Pelican:"I do like men, most women do including Suzeonline who is married to a man if I remember correctly. "

Ah Pelican, the fact that a woman is married doesn't mean she likes the bloke necessarily (or vice versa). Increasingly, as women leave it longer and longer to have kids, it may just mean he was the one "lucky" enough to knock her up as her biological clock started ticking loudly in her ears. You actually LIKE men, Suze sees us as a problem to be controlled.

Pelican:"you devalue my personal experiences and general character by casting me as just another of the great manipulated. "

And you fool yourself if you think you're not.

Pelican:"It is not propoganda that tugs that instinct it is because I am a woman"

And the propaganda is cleverly designed by women to pander to that. It's very good propaganda, no doubt. Every woman likes to think of herself as the golden princess, incapable of ever thinking a bad thought, inspiring a handsome prince to rescue her from the dragon that is trying to keep her captive.

Feminism has created the State in the form of that handsome prince and men in the image of the dragon. There is no room for man as handsome prince in this narrative, which has become the story of our times.

Pelican:"Some of the pro-men movements go too far "

I've not seen any "pro-men" movement. Perhaps you could give us some links?
Feminism is an out-of-control train, with the throttle tied dpown and the brake removed. Any process that has a strong positive feedback and no negative feedback is going to eventually fail catastophically. The feminist movement train is heading for a massive derailment, when all that is needed is to untie the throttle and find the brake lever.

If you were honest, as I once thought you were, you'd acknowledge that there needs to be balance and that such a thing is simply not possible in a feminist paradigm, since it is inherently one-sided and misandric.

James,

Stop blaming the victim:

'Sometimes there is an objective truth, and sometimes if someone gets uncomfortable due to something I’ve done, it’s not actually my fault.'

If a woman feels creeped out by you, then you are a creep. Stop blaming the victim. If a woman feels threatened by you, you are threatening. Full Stop.

'mainstream feminism is afraid of invalidating any woman’s experience'
I agree.

So, James, I validate your experience.

Good post that one.

It's time for men to start the love in, no matter how offensive it is to the feminists that hold the stage, and own the mic. We might be considered rude hecklers now, but maybe one day it will be acceptable to challenge the broad uncritical acceptance of everything feminists perceive men to be.

It occurred to me the other day that feminists and feminism is obsessed with men. Never do I see any feminist discussion about women and their motives, their failures, their frailties and the effect of their behaviour on others and in their relationships, and what makes women tick. Its all about men, why they're so evil and how that's so unfair to women. Feminism hasn't even started examining women as it's so wrapped up in men. There is very little in feminism that examines women, and certainly nothing about women independent to men.

Look at your average FSC article, they're all about men really, not women. They're akin to David Attenborough discussing lions and assigning motives to their behaviour. Blind stab in the dark stuff. It would be much more interesting and worthy if they went into detail about a woman's world and how she experiences it rather than make fallacious judgements about men from afar.

PS: I just love Mrs Houellebecq. Watched that footy chicks doco the other night and she agreed with the discussed double standards over 'sluts'. So I brought up 'what about creeps' and she said 'I suppose you're right, never thought of that'. Then she added 'only ugly men are considered creeps though'.

Well there are double standards all around us and if we are honest they exist for both men and women. Many ugly men know how to talk to a woman without being a creep - there really is a difference. Yes, there will be (usually younger) silly women who will titter at some poor guy's expense who may not actually be a 'creep' but will hold no interest for them.

No doubt, some people can be cruel but I have heard men titter over an ugly woman with the old bag over the head jokes and the "how many beers is that one" with the usual guffawing etc. It really does work both ways.

Why not ignore the nongs/creeps/silly girls/the gender haters - whatever - what they do does not have an impact unless you allow it. If you seek demonisation (women and men alike) you will probably find it, some of it will be real some imagined or exaggerated in a type of self-fulfilling phrophecy, but while you seek the demons you will miss the angels.

Pelican, what of the runaway train, whilst we're all watching for angels? Ah, now I see, the angels will save us all from a horrible wreck. Yet another fairy story...

Holly, that quote was from Clarrise Thorns website.

Interestingly she wrote; "And if we’re invested in honestly trying to get men’s viewpoints on what manliness means and how to be a man, then we have to prepare ourselves to get some answers that will unsettle us or even come off as unfeminist."
http://clarissethorn.wordpress.com/2009/12/09/manliness-and-feminism-the-followup/

Under risk analysis associated with OH&S, all steps involved in a process are examined. Typically workplace accidents are not the fault of one individual, but are part of a process. A systems failure.

Why then can we not apply the same analytical process of examination to the dynamics of human relationships?

Sure training and educating one part of the human dyad may in some instances reduce some of the incidencs for some of the issues, however it totally ignores the process of interaction and dynamics within the dyad.

Both overt and covert behaviours. Conscious and subconscious motivations.

Something like 70% of human communication is non-verbal, yet the majority of the focus is on the spoken or written word. Ignoring the non-verbal aspects of human communication, which also can be misinterpreted or misunderstood. Human communication is imperfect, in that it is open to misinterpretation, miscomprehension. This has been more than aptly been demonstrated in the past.

By using a systems approach analysis, would it then not be possible to look at all the process involved and then see at what stages of the human dyad interaction could intervention measures be applied more effectively.

A workplace example is the if I see water on the floor and ignore it and then later a person slips over. I have contributed to that workplace accident, similarly when admin cuts back and reduce staffing levels they also help contribute.

Workplace safety is the responsiblity of everyone, similar human safety is the responsibility of everyone, not just one part of the human dyad.