isn't a corporate high flyer.

Cornflower: << You have had to scrabble to provide two cases >>

What twaddle. They're just the latest cases that have appeared prominently in the news in just the last week. You're in denial about the appalling culture of professional Rugby League, aren't you?

I take it you weren't a supporter of the "bring back the biff" campaign. Why not?

Fractelle, "Go Saints"

They are going well aren't they? The Geelong game was heart in the mouth all the way and Gardiner's 100th was tops. Heaps of respect for him. All the best for the next game that should be another win.

With any luck the Cats have been softened up for the Lions. Fingers crossed.

I like the skills and openness of the AFL game. The crowds are good too and many games have a carnival atmosphere, a real sense of occasion. I can watch any game and enjoy it.

I will defend anyone's right to follow their chosen sport but watching players putt putt the round ball back and forth or throw themselves on the ground in mock agony to milk a penalty is a bit much for me.

Then there are the 'no-necks' (sorry fellas) grinding away tackle after tackle. Not that taking a rug, smoked chicken, nibblies and sparkling to the rugby isn't good, but it's the occasion and socialising more than the game. Only see the NRL big games, however the State of Origin is great entertainment.

Do you know that Australian Rules has the honour of being the first football Code with a codified set of rules?

News Flash- - - - continued

The site where the rubbish comes from is called Dads On The Air. From my quick readings of the posts there it could easily be renamed Misogynists On Te Air. Here's a link to the article that Antiwomen thinks is "spot on in EVERY respect": The article is not presented as "opinion", the word opinion is never mentioned. It's presented as if it was FACT:
http://www.forum.dadsontheair.com/viewtopic.php?p=87446&highlight=#87446

On that misogynist website you can read the posts of the other men, and see where Antiwomen gets his dogma from. He's obsessed. Post after post after post there from him is dedicated to WHINING and WHINING and WHINING about how it's NOT "his" fault, but the fault of his hated "femminazis". There's hundreds and hundreds of posts from him, all drawing from the influence of the other men on the site, some of whom have written some quite violent tirades against women. Antiwomen himself wrote there that his ex partner had a Domestic Violence Order issued against him - - - - - do you know what his excuse was? He wrote that when they were yelling at each other his voice was louder than her's, and that "THAT" was the reason for the DVO. Antiwomen is obviously thoroughly deluded regarding reality.

I'm actually glad I found that website. It really informs me about the motivations and character of Antiwomen. I invite anyone to go to that website and see for yourselves. If an ol' bugger like me can see through Antiwomen, then surely anyone who is on middle ground (like Foxy and Jewels) will be much better informed about Antiwomen if they visit the misogynistic website called Dads On The Air.

The Pied Piper,
the majority of aboriginals are keen for europeans to assimilate.
woman’s business is what women do.

Cornflower

Well we finally have something in common - high five.

Yeah, I agree with you about the dynamics of Aussie Rules - it moves, high marks are spectacular - a game like last week's between Geelong and St Kilda showcased everything I love about the game.

While I do appreciate the skills of soccer, it is too low scoring - no wonder people start biffing one another. Whereas at an AFL game there is a lot of interaction between spectators; go regularly enough you get friendly with people even if they don't follow the same team. Did you follow Lions from the Fitzroy days or take them up since they moved to QLD?

@ Master, I am sure that the article you reprinted here was the one that inspired A-septic. There is nothing in it but sheer hatred for women, it is very disheartening. These men are a kind of westernised Taliban.

@ Piper - I can't answer ALL your questions, but ANY team sport that involves kicking a ball (irrespective of its shape) is referred to as 'football' - even American Gridiron is called football by its followers, although it is more about strategy and less about sporting skill.

So to distinguish Aussie Rules, we followers refer to other codes as Soccer or Rugby.

“the majority of aboriginals are keen for europeans to assimilate.
woman’s business is what women do.”

Nice.[smile] I need an aboriginal mum here. In NZ I learnt lots from Maori and Samoan women about how they parent. How does anyone meet some original locals?

.
.
.
.

Holy crap Master. Umm... Did you like google him or something? I have been a fence sitter in this subject; have been trying to work out what it all means. I figured I was missing something culturewise about NRL. I have also spent the last few months so angry at one group of females that I haven’t been inclined to defend them in general.

I must add that when I shout I am the loudest, no contest. But I am mum and no one would dare shout louder.

Fractelle why can no one answer ALL of my questions ALL of the time? Thank you though even just a few in every dozen help me. I am not good at looking up information and find myself distracted and wanting even more things answered and often forget the original question.

Fractelle are you on Twitter?

The Pied Piper,
most universities
have a school of Aboriginal Studies
where you can meet Aborigines.
this is NAIDOC week.

Master,
the late Charlie Perkins was a soccer star
gods bless him.

Whistler I am trapped. By choice, but nonetheless.

Fostering children makes you a 24 hour babysitter and I have not had a child out of my sights (except to sleep of course) since April '07.

Any course is out. I thought I would have met an OL (original local) online before now that I could talk to but have only struck one male and he is busy doing mens business, with a passion I absolutely admire I might add.

But I need a mum. Of course I could not imagine learning from the Maori or Sar's mums on the internet.

Okay so: Any aboriginal mums in the Central Coast please let me know you are out there?!

Going back to post number 1, there is little doubt that the originator was being facetious as he himself said. At worst he was being provocative and that is fair enough to stimulate discussion.

This being so, the deliberate misinterpretation, flaming, denigration, name calling and character assassination that has gone down since is completely unwarranted and shameful. It is obvious that some and I am not taking sides in this, carry unfinished baggage and hatreds from other threads and are in it for the sole purpose of continuing their battles to 'get square' as Aussie parlance would have it.

It is shattering that a poster has taken this to the extreme of pursuing his/her quarry around the Net and onto other forums, for a more than obvious purpose.

If any of this is within the spirit of the OLO forum rules I will eat my hat.

Anyway, for the few who are into them, enjoy your life-wasting negative little parlour games. CU

That was one of your better posts, whistler.

Thanks for the reminder about NAIDOC Week, and that Charlie Perkins was indeed a great football player in his younger years.

It's interesting that AFL has been raised in contrast to NRL in this discussion. Besides being a better game to watch and play, its professional equivalent to the NRL bit the bullet a few years back and began to address seriously the endemic racism, misogyny and other sociopathies associated with the AFL culture.

While this obviously upsets some - as evidenced in Antiwomen's lauded article - we certainly don't seem to hear about AFL "buns", glassings or hall-crappings the way we do with the NRL. It's not all football, and it's not all young men, by any means.

Further explanation regarding my last 2 posts:

Some time ago while looking at old posts on this site from antiwomen (in an effort to see where his misogyny on this topic was coming from)I came upon a reference regarding another site he posts on. A day ago, I clicked on that site and was really shocked at the level of hatred and anger within many of the men on that other site. I read about 30 or so posts from the men there and about 20 or so from antiwomen, and then came across his post where he reproduced the misogynist article and said he agreed "in every respect". That post stood out because it showed clear relevance to the topic on these pages.

What's written in that article bears DIRECT association to "this" topic. Why? Because it shows EXACTLY where antiwomen got his inspiration for his NRL/Channel 9 management conspiracy theory. After antiwomen established his conspiracy theory, he then went on a generalised attack. The whole idea of the topic was to give him a vehicle to attack the type of women he clearly hates and fears.

Antiwomen has shown in his past posts that he has no hesitation indulging in PERSONAL ATTACK, whether the target is here or elsewhere or whether the target is a public person or not.

I admire strong, mature men; antiwomen is juvenile and as weak as water

Cornflower wrote, "Did you know that Australian rules has the honour of being the first football code with a codified set of rules?".

Master replies: Actually you're wrong. Aussie Rules is NOT "football". Aussie Rules is "Aussie Rules". The term "Football" is the game played all over the world with that little round ball.

In my youth I played Rugby Union till I was 29 years of age; that was a long, long time ago. In those days especially, the game was played by "real" men. They played hard but fair, and there wasn't the overt "machismo from juvenile men and booze culture" that you get now especially in Rugby League.

Master: Sorry that I couldn't chip in when I first read your posts about Dads on the Air < I hope they are not representative of fathers.

I know Antiseptic and a few others (such as James H) have referred to that site, and they regularly post misogynistic hysteria that circulates amongst similar hate sites. Most of them have their origins in the US and a few UK sites and they all ultimately connect to Glen Sacks and a few others like Angry Harry; The World According to Bob, nomarriage.com, some yahoo groups and various blogs.

http://www.glennsacks.com/blog/
http://www.angryharry.com/
http://bobstruth.blogspot.com/2006/09/jonbenet-never-did-get-laid.html

As you’ve already noted, several posters here have little or no experience in reading or understanding research. However, they will steep themselves constantly in these hate messages; winding each other up – and they won’t consider any additional information EVER. Just totally obsessed with forcing women to cop them as they are – blaming feminism because women wouldn’t stay with them – never occurs to them to ask why their former partners wanted to get away.

You’ll find that the sites also connect to extremely conservative American political organizations and sites (capitalizing on fear and ignorance) – You might notice the muddle of facts pertaining to American society and culture that are referred to as cause for complaint in Australia; for example, fellows here parroting about the Duluth model (as if they knew what it was or what any alternative might be).

If you read some old posts you’ll see where I have responded to various claims. However the best source for information from accredited academics and researchers on gender issues (including the various women-hating menz groups) can be found at xy online – which is an Australian site put together by men who are progressive; intelligent; unafraid of women; committed to social justice and positive relationships. One of the founders, Dr. Michael Flood, posted I think to Dads on the Air (or somewhere similar) but was just abused wholesale.

http://www.xyonline.net/index.shtml
http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/backlash.pdf
http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/Fatherhood_DP59.pdf

Thanks for your eloquent posts.

Jewely Questions:

What is required for our government to not have male laws ruling both genders?/ Do you have an example of what you mean and what an alternative would be?

Are the majority of aboriginals keen to assimilate? /I don't know but don't see why Aborigines would be.

Is it okay for your place of work (NRL) to dictate your behavior afterhours?/ A lot of organizations do require that employees/members conduct themselves in ways that won't bring discredit to the organization - like government workers; Ambulance officers and other para-professionals; various professional groups; banks; law firms and so on.

Is the media the same all over the world? Is it just about making money?/ I suspect so. They are businesses and ultimately they will do whatever it takes to keep business viable. I think we need to consider where the power and control really lies - like in the Rupert Murdoch owned conglomerates that have an interest in maintaining the conservative, neo-liberal status quo.

Are women getting meaner as a reaction to feminism or have low soc. burb women always been like this?/ There have always been mean women around; just as there have always been mean men about - but I don't understand what you mean here Jewely - can you explain it a bit more fully?

Btw Jewely - why did u change ur name to Pied Piper?

CJ: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_off-field_incidents_involving_rugby_league_players

Hey Pynchme, I don’t know what I am talking about with the government laws being male… I am trying to understand what Whistler says.

I thought after asking about work places dictating behaviors that yeah it must be a common thing. Must be a bit of a shock to the NRL players as society grows up a bit and doesn’t want them acting like thugs when out and about.

The mean woman comment was about the news article how women are becoming more violent as far as increasing cases where the woman are being charged for domestic violence. I was wondering if it always had been present but that only recently the men were speaking up.

I stupidly changed my name after DOCS implied I should not be so obvious. It is also seemed to reflect my volunteer work. Within me leaving one post I think four different people had said “Hi Jewely”. Funny, and Belly was like “Hi Julie”. I sort of sat here grinning and wondering why on earth I had thought a name change would alter how I write and or make me less bleaty.

What a bunch of lightweight, obsessive pissants. In 2 days I've not posted, yet almost every post is about little old me.

Trying to have a discussion on this site is like trying to fly a kite downwind from the sewerage plant - it can be done but it takes a strong stomach.

The Federal Office for Women funds the following organisations with "leadership and development" grants:
UNIFEM Australia
Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
Multicultural Centre for Women's Health
Young Women's Christian Association
Australian Federation of Medical Women
Muslim Women's National Network of Australia
UNIFEM Australia
Australian Breastfeeding Association
International Women's Development Agency
Older Women's Network
The Maternity Coalition
Australasian Council of Women and Policing
Young Women's Christian Association
Women in Adult Vocational Education
National Council for Single Mothers and Their Children
Girl Guides Australia
Women in Adult Vocational Education
Women's Services Network
Fitted for Work
National Council of Women of Australia
Australian Women in Agriculture
Australian Local Government Women's Association
Australian Women in Information Technology and Science Entity
Australian Womensport and Recreation Association
The Association of Women Educators
The same department also funds 4 "National Women's Alliances":
Security4Women
WomenSpeak Network
Australian Women’s Coalition
National Rural Women's Coalition
comprising the following:
Association of Professional Engineers, Scientists and Managers Australia
Association of Women Educators
Australian Federation of University Women
Business and Professional Women Australia
International Women's Federation of Commerce and Industry
National Association of Women in Construction
National Foundation of Australian Women
Northern Territory Working Women's Centre
Queensland Working Women's Service
South Australia Working Women's Centre
VIEW Clubs of Australia
WALTJA Aboriginal Community Association
Women in Adult and Vocational Education
Women with Disabilities Australia
Women in Mortgage Broking Network
Women 's Information and Referral
Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement of South Australia
Amnesty International Australia National Women's Rights Team
Australasian Council of Women and Policing
Australian Baha’i Community – Office of Equality
Australian Council for International Development Gender Equity Working Group
Australian Federation of Medical Women
Australian Federation of University Women
Australian Reproductive Health Alliance
Australian Women's Health Network
Body Image and Eating Disorders Network of South Australia
Catholic Women’s League of Australia
Children by Choice
Guides Australia
Immigrant Women's Speakout Association NSW
International Women’s Development Agency
Migrant Women’s Lobby Group of South Australia
Multicultural Women's Advocacy ACT
National Association of Services Against Sexual Violence
National Council of Churches of Australia Gender Commission
National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children

cont:/

National Foundation for Australian Women
National Liaison Committee for International Students in Australia – Women’s Department
National Union of Students (Women’s Department)
Project Respect
Public Health Association of Australia (Women’s Special Interest Group)
Soroptimist International
UNIFEM Australia
Union of Australian Women
United Nations Association of Australia Status of Women Network
Unity of Ethiopians in WA Inc
Victorian Immigrant and Refugee Women’s Coalition
Women With Disabilities Australia
Women’s Economic Think Tank
Women’s Electoral Lobby
Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom
Working Against Sexual Harassment
YWCA Australia
Australian Church Women
Australian Federation of Medical Women
Australian Bosnian Women’s Cultural Association
Australian Local Government Women’s Association
Catholic Women's League Australia
Council of the Ageing National Seniors Partnership Ltd
Mothers' Union (Australia)
Guides Australia
National Council of Jewish Women of Australia
National Council of Women of Australia
Pan Pacific and South East Asia Women's Association of Australia
Salvation Army (Women)
Soroptimist International
United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM) Australia
Zonta International - District 23 and 24
Muslim Women's National Network of Australia
Aboriginal Legal Rights Movement Inc
Conflict Resolving Women's Network Australia Inc
Australian Local Government Women's Association Inc
Australian Women in Agriculture
Country Women's Association of Australia (CWAA)
Foundation for Australian Agricultural Women
Indigenous Rural Woman Representative
National Rural Health Alliance
Rural Doctors Association of Australia - Female Doctors' Group
Women's Industry Network Seafood Community
The keen-eyed observer will note that several organisations appear more than once because they belong to more than one “alliance”.

I will post lists of organisations receiving funding from State governments as I compile them.

I invite others to compile their own list of men's organisations that receive government funding.

1. the Parliament of Australia
is a men's organisation that receives government funding.

Antiwomen thinks he's now "got us by the balls". Yep folks, he's written a list of organisations that get help to train his hated "women" in leadership and development roles. He "thinks" everyone will now be SHOCKED, and finally realise that he and his Men's Collective over at the Dads On Air website know exactly the place that women should occupy in society.

Everybody with a brain (therefore that excludes Antiwomen and his Men's Collective over at Dads On The Air), knows we could name the 99% of major corporations within Australia, the list would be thousands upon thousands long and dwarf his above tiny list. Those thousands of major companies have had for decades "MALE" dominated boards. These organisations have received a plethora of Government help and assistance, financial and/or legislative. Members of these MALE dominated boards have had their careers boosted as a result and many of them, at least until the financial crisis hit us, enjoyed ever increasing MEGA MILLION DOLLAR REWARDS.

And here we have poor old Antiwomen COMPLAINING that women, who have traditionally had stern, gender based barriers to overcome, are getting help with "leadership and development".

Gee, what a COMPLETE W A N K E R is Antiwomen!

He, and his Men's Collective would feel right at home in good Ol' Saudi Arabia.

^5 Whistler and Master :)

Antiseptic: If there is a cause that requires funding then apply for a grant - make a case by showing the need or the expected gain.

In just one Google: funding for Dads in Distress ($210,780 and $274,560); Life Skills for Blokes - Toormina NSW ($78,957); Young Fathers' Program - Penrith NSW ($77,741); Men and Family Centre ($300,000) to deliver parenting and support programs aimed primarily at fathers in the Lismore region; Building Healthy Men Project - Wollongong ($57,220); Men's Shed "Great Mates" Project - Jervis Bay/Bay & Basin ($140,394); Fella's Family Project - Ballina ($146,300).

FAHCSIA has been providing community program funding specific to males for about 20 years I think (read somewhere).

http://www.fahcsia.gov.au/sa/communities/funding/localanswers/pages/r5_nsw_description.aspx

SAAP services provide for homeless people regardless of sex, but many services are provided for families and children and are therefore non-sex specific. The Salvos, Uniting Church, Catholic Church, Anglicare, St. Vincent de Paul's, Relationships Australia; local neighbourhood centres and so on - all provide services to all citizens. Some social welfare funding specific to men includes that provided for men's support, education or activity groups like Mens Sheds and others tailored to various relationship and addiction issues.

All mainstream government services are accessible by anyone, while some are specific to mens needs, such as the Pitstop Program; Rural networks and drought counsellors and such. Many may be listed on Beyond Blue.

There are conditions that are experienced more by one sex or another -like brain injury - males use more of the allocated resource. For example about 3/4 (that would be about 300,000 I think) - of people using brain injury health services are male.

Funding is also provided to Mensline:
http://www.menslineaus.org.au/
http://www.newcastle.edu.au/centre/fac/efp/index.html

This site seems to have a positive approach:

http://www.mfrn.net.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=12&Itemid=37

This whole thing is too silly to go on about. Your interest is in promoting the Menz myths of victimization and finding extra information might upset your preferred belief mightn't it

Oh and an afterthought.

Government funding is als provided to NRL and the like through one avenue or another such as the Dept. of Sport and Rec.

<" The timing of the binge drinking was particularly sensitive for embarrassed league heavies as they moved along the wooden corridors of Parliament House seeking up to $20 million - after already committing to a Federal Government campaign for responsible drinking. The new funds are being sought to build a central administration office for the game in Sydney, allowing the co-ordination of community initiatives such as the indigenous program, One Community and a partnership using the code to promote health messages in Papua New Guinea.">

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/binges-threaten-nrl-funding-pitch/2009/03/18/1237054905839.html

NT Govt - 50,000:
http://newsroom.nt.gov.au/index.cfm?fuseaction=printRelease&ID=5135

Qld:
http://statements.cabinet.qld.gov.au/MMS/StatementDisplaySingle.aspx?id=64544

http://www.leichhardt.nsw.gov.au/Tackling-Water-Saving-project.html

<"After seven years campaigning, Mackay and District Rugby League Chairman, Greg Sutherland, is thrilled to have an eight million dollar grant from the 2008 Budget to upgrade Mackay's stadium facilities.

The grant will be used to enhance the present Junior League site into a facility capable of holding national events, such as away NRL games, as well as a variety of entertainment, social and cultural events.">

http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2008/05/15/2246093.htm

2007: <"The Government will also provide $9.6 million to the Cronulla Leagues Club for an upgrade of Toyota Park—the home ground of the National Rugby League team the Cronulla Sharks.">

http://www.minister.dcita.gov.au/kemp/media/media_releases/funding_for_community_sporting_facilities2

Anyway just Google...

Now I wonder how funding for footy can be hammered into some sort of feminist conspiracy theory....

Pynchme, the grants whose recipients I listed are purely for the promotion of women in leadership roles. They are not "special purpose" grants, such as the ones you mentioned. They are also in adition to the funding each of those organisations listed may receive to perform what they claim to be their core function.

Dads in Distress was forced to make all sorts of disclaimers of political activism in order to receive their operating grant, while the organisations I listed receive money specifically for that purpose. I have no knowledge of the other groups you mention, but having looked into the formation of a "men's shed" here in Brisbane, I know that there is no room for an activist role within the funding guidelines.

Please feel free to post your list of men's organisations that receive such funding.

At present, women outnumber men in professional roles, with 52.6% of all professionals being women, while almost all trades and semi-skilled positions are filled by men.
At present, there are in excess of 90,000 more women than men at Uni.
At present, 30% of all hospitalisations due to DV in NSW (and elsewhere, no doubt) are caused by female perpetrators.
At present, boys are being severely disadvantaged by an education system that favours girls and is dominated by women at every level, many of whom belong to AWE, an organisation listed above.
At present, almost all workplace fatalities involve a male victim.
At present, men are twice as likely as women to experience violence as a victim.
At present, if a man is discriminated against by an employer or any other organisation there is no mechanism for him to seek redress.
At present, there is a Minister devoted to the promotion of women's interests in every State and Federally.
At present, there is not one Minister charged with looking after men's interests.

Feminist doctrine has created a runaway train, with the accelerator pressed to the floor and no brake. There will be a crash.

Sock-puppet:"antiseptic antiseptic antiseptic dude(sic)"

Yes dear, so you said. Rejection is so hurtful isn't it?

Dear Antiseptic - you ARE a simpleton. You're like a chubb at a lifelong feast who bitches and moans that someone at a soup kitchen is getting free soup.

The groups you listed are not political activist groups - but even if they were so bloody what.

All groups have to meet certain funding guidelines.

If you have any evidence for your assertions put it out for consideration otherwise I'll consider the things you're stating as just more woman-hating waffle.

<< Mini-tornado wreaks havoc at football game in South Australia.

A MINI-tornado has wreaked havoc on a suburban Aussie rules football ground in South Australia, pelting players with debris as it picked up cars and tore apart buildings >>

http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25766348-5006301,00.html

Another feminist plot!

“Another feminist plot!”

Worse aye CJ, now they’ve upset God and she was probably already annoyed with them.

Those lists were interesting, I had no idea there were so many groups for women. Whistlers list of one pretty much said it all.

Anti, in what way are boys being disadvantaged at school? School teachers have often been predominantly women, like nurses – the more caring professions. But they usually become teachers because they like all kids not just girls.

I don’t want to see men disadvantaged but I cannot see why women supporting women and out numbering men at uni or in the workplace after hundreds of years is a concern

2. the High Court of Australia
is a men's organisation that receives government funding.

like the Parliament with men's legislatures only,
as mandated by the Constitution,
the High Court has a men's jurisdiction only.
there is no women's legislature
and there is no women's jurisdiction at law,
inequity a Republic of Australia can remedy.

Hey, PP,

Did you read Pynchme's links to xy? I know you're pressed for time but, if nothing else, reading the first one might help you understand why posing questions to people like Antiseptic, JamesH, Vanna etc. is simply extending their reach, as it were.

Actually, I think that document should be required reading to anyone who is ever tempted to engage with them! Though, yeah, we all give in to temptation at times, huh?

Responding simply allows them another platform to distribute disinformation. Remember the oft repeated maxim that there are more Lurkers (people who read but don't contribute to discussion) than posters? Every time we respond, it allows more opportunity for repetition of the rhetoric of the organisations Anti & Co support.

Master's discovery of where most of their posts come from has, over the time I've been on OLO, been publicised by different people many times here. But, as old posters drop off and new ones arrive the message gets lost.

Its not that Anti & Co.always cut and paste from these sites: they are so steeped in the rhetoric ( "feminazi" "misandry" – which aren’t even legitimate words -; women's take-over of acadaemia; men's suiciding at figures ranging for 3 to 5 per day as a result of living in a feminized world; more women than men causing DV; boys doing poorly at school due to women usurping power; yada, yada, yada) that, like a communist manifesto, they are inculcated with these same tropes and repeat them incessantly. Which is kinda scary.

People who read these threads, therefore, see this same misinformation being repeated time and time again and, eventually, come to think there "must be something in it". Look at the length of all the Antiseptic threads for example: how many opportunities for constant repetition by him and his supporters of the same misinformation do they provide?

Which allows me to segue seamlessly into your query re media. Yep. It’s the same all over and works on the same principal: - repeat something often enough, confidently enough, and people will begin to accept it unquestioningly

Thanks Pynchme for those first 2 posts on the previous page. You have eloquently demolished Antiwomen's anti women agenda.

He's now "trying", over the last several pages, to launch into "another" generalised anti women attack, after he was thoroughly discredited regarding his ridiculous NRL/Channel 9 management conspiracy theory.

The desperate neanderthal basically wants his men vs women agenda to get attention.

It's all about his obsessive agenda for him. Just look at the past 50 or more posts from him in his "history" here. Virtually all of them, with only several exceptions, are concerned about ONE THING - - -

His ANTI WOMEN AGENDA. He suffers from obsession.

Keep in mind people, Antiwomen will NEVER admit he's wrong and never give an inch - - - - that's of course a weakness and a sign of immaturity. He's so obsessed with his agenda and self righteousness. God help his poor daughter.

Romany, your post makes a lot of sense. I never thought of it that way, but upon reflection I can see that simply by responding to the misogynist's posts I am giving him a platform to REPEAT and REPEAT and REPEAT and REPEAT his agenda.

Maybe we should just simply let the misogynist have his much desired "last word" and then never respond.

“Did you read Pynchme's links to xy?”

Hello Romany, I read through some links but not sure what the xy one was? I read some of that dad site, wow.

I get what you’re saying though, I am on some sites where they have created some amazing stories and then fed them back and forth until it all becomes fact and never questioned. I think it might be some weird human trait, if a person is treated badly or unfairly they have to turn the situation in to something big, scary and most of all “organized” so that their ego copes better with the defeat.

They get very cross with anyone suggesting what they believe is incorrect or even the suggestion that it wasn’t personal.

Seems they cannot clearly see any individuals either but always a collective out to get them.

But in Anti’s case… is he believing that half the world’s population is out to get the other half? Is Master correct that it is an obsession with Anti?

I remember my mum coming up with an absolute gem once, something about how a kid being left handed is about bad parenting, apparently the bad parent didn’t place the child’s first spoon in the right hand. We had a chat about this; she was amazed that she had not questioned this belief in about 50 years of first hearing it. I am scared of being like that and plan to annoy everyone forever with questions!

So what about a government funded newspaper, no adverts – or is that just as bad, been done before and not worked?

Claims about how many powerful people are male are accurate but ignore an important issue. You might want to consider which men are rewarded with these jobs and what qualities got them there. The very qualities that make some men so irritating are the very qualities that get people promoted in many fields of our society. The one gem of truth in Antiseptic's original claim is that skill at playing football is more highly rewarded than many more useful abilities, though it won't get people right to the top of the corporate ladder.

A discussion about how to change this would have been more useful than the spiteful sniping that this thread has produced. If we really want these particular blokes to change, then society needs to ensure that they stop getting the good jobs, the adulation, the women, the money etcetera. These blokes are-not as stupid as you think they are.

The Dads on the Air site seems OK to me.

Seems a lot think as Antiseptic.

Antiseptic has referred to it in Online Opinion, and finding him is simply a case of typing antiseptic+CSA in google. Any feminist Journalist could do it. Hardly a NewsFlash Master, unless of course it does represent unusually great scholarship on your part.

The only substantive contact many men have with "feminism" is the shitfight they get from legal aid lawyers the day after their wife leaves and the iron fist in the iron glove of the Child Support Agency ensuring they can't pay a lawyer to fight back. Their enforced separation from their kids often hingeing on the sort of evidence-free DVO's (and AVO's fer gawds' sake) that Anti consistently objects to. If the CSA could interpret their own hallowed formula and were competant in standard business accounting, you may *never* have heard of him.

The Child Support Agency objected to Antiseptic and tried to shut Dads on the Air down, wholus bolus, a few months ago. When directed to Antiseptic personally, they nicked off. Courage of conviction, perhaps?

I believe that a minute percentage of men are ever physically violent or in any way seriously threaten violence to women. The vast majority of us deeply and with appropriate anger, resent being treated by uninvolved public servants as if we "may be". I believe that only a sad and smaller number are genuinely capable of harming children. The rest of us deeply resent laws and police actions that assume we are on the verge of doing so, ignoring that women can and do. Duluth Model SUX.

I further believe that a substantial majority of women like blokes children and family, and recognise that the single greatest ally they have in raising their kids is their husband. Above government and do-gooder "help", even if divorced, I believe he usually does near enough the right thing for the kids, and women know it. I would prefer my taxes directly help the families of those who don't, rather than be misused to employ the CSA to intimidate.

I believe that "feminism" does as near as nothing for functional females as years of training and effort and post-modern spin can manage, rather than recognising their choice as valid. Instead, it supports the dysfunctional few who, unable to negotiate any kind of (even separated) arrangement with men, attempt to dominate their arrangements in a way that is a sad caricature of the worst, not the best, of male practice. I don't think that *these* are the women I want in positions of responsibility. Or even in the gene pool.

Professionally and otherwise seriously (lawyer, nurse, ambo, first-aid trainer, occasionally academic) employed females with families that I know almost unanimously report that the single worst class of manager/roster-officer/postgrad-supervisor etc they have ever had is "childless career (only) women". Why? men will retreat before "womens business" but the dead-end feminist thinks she knows it all. She means to be boss, with a capital, of her workplace and *your* family. The least "female" females are held up as examples to others. "feminists" know better than females. I laugh to scorn.

We encounter that type a lot at the CSA, they make determinations (estimates) immediately, without calculations or notes (even accountants makes notes, even petty cash vouchers have to be explained in real business, why can't a contractor CSO?) about more of your earnings than the taxman, and cannot add up (COAT team can't even add up in excel). She does so despite clear and just objections, yet She leaves at a dead run at sight of a tape recorder (courage of her convictions, perhaps?). She is the product of "feminist" sociology courses which would rather spiral dive into irrelevancy than address the real needs of the majority of women who involve men substantially in their lives, who recognise that men are critically necessary for both the existence and health of children, regardless of difficulty in living together.

Is it true that the office of "National Compliance Manager" is colloquially known as the "departure Lounge" in memory of a recent Queensland Registrar demoted to the role? ("fear our call" indeed).

Rustopher.

3. the Parliaments and Courts of the States and Territories
are men's organisations in receipt of government funding.

no women's legislature or jurisdiction at law.
women admitted to men's legislatures under male supervision only.
by authority of the Parliament
the Child Support Agency is a men's organisation.

benk,
women and men have exactly the same corporate skills
should Parliament require corporations to manage their business
by agreement between women's and men's committees.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/cocksure-hens-can-rule-the-roost-20090710-dfz5.html?skin=text-only
also, men who fail to provide a dependent spouse with a regular income
'regardless of difficulty in living together'
should not be surprised to encounter a legal aid lawyer, thankfully.

And thus, Rusty Catheter makes the million-and-1th argument on an assumption that all women are either naturally stupid or militantly feminist. After all, I'm sure men never "make determinations (estimates) immediately, without calculations or notes".

When a man is incompetent, it's his own fault. But when a woman is, it's not only the fault of feminism, but probably a conspiracy of the International Sisterhood.

Why are so many men frightened of women? It's passing bizarre.

Just to confirm, Rusty, you're divorced, yes?

Jewelly - the links below might contain the one to which Romany referred (is it one of these Ro?)

http://www.xyonline.net/index.shtml
http://www.xyonline.net/downloads/backlash.pdf

I get what you're saying Romany and I agree except for some additional thoughts:

1. The Menz take every opportunity to splatter their misinformation everywhere even when we don't try to engage. If we don't counter it then people don't have the opportunity to consider accurate informatio unless they bother to check for themselves.

2. I think that men who are hurting are especially vulnerable to being exploited and misled by the Menz agenda.

3. One of the really good things to have happened here is that other men are pointing out that they have no trouble getting along with women (including feminists). Some men will only take notice of other men.

4. I am always reluctant to really give up on anyone - I can't help but have hope.

Whistler - that was a beaut link - most interesting. Thanks.

Sancho - g'day :) I am going to try to not to make the Pancho typo again. Forgive me if in my haste I muck that up again.

Jewelly - I'll have to look at that article again but there are roughly 30,000 DV events to which police respond each year. The article that was mentioned referred to an increase in DV by women from under 1,000 to about 2,000 or something. I don't know if men are speaking up more or not or if their experience is comparable to that of battered women. However, men are more in danger from other men (at a rate of about 40,000 violent incidents a year) - but while men are more likely to get a thumping from a stranger; women are more likely to get a thumping in their own homes and from someone who is supposed to care for them. Also, about 1/2 of homicides of women occur in the context of DV.

Some information on DV and AVOs and the like:

http://www.ncoss.org.au/bookshelf/election2003/DVKitElection2003.pdf

Pynch

Sancho - yes I find it bizarre too.

One of the things that I often wonder about is whether the men who use sites like Dads on the Air ever ask themselves how it is that their partners wanted so desperately to get away from them.

They blame feminism - I guess for making it legally possible?

If it hadn't been legally possible, would those women have been any happier with these sorts of fellows ? (No - then what? They're happy to have someone living with them who doesn't want to be there? That's pretty sad.)

I haven't read all the posts but of what I have read, I've never seen any fellows on that site acknowledge that they had anything to do with why their former partners wanted to leave. No talk of how they might improve things.

sancho:"After all, I'm sure men never "make determinations (estimates) immediately, without calculations or notes"."

For the less dimwitted, the situation the Rusty Catheter describes is institutionalised within the CSA. I got a letter from the Regional Registrar, who was the top CSA officer in Qld, telling me that no notes need be kept, since "the officer makes the decision on the spot". She also told me that was why I couldn't make a complaint against that person for misconduct - since she kept no notes, no evidence was available. Does anyone think that's reasonable? On what grounds?

For the record, that Regional Registrar (Angela Tillmanns) was demoted from her position not long after I registered an official complaint about that letter and about the process that had lead to it. She is now no longer with the CSA and I have never been pursued by the CSA for the amount I dispute, despite inviting them to prosecute on at least 4 occasions.

As Rusty also said, the CSA tried to force the owners of the DOTA website to remove material i posted in regard to that matter, but desisted when I posted an open invitation for them and the people I named as either incompetent or corrupt to pursue me personally for defamation. They have never tried to do so, since truth is a defence. One of those people, Nigel Harden, is a male, sancho will be pleased to note.

The CSA is one of the most egregious examples of a Feminist doctrinal creation having gone wrong. It has been the same failure in every country that has tried it, so why do we continue with it? Of course, the answer is that it gives women an enormously powerful weapon to use against men during a divorce. It is much harder to pursue a legal matter if the CSA has garnished your bank account or your wages to the point of bare subsistence, while legal aid funding is denied because your gross wages are too high.

While the issue of parental support of estranged children is a serious one and no one, as far as I know, has seriously tried to argue that children should not be supported by both parents, the problem is that at a time when a situation is in flux - immediately post-separation - the CSA intervening can only act to exacerbate a fraught situation.

While the Howard Govt changes to the CS Acts and the FL Act did help to improve matters by allowing a recently separated parent to claim the costs of reestablishment away from the former family home and there have been significant reforms within the CSA, it remains a deeply flawed organisation. One of the principal reasons is that staff bonuses are linked to collections from paying parents, creating an obvious conflict of interest for those staff.

Pynchme, Michael Flood is hardly an authoritative source. He has derived his income entirely from professing "Feminism" for years and as such, anything he writes is entirely self-serving and hence irrelevant. It is also factually inaccurate and presents little but straw-men for Flood to tear down, thus demonstrating wht a good Feminist he is. I look forward to his marriage breaking down to show how deeply he holds his oft-expressed apologetics.

As for misinformation, I invite you to demonstrate what "misinformation" I have posted. The reason you and the rest of the conga-line dislike antiseptic so much is that I point out each time you "tell lies for women" and that means you have to think, which, let's face it, you're not much good at.

All I get in return is a constant stream of "antiseptic's divorced so he hates women", thus proving you don't need brains to post online.

pynchme:"The article that was mentioned referred to an increase in DV by women from under 1,000 to about 2,000 or something."

That was hospitalisations due to DV, not assaults and the total is only about 6000, meaning women commit about a third of serious DV. They also commit nearly 50% of assaults on children.

Glad to have ckleared that up.

pynchme:"I haven't read all the posts but of what I have read, I've never seen any fellows on that site acknowledge that they had anything to do with why their former partners wanted to leave."

And why should they? No-fault divorce has been a feature of Australian Family Law for 30 years. It's intersting that you should make that criticism, though, since if you genuinely believe it, you must also believe that "victims" in DV situations have to bear some responsiblility for contributing to that violence. At last it seems we're getting somewhere...

The DOTA site is for fathers who are having trouble getting access to their children. It is not about the divorce process, nor is it about former partners except insofar as they interfere with the rights of fathers to see their children. There is a lot of advice on how to proceed in custody matters and of course, DVOS, which are part and parcel of a disputed custody matter. There is much about the excesses of the CSA. There are some men who go to vent about their matters and there are some nutters, just as there are nutters everywhere. Under the intolerable strain of fighting the State for what should be a basic right - that of having a role in the life of your offspring - some men crack, adding to the already vastly greater number of male suicides. DOTA and DIDs and some of the other organisations you mentioned have undoubtedly saved some who might hve gone that way. I'm proud of that.

BTW, which of the organisations I listed as beneficiaries of funds for feminist activism do you belong to? A little disclosure of your interests would seem to be in order...

I had to go look up what the CSA was and clicked that I should have known. Personally never had a payment from them, they wouldn’t pursue what was owed by my ex and neither would Child Support in NZ.

Anti can you tell me if it is the amount or the process that you are against?

I don’t like to interfere too much with peoples chosen faith but you believe females are out to get all males, young and old? Then what?

I do see clearly that while all you grownups bicker the children are again forgotten. Like any case of DV, neither party have made the children a priority, maybe they lack the clarity through whatever reason to do so.

The victims are the children.

4. the Offices of Governor and Governor-General
are men's organisations in receipt of government funding.

the origins of monarchy
lie with the supression of women's business.
women reign and represent monarchs
when monarchs act largely
on the advice of men's legislatures.

Pynchme, i had to pinch myself
when you mentioned Xy!
i've scrambled to my files
and found a wad of hard copies of the Xy Magazine
from when i was a subscriber in the early 1990's.
it's great to read
such a distinguished and disciplined academic
as Dr Michael Flood again!

isn't it marvelous how men's legislatures
can set up a men's organisation
like the Child Support Agency
which drives some men to distraction.
bit like the army ... or perhaps the Foreign Legion
to exercise discipline and restore normality
to men with a control-freak complex
manifested as a broken heart.

TPP:"you believe females are out to get all males, young and old?"

Nope. I have never said that and I don't believe it. It's entirely an attempt by a couple of the less intellectually-gifted posters to "poison the well" in respect of my views.

I have said, quite clearly and quite often that I believe that Feminism has been corrupted by a few self-servers into a means of giving themselves a protected earning source and that they use their constant claims of "victimisation" and "discrimination" to try to stop any questioning of their motives. After all, they're "doing it for the kids" or "helping battered women" or "couselling rape victims" - they're never "featherbedding" or "empire-building"...

In the world-view of those people men are always perpetrators; man-as-victim-of-woman is not to be discussed. That view has lead to such horrid debasements of due process as the Duluth model of DV intervention that mandates removal of the male, regardless of the facts of a situation, as well as the ridiculous level of government funding support for Feminist activism I pointed out earlier.

It is responsible for a rush of sociologists producing "research" that "confirms" the dominant feminist paradigm by ignoring anything anomalous. It has lead to a situation in which men's organisations can only receive funding by agreeing to uphold Feminist doctrine.

It is a pernicious doctrine that has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with getting a free ride.

I still don't hate women...

TPP:"I do see clearly that while all you grownups bicker the children are again forgotten"

Rubbish. If you read the DOTA site and the DIDs forum you'll see that the biggest source of anger and frustration among fathers is being deprived of time with their kids because the mother wants to remain entitled to government handouts. After my own matter was resolved, my ex suddenly got herself a job, because she was no longer entitled to as much from the State. Up to then, she'd steadfastly managed to avoid paid work in favour of going to uni for the extra pension money she got.

5. the Commonwealth of Australia
is a men's organisation in receipt of government funding.

enacted by a parliament
from which women were prohibited.

the men's organisation,
the Child Support Agency
has brought vigilance, propriety and bravery
to the task of bringing
the most belligerent of shirkers
kicking and screaming to men's justice.

“Rubbish. If you read the DOTA site and the DIDs forum you'll see that the biggest source of anger and frustration among fathers is being deprived of time with their kids because the mother wants to remain entitled to government handouts.”

Oh Anti, what happened there you were doing so well then snapped at me? I haven’t read the site, more glanced at them. Read a thread about breastfeeding of all things – just caught my eye. You are talking overnight time with the kids? Is this what affects payments?

Your ex went to uni and then got a job but you believe the motivation was different and directly related to child support? Are you rich? How much did she get off you? Did she spend it on the kids?

My husband may feel the same way; I take all his money and stay at home refusing to go to work.

Everyone knows it is not always the male that is the perpetrator and that it would be much better if every case was not treated on any model but the reality is that it has to be. Not enough man hours to sort each situation in individual ways. Don’t know if who is removed in what situation is related to income later though?

Have we moved from money to the question of custody?

Hey, I still don’t hate men... but Whistler may be on to something and maybe you should.

whistler, "the Commonwealth of Australia
is a men's organisation in receipt of government funding.
enacted by a parliament
from which women were prohibited."

If that is the case there are many women in the federal House of Representatives and Senate who are there on false pretences.

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/41/womennow.htm

From the policies and behaviour of women in Parliament they rarely stand out different to the men and they seem to have the same faults. It is the same too with women who are in senior positions in public or private organisations, they seem to be blessed (some may want to question that) with the same personal ambition, have the same skill-set and employ similar dark arts to get there ahead of others of equal or superior ability. Maybe that is something to celebrate, ie., the lack of difference, when it was previously touted that women would act vastly differently when they became senior executives and politicians.

Balance in numbers is pie in the sky as long as many women find meaning, achievement and reward in other pursuits and that is their choice after all. It is a pity that "the women's movement is solely about the minority of women (between 10 and 30 per cent) (who) are work-centred, giving priority to employment, while a similar proportion are home-centred, with their priorities centred on their children and preferring not to work."
Hakin Works on Fertile Ground, The Age, Feb 7, 2003
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/02/06/1044498913134.html

2//

2/

Referring to the list given by Antiseptic (there is no harm in calling respondents by their correct names) earlier, the problem isn't that there could be a lot of funding being directed to women's organisations, but so little of that funding and representation is for women who are other than work and career centered.

It doesn't take much to see how little the women's movement cares about (say) creating more family friendly transport, medical centres, localities and cities for women who choose paths in life other than career. It will be a long day too before the women's movement gives a hoot about older people, especially pensioners who are mainly women.

A women's legislature? Bah, phooey, who says it will be any different if the careerist women (as opposed to the careerist men) are in-house? More designer threads, BMWs, restaurants and travel for the few and the majority can eat cake. So where is the practical difference?

I understand, A-septic you have really been given the run around by everyone from your conniving ex(?) wife to all those low-life drones at the CSA. I don't don't why you bother with CSA officers, it is not like they have any real power to change anything, they can only do as much as government policies will permit.

I suggest you aim at the top and forget about those low-level workers, start with Chris Bowen, HE is the Minister for Human Services, the policies and procedures are finalised at HIS office; HE gives the final approval to any changes.

You may contact HIM at:

Mr Chris Bowen
Electorate Office
115 The Crescent
Fairfield NSW 2165
Australia

Telephone: 02 9726 4100

Facsimile: 02 9724 6115

Email: chris.bowen.mp@aph.gov.au

Parliament House
M1/24
Canberra ACT 2600
Australia

Telephone: (02) 6277 7200

Facsimile: (02) 6273 4125

Email: chris.bowen.mp@aph.gov.au

While you're at it, why not air your grievances to the CEO of Centrelink, Finn Pratt. You could ask HIM to investigate your conniving wife's claims for benefits and assistance.

HE looks like a decent bloke, check HIM out here:

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/about_us/ceo.htm

I am sure that you feel much better knowing MEN hold the final responsibility in the welfare and human services sector.

And is it only 50% of women who abuse kids? If women are as violent as you claim, I have to question why the statistic isn't higher given that women still have the greater share in caring for children?

Also if women are so violent why don't we see more homicides, bashings and general mayhem committed by women - are they only violent in the privacy of their own homes? Amazing, unlike men, women can control their aggression outside the home but not in it. Whereas, men, it seems, have difficulty controlling their anger anywhere - as Pynchme has noted:

<< men are more in danger from other men (at a rate of about 40,000 violent incidents a year)>>

Well, A-septic, now you know who to complain to, I wish you all the best.

People, really! It's simply pointless addressing the rubbish Antiwomen writes. It merely gives him the opportunity to type POST after POST after POST of his dogmatic anti women, and "never" anti male, beliefs and assumptions.

You're giving him the opportunity he seeks!

He will NEVER admit he's mixed up and lost.

He's already been thoroughly discredited, and he belittles himself through his ridiculous language which is clearly steeped in "dogma" borrowed from his "menz collectives".

Please just ignore him. Only a mere handful of people are engaging him on this topic, and the thousands of other members are ignoring him. I now feel that that's the best way to go - - - - just ignore the misogynist.

- - - - - regardless of what he writes. Let him get his much needed "last word" in, then totally ignore him. Talk, discuss and debate amongst yourselves if you wish, but without reference to the misogynist.

Master

You should take your own advice, preferably after familiarising yourself with OLO rules.

Antiseptic:

The figures to which I refer were from the article YOU posted. The article said:

<"Shocking figures have revealed that the number of women who have been charged with domestic violence-related assault has soared by 159 per cent over the past eight years.

The figures, from the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics, show 2336 women faced court on charges of domestic violence in 2007, mainly for bashing their husbands, compared with just 818 in 1999.">

So it was't referring to hospitalizations at all, and your hysteria is just another example of the 'misinformation' (lies) that you and your cohorts spread about; including your lies about women abusing children. (Fractelle your response is great :) no need for me to elaborate further on that one).

You're quoted below along with the pages on which the references can be found:

"The media-grrls are now dominant in everything except "hard news" and finance journalism and they are going to want to flex their muscle to help their "sisters" in all those entitlement-based groups.

Just as an example, try to find this story anywhere in the on-line press as a clickable link

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/comments/0,,25669606-23272,00.html

(p. 15)

The same sites that have buried that story about the massively escalating violence being perpetrated by women against their male partners have much older, (p.16)"

Btw - I have no connection with any organizations that you listed, as far as I can see. I have no special interest (not that it's any of your biz), unlike yourself.

Anyway, PP; Fractelle, Romany, CJ; Whistler, pppp - Sancho, :); Master - I am taking Romany and Master's advice and going to get on with what I should be doing elsewhere instead of providing that platform. Btw I have been so heartened to meet all you great blokes here - thank you!)

Okay Master. Help me instead. I am having two problems with a mixture of males and females.

1. DoCS will not go check on children if placed with an NGO, I have no understanding of why they will admit blame but refuse to be part of any solution. At this point I give up on the children being helped but I would like to understand why DoCS are scared of NGO's and I would dearly like to know who is going to help any child in the future placed with any NGO.

2. Being told a number of times that I am not blacklisted when the reality is that since I first complained about DoCS treatment of children they have not placed a single short term child with me.

It also appears I have been set up by being asked to take children for respite that they knew were too old and would not fit in my toddler beds and then stated we were the ones refusing children.

So do you think there is some time limit on this punishment or it's going to be permenant and I should let the children go that I have now and find something else to do with my life?

I have no idea what else I will do either.

Jewels, I would think the best way to clear up any misunderstandings would be for you to address your concerns, "in person" (definitely NOT by phone). One thing I've found when dealing with Govt. Departments is to NEVER, EVER take the word or opinion of "one" public servant. If you don't get satisfaction from a particular public servant, then seek to engage the next level in the relevant department, and it's important to do it "in person". The best way to "accurately" understand how govt. depts. work is to engage in "genuine" communication. Govt. Depts. are often terrible to deal with, but in my experience I've found that perseverance usually prevails. I've never dealt with DOCS so I can't offer help that's specific to DOCS.

But "genuine" communication is always the "key" to understanding.

Piper

What Master says .... and in writing - always keep a record. Also if the person you see isn't helpful, try again, chances are the next person will actually turn out to be human, there are some humans in a bureaucracy, you just have to be able to find them. Try going in the morning, if the officer on duty is an a-hole, then try again at lunch-time when some-one else may be rostered on.

And take some photos of the type of housing you are offering - photos of those little beds so that there is no excuse for sending you older children than you are able to manage. Just a thought.

Cheers

PS

Thanks Pynchme

Thanks Master and Fractelle. They know what they’re doing, I do keep everything written down. They also know me and my house really well on account of the number of kids I had right up until I complained. Dir-Gen and Reg-Dir have been in contact along with some other managers. My suspicion is denied while the reality is ignored.

I guess I was wondering if it was another cultural thing I missed, not with Aussie but within government departments. Thought someone here might know if it looks like something that is commonly done temporarily to teach the odd lesson or I should consider myself sacked in some strange volunteering way.

Whole thing is driving me nuts. I may have a wee online breakdown. It’s a slow week in General Discussion, I think OLO will cope.