Thanks heavens for the internet, otherwise many of us would remain in the dark as the media selectively covers and presents information.

I suspect feminists are cursing the internet, as information becomes much more freely available. I also suspect that our politicians as well as anyone who wants to present misinformation and try to manipulate public opinion are also cursing the internet.

Now as a male, when I try to make what I believe to be valid criticisms about feminism. Accusations such as being a misogynist are made, or personal attacks and criticism are made.

Imagine to my surprise to discover that there is also a group of women who are opposed to feminism and put forward some of the arguments, that are made by men.

http://time.com/3028827/women-against-feminism-gets-it-right/

Of course women are against feminism, that goes without saying ! That's why we call them women & the others are mere females. Same goes for men vs males.

God made Adam and Eve. Adam had his role, and Eve had her role. Feminists want Adam to be Eve, and Eve to be Adam.

History has shown that women need men to protect them and to provide for them. Men are without doubt the much stronger sex, and only a brainwashed, new age, hippy leftie genuinely thinks otherwise ..... why do ya think we have separate mens and womens sports? If we combined them, women would virtually NEVER win at anything. They are dependent on us men. Look at the great scientists, the great musicians, the great artists, the great fighters, the great inventors -- these males outnumber women by 50 to 1.

Feminism is defined in the dictionary as "...the doctrine advocating social, political, and all other rights of women equal to those of men."

I doubt any intelligent woman on earth would disagree with those rights.

What I don't agree with are some radical feminists who advocate a hatred of all things male, and seek to have more rights than men.

I also don't like radical men's groups who advocate that women are not worthy of having the same rights that men have, and hate all things female.

Susie nicely said.

R0bert

Suse,
Can you name one Men's rights group which advocates anything of the sort?
Internet based groups don't count, so name one real world men's group with identifiable, outspoken members who advocate male supremacy in the way that identifiable and outspoken Radfems advocate female supremacy.

I wonder if there are people like the feminists who push as much for responsibilities as they push for rights ?
Do our Link experts have anything on that ? Foxy ?

Right is Right

Well you and a couple of others here
gave me a huge laugh.

Oh dear! where do I start?

God made Adam and Eve, say the men who penned the bible.
Of course, what else would the male of the species write?

It can be scientifically proved in any Laboratory today
that the female X Chromosone contains all the DNA and genetic
programming required to make a whole human being, whereas
the male Y Chromosone contains only a code to turn a human being
into a male.

In fact if the X chromosone in a developing foetus
is damaged in any way, it will have a profoundly disabling
and disfiguring effect on a newborn. If however the Y
chromosone donating maleness is damaged, it will have little to
very little affect on the resulting human being which can go
on to become a perfectly functioning female.

This probably explains why men have nipples for no reason
whatsoever. Because the female is the obvious prototype.

Oh, and please don't send a post back to me saying
we all have belly-buttons that we don't use and calling me
a moron as one obviously not as smart as he thought male
person did. Because belly-buttons do have a use in both male
and female. It is the site of the umbiblical cord that feeds
the human baby whilst it is in the mother's womb. Nipples however
serve no purpose in the male and prove that the male is copied
from the prototype human being, the X female chromosone.

Stick that in your Adam and Eve pipe and smoke it.

Also Adam and Eve had two sons, Cain and Abel. No other children
were ever mentioned in the original bible. How did they produce
the human lineage? Please! don't regale me with funny fiction.

<The dictionary definition argument is literally the stupidest argument ever. Just because <something is defined in one way doesn't mean it can't be used in other ways…

https://www.facebook.com/WomenAgainstFeminism

<But, while the anti-feminist rebellion has its eye-rolling moments, it raises valid questions <about the state of Western feminism in the 21st Century —
<questions that must be addressed
<if we are to continue making progress toward real gender equality.

The issue is who determines which questions are acceptable and those that are not. Then it is the questions that are deemed to be unacceptable that perhaps are the most important ones that need to be asked.

Jay of Melbourne
<name one real world men's group with identifiable, outspoken members who advocate male supremacy in the way that identifiable and outspoken Radfems advocate female supremacy.>

Have you noticed any male supremacy in any Muslim countries lately?

Have you noticed any supremacy in their laws. Where they rape
some poor young girl and then she goes to prison for 6years while
they just go about their everyday life. Or women are stoned to death
for adultery but the man committing adultery goes scot free.
I don't think feminists anywhere in the world, have come close
to demanding or putting into place that kind of supremacy.

Have you also noticed the 40 million displaced people in the world in refugee camps, driven from their home and land by violent war-lords,(men with guns) Who then grab the land for themselves.

The brutal world dominance of men over much of the earth makes
the women's Liberation advocates look like harmless sparrows.

However, I have had my difference in the way I think feminists
have handled things at times,and disliked their financial
discrimination against their fellow women and also their disparagement
of mothers who weren't career women.
But they are nowhere near as awful as the male oppression has been
towards women.

RightisRight

Look at the great scientists, the great musicians, the great artists, the great inventors -- these males outnumber women by 50 to 1.

This is just another indictment of how men have been free to
pursue their passions and also had the financial freedom to do
so, while women were stuck at home with
6 children with no time left to sit around painting or
doing scientific research. Married women were forced to resign from their jobs by society and employers less than 50years ago.

Notice now, how women are blitzing the men at Universities with
their intellect and ability but still, women always have the burden of trying to achieve whilst loaded down with a couple of babies for years.

When I see a party of men in their 30's or 40's set out to climb some
mountain, I think, yes, you are free to just wander the earth while
your wife can't just go off and do want she likes, because she is
home looking after your children. My first thought is always how
typically selfish male behaviour this is. Father kids and then piss
off to pursue your dream while your wife can't just walk away from
the children.

Men are too stupid and selfish to see the reality of their behaviours
and the impact it has on their women,children and whole societies
around the world. Yes, men in the Western World have lost control
of their women and rightly so, because of the way they treated them.

Now we can all just sit back and watch the slow genetic death of a once great empire, because of the treatment of women by men.
They of course are still blaming women for the situation.
It doesn't occur to them that women abandoned their feminine
role to take up outside work because of the treatment of them
by men. Men still want to discriminate against them for being
pregnant on the job,because they prefer to look at slim unpregnant
women.

'Have you noticed any male supremacy in any Muslim countries lately? '

strangley enough it is the resident feminist who wholeheartedly endorse Islam immigration. Go figure! Mind you only the blind can't see what a mess the handbag brigade made of this nation in such a short time.

So Cherful is saying that all women who live under Islam are unhappy and disagree with Islamic law, that's probably the most "racist", orientalist position anyone could take.
Islam is the most gynocentric political system there is, men under sharia are totally responsible for all female members of their family, mothers, aunts, daughters, cousins, sisters, nieces.
If a Muslim man's brother dies he's responsible for his nieces, nephews and the widow, he has to figure out a way of supporting them and tough luck if he can't, this is why in those countries you still have well off people taking on wards and juveniles under indenture.
Feminism doesn't free women, it just transfers the responsibility for their well being from the family to the state, feminism disempowers women and instills a sad,victim mentality in it's adherents.

Male supremacy or "Patriarchy" is a nothing but a paranoid conspiracy theory.

You have a fair point there Jay Of Melbourne.

The biggest problem with this is that they also believe they have the right to kill women, if they don't obey the man's orders.

Even worse, a ragtag bunch of militia can decide to genitally mutilate a million & a half women, when they overrun an area.

As a bloke I suppose I'm expected to think this level of control is great by the ratbag feminists.

The really strange thing I find is that our most feminists members of this forum are in favor of Muslim immigration, the very thing that is likely to lead to the total subjection them to male control.

Hasbeen, could it be that the people wanting to move to Australia are unhappy with what is happening in their own countries, and that is why they are moving to Australia?.
I could be wrong of course.

Cherful, I like your work.... :)

Reading CHERFUL's posts, it sounds to me that she is advocating for female supremacy not equality. Using inflammatory language.

What a shame that the women who are against feminism are not posting on this site.

Wolly my problem with the point you seem to be trying to make is that you don't allow for the reality that feminists and feminism do come a variety of schools and attitudes. I've got some strong disagreements with some of what seem to be core beliefs about male oppression of women but as an agent for change there are areas where feminism has in my view been important.

I think much feminist writing and thinking ignores the role women play in shaping society keenly blaming men for all the stuff they don't like and ignoring a whole lot of inconvenient facts that don't suit that theory. See Warren Farrels "Myth of Male Power" for a good summary of that. At the same time feminsim has provided a vehicle to help move past traditional roles and restrictions that have outlived their usefullness.

Apart from the truth issue the danger in attacking feminism as a whole is that you make enemies of those who you may not actually have great disagreement with. There are femininists who speak out against the excesses and lies of the more militant feminists. I've not come across any Australian mens rights groups that I consider anti female but there are clearly some men (mostly religious fundies) pushing very sexist lines. I'd rather stand in support of the feminists seeking equal opportunity for all and putting aside lesser points of disagreement than join the voices that want them silenced.

R0bert

Cherful while I agree with you that Islam is disgusting, the rest is utter tripe.

Men go off climbing mountains, while women raise their children is total bulldust.

Women use men for their seed to become pregnant with the kids THEY want, not the other way around. There was never a truer word than the joke that pregnancy is something taken seriously that was only poked in fun. He wanted a bit of shared fun, she wanted kids.

You only have to look at the results of divorce to seer they are her kids, he merely supplied the seed & the money to pay for them. Even totally incompetent women get the kids, & his money. Once she had her kids, it was just his earnings she wanted, he was just unnecessary baggage.

A mans world, what a bloody joke.

Suse, if people don't like their country they should change it. That they have made a disgusting mess of a society is no reason to let them in here to stuff us up too.

Those who run away, rather than fix their home, are the most useless of people, definitely not worth having.

RObert "I'd rather stand in support of the feminists seeking equal opportunity for all and putting aside lesser points of disagreement than join the voices that want them silenced."

Absolutely RObert, and luckily, most intelligent Aussie males think like you, but I doubt the likes of WollyB , Individual and the delightful Runner would agree with you...

Hasbeen, I think you would secretly be happier in those foreign countries where it really is a man's world!

I don't know of any women who are against "feminism."
What they are against (myself included) are the
extremism of some people (male and female) who are
against either gender. However, these
individuals tend to be a minority.

Feminism is not a dirty word. It's not an aggressive word,
despite the negativity that some seem to place on it.
Feminists don't come from a single group or are defined
in terms of age, colour, religion or socio-economic status.

Feminism doesn't have a one-size fits all approach to this
topic. Its complexity means that each individual has to find
the meaning and relevance of it - in their own lives.

To some men feminism was a political movement that
encouraged women "to leave children, practice witchraft,
destroy capitalism and become lesbians." However to many
women it simply meant to be free to define themselves
instead of having their identity defined for them.

That's probably why most women do believe that they owe a
great deal to feminism. If they believed that they owed
nothing to feminists - then they would have to be willing
to hand over their property to their husbands or fathers,
give up their jobs, stop voting, renounce contraception or
pain relief in childbirth, pull out of school and university,
and start mopping floors at home while begging male relatives
for a dowry.

Our society today is individualistic and highly
open to change and
experimentation. It's a society that many see
the need to address the
attitudes and the limitations of gender. A society that wants
these limitations to cease to exist for both groups - male
and female.

Then a person's individual human qualities rather than their
biological sex would be the primary measure of that
person's worth and achievement.

....God made Adam and Eve. Adam had his role, and Eve had her role. Feminists want Adam to be Eve, and Eve to be Adam.

Isn't that just so true Right is Right. My wife still appreciates me opening a door for her, and that's all that matters to me really.

Hasbeen,
Muslims genitally mutilate 100% of male children and something like 9% of females, there's nothing in the Koran about female circumcision but male circumcision is mandatory.
In the few countries in which women are cut it's a route to higher social status because they're tribal societies with both a matriarchy and a patriarchy in operation, an uncut woman can't become a clan matriarch and it's the matriarchy which ensures the smooth running of the tribe or the village.

Feminism is not a dirty word. It's not an aggressive word,
despite the negativity that some seem to place on it.
Foxy,
It's a hugely unnecessary word. Men or rather males don't even have a word like maleism.
You say you don't know any women who are against the term feminism, well, do you actually know any women ? You're in the public service & therefore your chances of meeting women would be extremely slim. Don't confuse women with females.

Dear rehctub,

Actually feminists do not want Adam to be Eve or
Eve to be Adam. What they wanted was to simply
be able to make their own choices in life.
To be able for example to get financial credit
or make contracts without a man's cosignature.
Some women did not want to be prisoners in
gilded cages, unfulfilled in their limited
domestic roles and yearning for something beyond,
something more.

Sexual equality does not mean gender similarity or a
"unisex" society. It does not mean that women want to
adapt the characteristics of men. True liberation
from the restrictions of gender means that all possible
choices are open and equally acceptable for both
sexes.

As for your wife enjoying your opening doors for her.
That's great. I enjoy my husband opening
doors for me as well. And I don't hesitate in opening
doors for other people. It's a fairly
common reaction - coming or going, if you reach the
door first. It's simply a courtesy.

Of course it could be argued that the "door ceremony"
in which men open doors for women, symbolically
reinforces the idea of female dependency and delicacy,
while asserting men's paternalism and control.
Although on the surface it seems no more than a courtesy, the
ceremony helps underscore existing patterns of inequality -
which is one reason why a woman who opened doors for
men would draw reactions of discomfort rather than
gratitude.

Just as interesting as the question of "why" men open doors
for women is the question of "which" doors they open
for women: certainly not the symbolic doors that lead to
positions of power, wealth, and influence.

These routine forms of social interaction between men
and women reflect and enhance the vast differences,
(some might say - limitations), that are
built into our gender roles. And these gender
characteristics expected of the sexes are learned in the
family environment very early in life, and are reinforced
in the schools, in peer groups, in the mass media, and
in many other spoecific agencies, ranging from sports
teams to worplaces.

Dear Individual,

Don't make assumptions about me.

You don't know me or who I now work for.

My range of work/life experience has been extremely vast
and varied.

How about adding something of substance to this discussion
for a change?

"Of course it could be argued that the "door ceremony"
in which men open doors for women, symbolically
reinforces the idea of female dependency and delicacy,
while asserting men's paternalism and control."

Foxy I and my partner enjoy those courtesies as well but when viewed as a social control mechanism and put in context with a bunch of other traditional courtesies expected of men towards women they look a lot more like subjects showing deference to their masters. Swap out gender and substitute race and the picture looks a lot different, or even place in the heirarchy of other structures. It's not those high in status expected to give up their place or stand aside for those lower down in status.

For most people those courtesies don't carry a loaded meaning, one of the great failings of feminism is that it has so consistantly taken the meanings to acts and history that suit a picture of female oppression by men and ignored sometimes more credible explainations.

Access to real power and direct influence in the affairs of human kind is something that the vast bulk of people never get, most don't have that power and influence even in the workplace. I don't think most sane individuals have the drive that it takes to seek it out and hold it either. Continuing to make the proportion at the top of that particular tree out to be some kind of indicator of the status of access to a broad range of opportunity and life choice available to the men and women I think is badly misleading.

Factors like average life span, suicide rates, access to housing and food, access to wealth (rather than earnings) and a variety of other more realistic factors tell a very different story than the proportion of each gender in board rooms.

BTW I'm not claiming female oppression of men, rather trying to make a point about how subjective the measures typically used to claim a raw deal for women compared to men generally are.

R0bert

Foxy, the thing is, women are women and men are men. We are different and that's just life.

I suggest that one reason why we are seeing change, is broken relationships, because 99 % of separations sees the mother as the primary care giver. And rightly so in many cases, when the kids are young.

But, along with this has come a huge change in the attitudes of kids, as some (mainly boys) get to an age where they tell mom what to do, then take that into the workplace, whereas others often look for a domineering girlfriend almost as if they are replacing their mother.

As I have said many times, we are now raising a bunch of limp wristed soft cocks, where as we once raised boys to be men. Sadly, those days are gone in most cases as so many young guys today are either pansies, or bullies.

Foxy,
please stop trying to change our view of your mentality, it's too late for that.

Rehctub "As I have said many times, we are now raising a bunch of limp wristed soft cocks, where as we once raised boys to be men. Sadly, those days are gone in most cases as so many young guys today are either pansies, or bullies."

Rehctub , would you like to explain to us all what you mean by 'limp wristed soft cocks' and 'pansies'?

According to you, the good ol' days of boys being real men are gone.
I'm assuming you consider yourself a real man?
What is your definition of a 'real man' then?

Dear RObert and Rehctub,

Thanks for sharing your thoughts.
I often state that "it can be argued..." by
way of broadening a discussion and introducing
other perspectives to consider.

Of course as individuals
our reactions to things vary. But one thing
is certain and that is that throughout history
men have generally been the dominant sex and
women have been subordinate to them. Both
men and women have usually taken this for
granted as a "natural" state of affairs, passing it
down from generation to generation as part of their
culture.

Over the past quarter-century or so, however,
millions of people have challenged the traditional
relationship of the sexes, particularly
in the post-industrial societies of North America and
Western Europe. Growing numbers of women in these
societies have been entering economic life, and in
doing so have earned not just income but also
independence. The result of this shift has been important
changes in the status of women - changes that have
opened up new risks as well as new possibilities.

Two centuries ago, the average woman had a much
shorter life expectancy and she had a larger
number of children between her
twentieth and fourtieth birthdays. Today, female life
expectancy is between 80 - 90, and the average woman has two
children during a five-year period in her twenties.

Historical roles that kept a woman housebound today seem
irrelevant when she may live for half a century after her
last child is born.

Sex inequality may possibly have arisen
because it was functional at the time.
Today - the modern
woman may want to play a more "instrumental" role (with its
own strains), and some men may prefer to play an
"expressive" one.

Like the feminine role, the masculine role is now more
ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to interpretation by
the individual. And that is only natural in the highly
individualistic and highly open to change
society in which we live.

Dear Individual,

What you think of me is irrelevant and adds nothing
constructive to the issues being discussed.
Try again.

Dear RObert,

Because of the word limit, I didn't get a chance to
comment on your writing about the various disadvantages
faced by men in their earlier traditional roles.

To a man, the main advantage was that he had
relatively greater access to wealth, power and
prestige.
He could earn more money, control more of his environment,
and experience a range of career and other opportunities
that were beyond the reach of most women.

The main disadvantage was the tremendous stress associated
with a life of competition, repressed feelings, and
fear of failure.
The statistics tell the story. Compared to women, men had
a higher suicide rate, higher rate for severe mental
disorders, and a much higher rate of alcoholism.

Men committed a higher percentage of all serious crimes and
constituted a higher percentage of prison inmates.
They were also far more likely than women to suffer
stress-related diseases such as ulcers, hypertension,
and asthma. The bleakest statistic is life expectancy:
men die seven years sooner than the average female.

It is hard at times to believe that this catalogue of woes
applies to the group that is supposed to be historically
in the upper stratum in sexual stratification.

We need to address the attitudes and the limitations of
gender - that they cease to exist for both groups.
Male and female.

adds nothing constructive
Foxy,
This reply exposes your hypocrisy. Whenever someone suggested constructive & practical & realistic & fair proposals you were the one denouncing them. So please, make up your mind.

Well said Foxy.
We do still gave a long way to go for both genders to feel they fit in, with the added stresses in this modern world.

No matter what women still have to achieve to gain true equality in Australia, most would not want to achieve this goal at the expense of men's emotional or physical well-being. We all love our sons and other male relatives.

The awful toll on families whose husband/fathers (and some mothers) are working in a fly in fly out job in WA's North is a case in question.

Individual...you still have nothing much to add to this discussion other than deriding Foxy then?
Typical.

<The charge that feminism stereotypes men as predators while reducing women to helpless
<victims certainly doesn’t apply to all feminists—but it’s a reasonably fair description of a
<large, influential, highly visible segment of modern feminism.

Kathy Young,

Daphne Patai, Chritsina Hoff Sommers to only mention a few, also state that there are many types of feminism.

there are gender feminist, equality feminists and more than a few other groups, mentioned in "Who Stole Feminism?" and "Heterophobia".

When I find the book/s, I'll list all the sub sections of the feminist movement, if you like.

Individual...you still have nothing much to add to this discussion other than deriding Foxy then?
Suseonline,
I'm not deriding Foxy, that's just you feeling a pinch of conscience because I'm trying to get Lefties to get a glimpse of sense but your mentality instincts tell you to go on the defensive.
That's all.
I think all this feminist crap stinks out all common sense & the Lefties don't seem to notice.
Why do you think females are feminist & women are not ? Think !

You guys crack me up.

It reminds me of sitting back and watching my son and daughter fighting, of course my son was going to loose, because she didn't fight fair.

Girls teeming up against the boys.

I think a big part of relationship failure is a lack of sharing in todays world.

When my father came home from WW11, my folks had virtually nothing, but their clothes & a few pots & plates. At 34 & 37 they started life with a 5 year old kid & sweet stuff all.

It wasn't a matter of going shopping for furniture, if dad didn't make it we didn't have it. Mum made clothes, sheets, pillowslips, curtains & all the things you could not get in shops, & we couldn't have afforded if you could.

They bought an old broken down lounge. With no idea of what they were doing they repaired it, & recovered it. It took a few weeks. The old Singer treadle sewing machine struggled, & you couldn't buy the right clouts/nails, but they were so proud of the thing when done.

Dad built the house, with me now 10 supposedly helping. It was a small pretty crummy house, with a hose running from the laundry copper to the bath. Bath heaters were expensive, when they were occasionally available. Lots wasn't available. It took 2 years for us to get to the top of the list & actually get a couple of small rainwater tanks. Until then it was well water or none.

All this shared struggle was the cement that bound them together. That struggle may have destroyed relationships for weaker people, but I think mostly it was a good thing.

Feminism didn't have much place in that world, it was mostly couples together against the world, rather than each other. Any success was a win for the couple, not him or her. We may have more money today, but I think we were richer back then.

Hasbeen,
Before the 1970's about 30% of homes were self built by people with no qualifications, now it's pretty much impossible unless you can do the work yourself and pay registered people to sign it off.
Given the modern construction methods you'd think it'd be easier not harder to self build, I mean you can get all your frames and trusses pre made, cladding, lining,insulating, plumbing and roofing are all easy and if you're keen the electrics and the concreting can be done once you get the hang of it.

pay registered people to sign it off.
Jay of melbourne,
You've identified one problem already.

Hasbeen I too can remember this days, although the house my dad built was built when I was two, so I domt really remember that, except for what I've been told, or shown on old photos.

The other huge difference is that while my brother and sisters plate may not have matched mine, nobody cared, as my parents would after say, were not teying to keep up with the Jones's.

Trouble is, these days so many young ones want to be the Jones's.

There is, and always will be a yawning chasm between feminine and feminist.

Door ceremonies...hmmm was always brought up that because ladies (not those "wimmin" things mind you) had stuff in their arms e.g. like kids/washing/bags of shopping etc... you opened the car door, the house door, the shop door (before auto doors) wherever you may have been, for that person.

One time a few years ago I opened a door for a woman in a shop to be answered by the comment "How quaint..." as she slimed past me.
To which I answered..."Sorry I thought I had opened the door for a lady...seems I was mistaken...!"

Dear Suse,

My parents as you know, arrived in this country with barely
the clothes on their backs. They worked hard and established
a life here. My husband and I have also always been a
team.

A one size fits all approach to this topic however -
doesn't fit.
It's complexity means that each of us will have to
find the meaning
and relevance that it has in our own lives.

However there is also no reason that we can't be civil
in our discussion, even though some of us may have
differing opinions. That's why it is also great to read the
posts of RObert, Hassie, Rectub, to name just a few -
who present other times, and other perspectives, in this
discussion.

I don't have anything else to add really.
Except that I look forward to more discussions on another
thread. I've said everything I wanted to on this one.

Cheers.

Dear Albie,

How rude!

I would have either blown you a kiss (as I do
when I get wolf-whistles), or given you a great
big smile and said,
"Thank You."

Feminism is as feminism does.

When feminists are challenged on their vile misandry, they go all vague about 'eguality'. When that fails there is always personal attack and abuse with the angry walk-out to follow.

This is feminism,

'FEMINIST WITCH GERMAINE GREER SMEARS FATHERS ON (BBC) QUESTION TIME'
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjVDYPAuRh0

Is there any wonder that young women flee from these nasty, egocentric, neurotic old crones of feminists?

Before feminists go all vague, that IS the feminism of the selfish, mercenary educated middle class feminists who drive women's policy in Australia. They have ridden the guvvy gravy train for decades. They do not give a hoot for women generally, the common herd and they certainly do not represent them.

It is time that the main political parties woke up to them. Abbott for example was as badly advised as past Labor leaders by feminists in his own party and in the federal bureaucracy , although in Labor the handbag hit squad reign supreme and still do. In the rarefied atmosphere of Canberra politicians seem to be unaware of the credibility gap between them and the rest of Australia.

Spot the typo, 'eguality' should be 'equality'.

Dr Helen Smith Explains Why Men Need To Boycott Marriage (and some are!),
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D33L4zxjpH0

Foxy... ; ) Thanks ! There are feminists who can be feminine too, they are the ones who get my ear, and respect always. Cheers ...AMD

when I get wolf-whistles
Foxy,
You're very fortunate to have the required looks. The feminists I encounter don't deserve more than a mongrel growl. :-)

Foxy, you are right of course, and I take my hat off to you for your continuing patience with some of our more 'manly' contributors : )
See you all on another thread.

Suse.

Dear Suse,

Thanks for your kind words - your common sense,
and your well-reasoned posts.

And talking about words ...

Reminds me of this old joke.

A US border guard caught a man trying to slip into the
US from Mexico. The US border guard sent the guy back across the
border into Mexico. Well, the next day, the guy tried
again, and the day after that. This went on for a week -
and finally the US border guard had enough.

"OK Buddy, tell you what. If you can put the following 3 words
into a sentence - I'll let you in. The words are -
Green, Pink, and Yellow."

The man thought for a moment.

Then he smiled and said,

"The phone went Green, Green, Green. I pinked it up and
sez - Yellow!"

Not sure if the guy was allowed in or not though.

Dear Individual,

Nobody deserves a growl.

That just proves the point that rudeness is not just
a one gender flaw.

Dear Albie,

Thank You.

You've got a good heart.

Feminism is what feminism does.

When a male Opposition leader looked at his watch while a woman was speaking, feminists were scathing (OLO too)labelling him as a 'misogynist'. By contrast, for years notable feminists have been getting away with truly disgusting, neurotic and mad bigotry against men. Rarely has there been even a murmur against them.

Germaine Greer,
<British troops could turn into rapists: Germaine Greer sparks outrage on Question Time

And little girls learn to flirt through kissing their dads
Controversial feminist Germaine Greer claimed on Thursday night 'little girls learn to flirt with their fathers' - and sending in British ground forces to Libya raises a risk of 'them raping in their turn' in an outrageous appearance on the BBC...

Ms Greer's responses caused anger within the audience, with catcalls of 'absolute rubbish' greeting her comments on British troops, while one questioner said her remarks on a child's goodnight kiss was 'an awful thing to say'...
At one point the assembled panel were asked a question about the report for the Government by Mothers' Union chief executive Reg Bailey on the sexualisation of children. It was then that the outspoken academic told the audience in Norwich how children badgered their mothers for clothes which made them look older and for more Barbie dolls: 'There's always been this sinister culture that has gone along and it has always been sexual.

'The Barbie doll herself is a fetish, she's descended from a sex toy. 'Little girls learn to flirt with their fathers ... you know, "kiss daddy goodnight" and all this sort of business and you wonder whether what's happening in marketing is responsible or whether it is actually causing it.'

A father in the audience looked appalled by her comment. 'Who's going to teach my children to flirt with me? That is an awful thing to say.'..

Mail on Sunday columnist Peter Hitchens, who was also a panellist, said her comments showed 'how sick we are as a society that people introduce sex into a goodnight kiss from a father to a daughter. It is unbelievable'.>
http://www.sundaytimes.lk/110612/Timestwo/t2_11.html

Nobody deserves a growl.
Foxy,
Anyone who maggots off others & screws them in return not only deserves a growl, they need far more than a growl. But since stupidity is not yet a crime the feminists get away with a growl.

<Where they rape
<some poor young girl and then she goes to prison for 6years while
<they just go about their everyday life.

<Have you also noticed the 40 million displaced people in the world in refugee camps, driven <from their home and land by violent war-lords,(men with guns) Who then grab the land for <themselves.
.
<But they are nowhere near as awful as the male oppression has been
<towards women.
Posted by CHERFUL, Saturday, 26 July 2014 8:44:44

A similar tactic was used during the 1st WW to get men to join up.\

<As the Germans invaded neutral Belgium in August of 1914, the patriotic call grew as the
<propaganda’s slant changed from the legal discussion of treaty violation to a chronicle of
<both real and fictionalized war atrocities. With the heightening of the propaganda
<campaign, the invasion of Belgium became more engendered. “The appeal to duty,
<conscience, and sense of honor became a plea for the protection of the family” as the
<portrayal of the war became “a battle between good and evil”

<In describing and/or fictionalizing the war atrocities being perpetrated by the “Barbaric Hun” <on the “innocence” of Belgium,

The tactic of trying to control men by shaming them, is perhaps as ancient as the Roman's, or even older.

Dear Wooly,

And who exactly was using this tactic?

Old Men?

Dear Wooly,

War occurs as a result of a political decision -
usually a decision by older men that younger men should
fight for what the older men believe to be worth
fighting for. There can be no war unless the leaders of at
least two societies with conflicting interests decide
that they prefer war to any alternative means of
settling their differences. The soldiers themselves go to
war - frequently not knowing what they are fighting for, and
usually terrified of meeting the enemy in battle - because
a legitimate political authority is determined on a course
of action. It cannot be sustained without a strong
political authority that can persuade people to risk their
lives for a purpose beyond themselves.

Many factors may influence the decision to go to war -
the personalities of the leaders; the influence of nationalist,
religious, or other idealogies, the extent of popular
support for war, the anticipated economic gains or loses; the
ambitions or advice of the military; perceptions or
misperceptions of the other side's motives and intentions;
theexpected reaction of the international community; and of course,
expectations about the likely outcome of the conflict.

Foxy, "War occurs as a result of a political decision - usually a decision by older men that younger men should fight for what the older men believe to be worth fighting for."

It was the strong women's vote that kept 'Ming' Menzies in power and sent young men to Vietnam. Youths who were not allowed a vote nor entry to a bar (and most would never have 'known' a woman).

It would be very easy to put a case that it is women who have the greatest interest in war to protect the status quo that women value to make their nest, raise children and have a predictable income to suit. It can be argued that women coldly use men to protect their interests. That men are disposable too.

However there are all manner of wars. Some do not require hardware and can be waged for life. In the microcosm it is women who are so fiercely protective of their territory that they are prone to rejecting 'his' mother, his family and ultimately the father of their children too.

Just saying..

Young women reject the crazy self-defeating mantras and control of feminists, particularly of the radical feminist and so often lesbian leftist persuasion who are crazy enough to bite themselves as the saying goes.

Feminism was on the way out last century. How many irascible, controlling, self-centered, mercenary old sour-sops can young women put up with and why should they anyway?

Besides, young women can now see the full life circle that feminists like Germaine Greer, Julia Whatshername and so on go through and that is not so attractive at all. It will be a very long cold day in Hell before any of those educated, middle class feminists give a hoot about ordinary women. Greer and others despise and put down the very women they claim to represent and have ridden to the top.

otb,

Robert Menzies kept power because he did everything he could
to highten the fear of "Reds under the beds" in this
country. It was an effective way of keeping power.
And of course "The Petrov Affair" helped a great deal.

As for Australia's involvememt in the Vietnam War?
Requests came for Australia's involvement from the US and
the government of South Korea. Australian participation in the war
was gradual - troop numbers built up over a number of years as
Viet Cong insurgencies increased. Australian soldiers has a
lot of experience fighting in the jungle. They distinguished
themselves at the famous battle in Long Tan in 1966. The last
Australian soldier left Vietnam in 1971. A large number of
Australians fighting in Vietnam were National Service
conscripts. Apart from Australia having the American alliance
through ANZUS and SEATO treaties, the fear of communism in
Australia, the geography of the region and the domino theory,
as well as Australia's expertise in jungle warfare -
all played a vital part in Australia's involvement in the
Vietnam war.

cont'd ...

otb,

You are in no position to speak on behalf of either
young, middle-aged, or older women. None of us are.
Because as I stated earlier -
a "One size fits all," approach sinply does not fit.
It doesn't allow for individual differences
and the complexity
of this topic is such that as I keep stating - each
individual has to find their own
meaning and relevance (if any) to
it in their own lives. It's quite rude that you don't even
seem capable of getting our former PM's name correctly.
As a recent add on television tells us -
"Nobody should be treated like crap," because of who they are!"

Foxy,

No weasel words please, just honesty and facts.

Robert Menzies kept power because women voted for him in their hordes.

It was long, long, after the body bags were coming back and well, well after student demonstrations that the women voters got slightly cold feet, but almost to the bitter end they still voted in larger numbers for the side promoting Vietnam commitment and more troops.

I will add that it was women who voted in their hordes for Joh Bjelke Peterson too. Anyone here remember how Joh treated those uni students who obtained a permit for a peaceful walk in Roma street in Brisbane, sat down peacefully and were then brutalised by police, including police cadets and all with numbers removed?

It is also because feminist bullies always had to occupy the moral high ground and trash men (and women too!) that they faded out last century.

If you want the truth, it was men who were opposed to Vietnam.

otb,

Please supply us with evidence to your claims
regarding women and your sweeping statement
that - only men were against
the war in Vietnam. My facts and experience
don't agree with these statements of yours.

As for weasel words?
Which ones do you regard as weasel words exactly?
Afterall historical facts are recorded.

But it would be interesting to read your definition of
"weasel words," because our language reflects our view
of the world. And yours would tells us - more about you.

I'm intrigued Sir.

Foxy,

You can save that posturing for a newbie and I did not say that only men were opposed to Vietnam.

It is a historical fact that women voted strongly for Menzies and his Vietnam-supporting colleagues to follow (and for Joh), only dropping off a bit where they perceived a 'weaker', indecisive leader.

To add a bit more truth to the mix, it was much more likely the constant news of poor outcomes in the war and the photos of the child burned by napalm and injuries to villagers that influenced more women to change their vote. Arguably then, women did not respect leaders who were not firm in their policy and seemed to fail as well.

Women vote for strong leaders. What is probably at work again is their preference for continuity and stability and a weak, indecisive and probably unsuccessful leader doesn't guarantee that.

Maybe you should go back through the newspapers and women's mags like The Womens Weekly. Maybe too you only remember what suits your political ideology.

otb,

You can't keep claiming things as facts without
providing any evidence. It then becomes -
simply your version
of things as you see them.
And - these unsupported and
outright unsubstantiated fabrications tend to permeate your
comments regularly. It's simply not good enough.
Especially if you want your opinions to be
respected and valued and for you to be taken seriously
in a discussion forum such as OLO.

Unless you improve your tactics - and contribute
something of genuine substance - you shall be ignored.
I have better things to do with my time then continue to
talk to someone who seems to not be capable of mentally
processing the issues under discussion.

You also did not answer my question regarding your
earlier reference to "weasel words."

Surely you don't want to come across as a vacuous,
unthinking person

cont'd ...

otb,

You stated in your earlier post -
"No weasel words please, just honesty and truth."

Yet you seem to exhibit only "weasel words" directed
at females and no honesty or truth.

And when confronted, you deny you said the things that
you actually did, for example on page 10 of this
discussion you did state quite clearly,

"If you want the truth, it was men who were opposed
to Vietnam."

The truth was that the anti-war movement consisted of
people from both genders and more than 200,000 people
across Australia marched in the first Moratorium.

In October 1966 - over 10,000 demonstrators greeted US
President Lyndon Baines Johnson in Sydney. In Melbourne
the US President's cavalcade was dowsed with blood-red paint
and gained widespread international publicity.

The first protest action against the war was
organised by The Australian Student Labor Federation
in Australia in Canberra in May 1965.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/RP9798/98rp03

The closest I can find to an analysis of voting patterns over time by gender. It admits the research material is sparse.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

Thank You for the link.

Very interesting indeed!

Menzies relied on the women's vote. Any student of politics or people who can recall the time would be very aware of that and of the support of women for his colleagues that followed.

Here, from a split second Google, but honestly, why not cruise through the women's mags and papers of the time?

"Parliament and Public Service

Although Menzies’ dominance of Australian politics in the 1950s and early 1960s benefited from the misfortunes that befell the Labor Party and his good luck in coming to power as the economy began to pick up, Menzies also had considerable skill as a politician. He was one of the first federal party leaders who actively targeted women’s votes. Identifying women as usually more conservative in their voting habits than men, Menzies was always careful to emphasise how issues like industrial relations and defence were of concern to women."

http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/primeministers/menzies/in-office.aspx

It is wasted time trying to put facts before the ideologically driven who consistently reject facts and op9inion that might challenge their world view.

Now that the diversion has worked for some posts, what about a return to the subject of the thread, in politeness to its originator?

Could the preponderance of women in voting for Menzies have anything to do with the gross discrimination against young men in the conscription birthday ballots?

When discussing any issue we need to look at
not only one side or the other - but around
the edges as well. Ive stated in the past that
a historian can establish that an act took place
on a certain day, but this, by historical standards
constitutes only chronology. The moment the historian
begins to look critically at motivation, circumstances,
context, or any other such considerations, the product
becomes unacceptable for one or another camp or
readers. Some people are more interested in condemnation
than in explanation.

As far as Sir Robert Menzies is concerned - there were
many and varied reasons for his re-elections. To quote
from the link given by OTB:

"Menzies' deployment of the "Communist bogey" was masterful.
He genuinely believed that Communism posed a real threat
to Australian society, both at home and abroad. He raised
the threat of Communism before each election, provoked
opposition disaray and scared the more impressionable
voters back to supporting the Coalition. Menzies was helped
in the tactic by the fact that many recent immigrants were
refugees from Eastern Europe who harboured deep fears of
Communism."

This was a time in Australian political life where passion and
prejudices ran strong but with wit, reason, purpose and
clarity of expression were at least acknowledged for their
value in tempering the language and posturing of political
contest.

Unlike the divisive hardenning of political rhetoric
the retreat of civility and the ideological polarities of
our time, Australian post war politics at its best was
memorably human.

Menzies off-quoted quips - for instance, one of my favourites
is - to the woman who at Williamstown in 1954 heckled him with,

"I wouldn't vote for you if you were the Archangel Gabriel!"

Menzies supposed reposte was:

"Madam, if I was the Archangel Gabriel I'm afraid you
wouldn't be in my constituency!"

Communism wasn't a bogey though, it killed 100 million people in the 20th century and everything the conservatives said about "Red under the beds" was true.

Dear Jay,

This isn't a question of what is true or not
about Communism. This is how Menzies used the
threat of Communism before each election.
Hence the reference to the "Communist bogey"
in commas.

Foxy,

What I challenged was your belief, because it is NOT a fact, in the feminist mantra that men are responsible for war (and for every other bad thing in the world it would appear). In this and numerous other threads over years and long before I started posting, you have stated word for word that:

"War occurs as a result of a political decision - usually a decision by older men that younger men should fight for what the older men believe to be worth fighting for."

I was easily able to demonstrate that while men are the unfortunates sent to war, women may also be complicit in the decision for war and conduct of war at least be voting the responsible politicians in and by keeping them in power. It is a fact that women voters strongly supported Menzies and the later leaders who proposed and supported 19yr old youths being conscripted and sent to Vietnam.

Now that someone has provided you with the facts would you mind not repeating that offensive feminist mantra again? While some here have themselves volunteered for or been conscripted to put their lives on the line for yours and other women's safety and way of life, it is galling for them or their gender including little boys, to be continually labelled as violent threats and responsible for the terrible wars that have taken millions of lives.

If truth is to prevail, Australian men died in their thousands to liberate Europe from a tyrant in WW2 for instance. It is foolish to believe the lunatic, men-hating, self indulgent feminists (and I have given Germaine Greer as an example earlier) who disrespect men for for their sacrifice, saying that men bring it upon themselves and are predisposed to war.

Honestly, you continually bomb threads with outrageous bias against men (only white men - those from the UK?) and against Australia, despite the certainty that others including me have been patient and corrected you before.

Any wonder though that young women flee from the feminists?

Foxy, yes but Menzies WAS telling the truth so there's no need to put "bogey' in quotes,you're indicating sarcasm with quotation marks.

OTB
Feminism and the Disposable Male
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vp8tToFv-bA

Quote of the day:
"Men don’t get turned on by fat wallets or championship trophies."

You Killed The Patriarchy And All You Got Was His Stained T-Shirt:
http://therightstuff.biz/2014/07/30/you-killed-the-patriarchy-and-all-you-got-was-his-stained-t-shirt/

Dear Jay,

The quote wasn't mine.

It was taken from the link given by
OTB and as a librarian - it's an
occupational habit to quote exactly.

And as I said we're not arguing Communism
here - merely the tactics used by Menzies.

Your point is irrelevant.

White feather.
A female contribution to the slaughter of World War I.

Emperor Julian,
White Feather was a Feminist initiative, Ms Pankhurst and her suffragettes were active participants in the shaming campaign against men who didn't join up, even though many of the young men given white feathers weren't able to vote themselves.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5qIndoWEkaU
Who voted for the Nazis?
http://www.johndclare.net/Weimar6_Geary.htm
The relative unattractiveness of the Left to female voters was compensated by a propensity to support those parties close to the churches, such as the nationalist DNVP in the case of Protestants and, to a much greater extent, the Centre Party or BVP in the case of Catholics. In Cologne-Aachen in 1930, 18.9 per cent of male and 33.1 per cent of females voted for the Centre Party. In Augsburg in the same year, 24.8 per cent of men and 39 per cent of women

gave their support to the BVP. Desertions from the Catholic camp to the KPD and the NSDAP in the Depression were almost exclusively male.

Until 1930 women remained unlikely to vote for the Nazi Party. Moreover, in the presidential election of 1932 a clear majority of women preferred Hindenburg to Hitler. However, the early 1930s did see a narrowing of the gap between male and female voting patterns, especially in Protestant areas. Indeed, in some of these by July 1932 the NSDAP was winning a higher percentage of the female to male vote. In that month some 6.5 million women voted Nazi, many of them probably with few or no previous political ties. Where they came from the working class, they were likely to be non-unionised textile operatives or domestic workers.

Says it all,

"I don't need feminism because egalitarianism does it better"
http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/post/92005872270

"I don't need feminism because men are not our enemy. They are our fathers, sons and brothers. Belittling them helps no-one."

and

"I want my nine (Yes, nine) nephews to grow up feeling like they deserve to be loved, cherished and respected by women and their future girlfriends/fiancees/wives and that they do not deserve abuse any more than a women does."
http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/

That is all a very far cry from feminists who even when confronted by evidence to the contrary, still believe that 'men' are responsible for war, and go silent rather than admit their jaundiced world view of men might be wrong.

Feminism has been a beaut gravy train with well-paid guvvy-funded careers for some educated, very materialistic, middle-class women, some of whom have managed to ride that train from last century to the present. Young taxpayers who must find their way for themselves cannot be expected to continue paying for that gig any more. The gig is over though and it is time to find some real jobs.

otb,

Again with the unsubstantiated generalisations,
labelling, and blaming.

Tsk. Tsk.

You're in no position to speak on behalf of
any females - let alone feminists.
Your views are not couched in reality.
And just because you keep repeating your opinions
you should be now recognise the fact that they
don't carry much clout in intelligent discussions.

But I do realise that telling you anything will be
about as effective as a fart in a blizzard.

LOL, case proved by Foxy!

You go, Grrl! A schooner of beer for your shoulder pads and hold fast to those offensive put-down mantras sledging men!

The young have to make their own way in the world, which they are willing and able to do. They can choose and don't need last century's feminists looking over their shoulder, constantly criticising and giving direction.

Young workers are already being hit hard by taxes and they shouldn't be burdened with supporting whining, judgemental, selfish middle aged feminists in academia, the bureaucracy and in politics who have been riding the guvvy gravy train for decades. The feminist victim industry is last century and well past its use-by date.

Did you even read the earnest, heart-felt comments by women on that site I was quoting from and is the subject of the thread? Probably not, because feminists already know what is best for women and everybody else, right? Here is the site again,

http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/

BTW, you haven't managed to answer this yet, see here,
onthebeach, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 12:29:41 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6500&page=12

otb,

Nothing changes with you.

More of the same.

You just can't help yourself.

Keep on proving my point!

cont'd ...

otb,

As for your accusation of my "sledging men?"

You mean criticising - you?

Well, criticising your behaviour
doesn't qualify seeing as you are the resident
expert at abuse,
harrassment, and bullying, on this forum.

As a myriad of people can testify (and have).

Foxy,

You play the victim so well, and so often.

Here again,
BTW, you haven't managed to answer this yet, see here,
onthebeach, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 12:29:41 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6500&page=12

Any wonder that young women find the feminists a compete turn-off. So last century and so many remain to block the careers of young people with fresh thinking and ideas to contribute.

Here is yet another young woman of many with something to say to feminists,

"I don't need feminism because I am a humanist! Who believes in equal rights for all humans."
http://womenagainstfeminism.tumblr.com/post/93346523905/http-womenagainstfeminism-tumblr-com-submit

Men and boys are human too.

otb,

Still singing from the same song-book I see.

Me a victim?

You wish!

As for men and boys being human too?

Who's denying that?
More inferred accusations of "sledging'?
Dear Oh Dear!

If you go back and read my and Suse's posts
on this thread - We both stated
several times that the attitudes and the
limitations placed on gender by some in our society
had to change - so that both genders could be
treated fairly. We stand on our record in this
discussion - and your assertions are simply that -
your assertions! It would be great if you actually
did read what was said - not what you're claiming
was said.

As for Feminism?
You can think whatever you like on the subject.
However - the facts are as follows:

Feminism doesn't make women victims.
Sexism does.

Of course - that inconvenient truth hasn't stopped
men like yourself
and other anti-feminists from using this supposed
"victimisation"
to bash a movement that won women the rights to vote,
have credit cards, not be legally raped by their
husbands, use birth control and generally be considered
people instead of property, among other things.

You keep quoting "Women against Feminism," as if its
some sort of authority. It isn't.
In actual fact many of
its participants show a baffling level of ignorance
about what Feminism actually is. Signs reading:

"I don't need Feminism because my boyfriend treats me
right,"

are cringe inducing - and most intelligent young girls
in today's society would cringe and look upon this comment
with scepticism.

However all this scepticism hasn't stopped the idea of
"Women Against Feminism," from being taken seriously by
men such as yourself

Just another dinosaur feminist scolding other women for having the temerity to think for themselves.

Here again,
BTW, you haven't managed to answer this yet, see here,
onthebeach, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 12:29:41 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6500&page=12

otb,

As someone stated on another discussion:

"Your bias makes a mockery of rational
discourse in this place!"

Time to move on.

Enough time has been wasted.

LOL, what a carry-on.

The truth is Foxy, that you bombed the thread with one of your usual feminist put-down mantras of men, that they are responsible for wars and then you got all bent out of shape to be proved wrong. It is a mantra that you have used word for word so many times over the years, but you persist.

See here,
onthebeach, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 12:29:41 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6500&page=12

Why not admit that you were wrong to sledge men and move on?

otb,

Where exactly have I sledged men?

I spoke about the techniques that Menzies
used to get elected which are recorded in
historical records and then I spoke about
the various reasons people go to war and
so on. I have not sledged men in this discussion.
And your saying I did is simply wrong.

Your insistance on making accusations that are
in your own mind I have no control over.
But it simply does not wash - that you attribute
things to me that I did not say or do and your
repeating it - does not make it so.

As I cited earlier -
'Your bias makes a mockery of rational discourse in
this place."

Why not simply admit your failings and move on
instead of trying to pin something I neither said,
did, nor think, - onto me.

Foxy,

I quoted you exactly and you have used the exact same words numerous times over the years.

To cut direct to the chase, if you are rejecting the feminist mantra that men are responsible for wars (and violence) you could say now, right here in this thread, that men and women are equally responsible for wars and violence.

What is preventing you from saying that?

Because that is what the evidence put before you by myself and others, and doubtless others in the past when you bombed threads with that mantra (and I quoted exactly), has proved.

otb,

Quoting me exactly?

Where did you do that?

Not on this discussion (or any other).

But do carry on - and enjoy your gruntlement.

Don't let facts get in the way of your spin.

It's never stopped you in the past.

I'm simply not interested in playing your game
any longer.

Cheers.

cont'd ...

"There comes a time to say "Enough!"
To bullies who lie, and play it rough.
The only thing that one can do
Is exit right -
And say "Screw you!"

You're the reason God invented the middle-finger!

Lol!

otb,

Now you can say that I've "sledged"
(not men - but you!).

There you go, I've now given you what
you were after all along -
that should make you happy.

Have a nice day!

Foxy, "Quoting me exactly? Where did you do that?"

Right here and provided so many times already,

onthebeach, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 12:29:41 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6500&page=12

and I have posted it every time you tried to duck accountability for the foul feminist mantra you so often repeat that men are responsible for wars.

You are as you lefties say, in denial. Here again,

Lexi, Friday, 18 November 2011 6:00:39 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4837&page=3

and do you want other incidences listed as well? You just repeat the same old same old feminist fembot mantras against men regardless of the evidence put to you as demonstrably false, unfair and cruel. Others besides me on this present thread have shown you that with examples. Honestly, no wonder boys and young men are cutting themselves, suiciding and joining gangs to feel wanted and valued, even if for negative deeds.

It sticks in your craw doesn't it? You just cannot let go of that mantra that men are responsible for war. You will never concede that women have any responsibility for war, for instance. It is the victim feminism that sets up the entitlement of those educated, middle class feminists who gain from it and do not give a rats about women generally, except to ride them for mercenary gain and to boost their privileged lifestyle - Carla Zampatti dresses and Beamers, conspicuous consumption.

BTW, congratulations for diverting and hijacking a thread that didn't accord with your feminist PC views.

Shame too that you discount and even trash the young women from all walks of life, whose views and feelings are just as valid as yours and are not wanting to ride the angry, man-hating, feminist gravy train, and on the backs of exasperated taxpayers.

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/womenagainstfeminism-goes-viral-as-people-explain-why-they-dont-need-feminism-anymore/story-fnixwvgh-1227010590106

Young workers pay too much tax. Why should they be required to support the cushy sinecures and lifestyles of scolding educated middle class feminists with an over-developed sense of their own entitlement?

otb,

In the links that you have listed here -
they only prove that:

1) I am disussing the tactics used by
Menzies to get elected - which your
own link confirms as being true.

2) The second link is actually a discussion
of the general causes of war and why countries go
to war.

your accusations as always - are simply not valid - much
as you'd like them to be.

Also what I stated about "Women against Feminism,"
was that many of its participants showed a baffling
level of ignorance about what feminism actually was.

Go back and re-read my posts.

I'm beginning to suspect that you're playing games
with me - and simply stirring to provoke reactions.

Well, old chap, I'm not going to play any more.

You're going to have to find someone else to play with.

Good Luck with that!

The feelings and opinions expressed in the women against feminism site are real. Of course you will always belittle them by claiming they don't understand feminism and so on :(

Contemporary women do NOT accept the feminism that finds expression in the gender war of ex-PM Julia Whatshername and her handbag hit squad. Regrettably, that is the prevailing feminism, the feminism of an elite of leftist educated middle class women whose selfishness, greed, materialism and conspicuous consumption stand in stark contrast to their claimed leftist 'Progressive' politics. Trust the educated middle class to hijack where any advantage and guvvy gravy are concerned.

As a male I have always believed that women have as much right to an opinion/choice in word or action as a man. The reality of this society is that women are often belittled/dismissed and/or used as decoration or considered useful only as vessels for children when they are not in the kitchen. These attitudes are instigated and practised by men and are demeaning. It cannot be a complete society without the input and equality of women who are known to have a more intuitive approach to situations, providing a counter balance to the male reaction of forceful action in dealing with events. Wage disparity is one obvious use of discrimination: if a person is fulfulling the same job/role as another, they should be paid the same. Sex has nothing to do with it.

HereNow,

OK, I'll bite, name one woman you know who does the same job as a man and is paid less.

It is illegal to do so. That has been the case for around forty years.

onthebeach this isn't the version that HereNow was claiming but we have people in our workplace doing the same job for different pay. Some of us have the title senior in front of our title and the number of senior positions is capped. In my team there are two guys who are just as good at their work as those with senior on their title but being paid less. From what I have seen in our workplace the bosses would not be likely to leave an experienced woman on the wrong side of that equation for long. Your point is quite valid but there are ways around it.

I do wonder what sort of company males who think like HereNow keep. Certainly the claim that "The reality of this society is that women are often belittled/dismissed and/or used as decoration or considered useful only as vessels for children when they are not in the kitchen" has never been part of my world or the homes I've been close enough to to form an opinion. What are they basing those claims on?

R0bert

R0bert,

The recent controversy over highly paid ABC presenters also revealed there were women presenters paid more than men doing apparently similar work. By definition, that cannot be discrimination.

I was often paid more and got better bonuses than men and women with the same generic position title and responsibility description, but very few others undertook such challenging contracts and earned the same record $$ for the company, and were as willing to go the extra mile (or thousands of miles!). I protected their jobs by getting new contracts, dammit!