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.