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.