I think in the end anti, unless you're actually going to campaign or make positive action, you just have to let it go. Maybe you find it therapeutic, but you seem really unhappy. Like a kid saying life's not fair.

Sure it probably hasn't been fair to you, but the way I see it you're letting it continue to affect you.

Maybe you just like an argument, but you do seem fixated on some things. Hating is fun though. I think everyone needs something to hate. I used to hate The Rodent, but now I really miss those days. I used to hate feminism, but now I don't really care. I still like to indulge in some feminist social commentry, but it really just doesn't do it for me anymore. I laugh more often these days. Those zany feminists, what are they like! I used to hate Manly, but now I don't really care about the NRL. I call it six tackles kick. Rugby is much better.

I suppose you have to ask what your hate is really doing for you. Is it loving you right?

When you're really old, will you regret wasting so much emotional energy on all this feminism stuff?

Does it not worry you at all that you are basically a reverse-rad-fem? People steer away from people like that at the fashionable parties.

Still, it's nice to have an interest.

And I think hate keeps some people going. You know those old guys who come over to you at the pub and bang on about Nixon or something. Gotta admire a grudge that lasts that long. Can be entertaining for a little while while you're waiting for the guy who is supposed to shout the next drink to catch up.

you must like me...because i like you
though i long for the touch...and to touch
that touch...in lue of touch..hits far too hard..[hurts far too much]

we missing the basic things
the overwelming need to touch other
if not in loving way..then ever more hurtfull ways

guys fighting guys for girls..[to touch]
cant touch the girl..but my fist can touch ya face

its all about connecting with others
and govt has become so addept with us not touching
[not planning not sceming..not talking...work ya beast

subvert ya sex drive
into total loyalty to a concept
loyalty to the party..loyalty to the core..teram..country

subvert your sexuality into other uses..
no touching..do not touch...were missing the fact
that massage soothes the most savage beast..more hugs..less drugs

touch..but dont touch too hard
or too often..once a king allways a king
but once a k-night.,.is enough...[except to the needy or greedy]

one ya dont have
is one ya cant ever catch up

only make up

R0bert, the issue is very complex, I agree. What’s clear is that there is little to constrain women who are “driven by emotional hurt to take a swipe at their man.” as Pericles puts it so well, whilst men who defend themselves are severely limited in the range of responses they are expected to employ.

Pericles, I must say I thought you had more substance.

First, I have never expressed a wish to “be free to give your lady a whack” as you so charmingly put it. I have expressed concern that she should feel free to give me one.

Second, your argument as to physicality is ridiculous. Women are sufficiently physically capable to be accepted as front-line soldiers and as police. The idea of the “frail little woman” is so Victorian as to be laughable. I’m not a small man but I’ve known lots of women who are bigger. that's wiothout even considering the potential for escalation.

Third, if your argument as to the emotional response of women holds water, how on earth can we trust them to do anything requiring a dispassionate response? Apparently some women are quite capable of achieving high public and other office, including running banks and the country. Your generalisation is simply stereotyping and rather insulting to women.

Fourth, I already know it’s “how it is”, I was speculating as to the possible reasons for it and the implications of that. Besides, “that’s how it is” is not actually a supporting argument at all, it’s just circularity.

Houellebecq, escalation as a factor is simply never mentioned by the DV industry. That was one of the issues I had hoped to discuss, until Pericles (or was it Dickens, it all seemed very Mrs Micawber) distracted me with his prattle.

And I’m not unhappy; ta though...

I didn't quite read it that way, Antiseptic.

>>First, I have never expressed a wish to “be free to give your lady a whack” as you so charmingly put it.<<

So thank you for putting me right. I had read this incorrectly:

>>I would run away before I defended myself against such an assault, simply because the law makes me unable to do aso without risking being charged with assault.<<

I made the assumption that the only thing holding you back from the whack was the risk of legal redress. It was the "simply because the law makes me unable to do so" that had me fooled.

>>The idea of the “frail little woman” is so Victorian as to be laughable.<<

I agree, totally laughable. It is, however, your interpretation, not mine. Read again what I actually wrote, as opposed to what you think I wrote, and tell me which part you disagree with.

>>Third, if your argument as to the emotional response of women holds water, how on earth can we trust them to do anything requiring a dispassionate response?<<

Again, you seem to enjoy translating what I write into your own script. It was a comparison, not an absolute, and tied to the example provided, not a generalization. Heck, no-one would be bold enough to tar all women with the brush of constant emotion-based responses.

For one, they'd likely get a slap...

Just kidding.

>>Fourth...“that’s how it is” is not actually a supporting argument<<

In this case, it will have to do. As has been pointed out by others, if you dislike it so much then you are free to try to drum up support to change it.

But you might need some stronger justification.

Antiseptic <"First, I have never expressed a wish to “be free to give your lady a whack” as you so charmingly put it. I have expressed concern that she should feel free to give me one."

Is that so?
Why then did you make this comment Antiseptic? ">>I would run away before I defended myself against such an assault, simply because the law makes me unable to do aso without risking being charged with assault.<<"

Like Pericles said, it seems to me that you would give the little woman a hiding if you didn't think you would be punished/jailed?

At the end of the day, if a woman injures a man or anyone else in a malicious assault, she will be charged and jailed, just the same as a man would.
A man can leave a violent woman and move out.

So what, exactly, is your problem Antiseptic?

Dear Antiseptic,

Surveys suggest that each year an extremely high number
of couples go through a violent episode in which one
partner tries to cause the other serious pain or injury.
Women assault their partners as often as men do, and
either are equally capable of causing harm to the other.
Although women are rarely a match for their partners in
a fistfight, they are more likely to use lethal weapons
(notably kitchen knives).

The sociological research of the past two decades has
revealed an astonishing amount of family violence -
between spouses, between parents and offspring, and among the
offspring themselves. Then there's also child abuse -
involving such acts as burning children with cigarettes,
locking them up in closets, tying them up for hours or
days, or breaking their bones. This is alarmingly common, and
probably causes many runaways that happen each year.
Also the sexual abuse of children - is rarely a matter of
molestation by a stranger. It's usually perpetrated by some
family member on another.

The source of all this violence may lie in the dynamics of
an intimate environment that close relationships are likely to
involve more conflict than less intimate ones, since there
are more occasions for tensions to arise and more likelihood
that deep emotions are provoked.

Another souce may lie outside the relationship, for violence
could frequently be a response to frustration. If the person
affected cannot strike back at the source of the problem -
the aggression may be readily re-directed at family members
or their partner.

In any event, the extent of violence in groups whose members
are supposed to love and care for one another is not easily
explained and suggests that these relationships are under
greater pressures than it can easily bear.