'morning Foxy, Paul1405, susonline and Poirot,

GY's wrap on this topic was "So we'll know feminism has succeeded when the term falls into disuse."

This is called transparency. For example, computer technology will be "transparent" when it is no longer seen. About 2025 with current technological progress.

The main impediment to this IT transparency is the Luddite opposition to storage of information. Those opposing transparency are quite happy to use selective parts of IT progress like social media, but not the rest of it.

Likewise, transparency in feminism is being held back by those who wish to be selective about the parts of feminism that feminists want, but not the rest. It's' called selective feminism.

Those bits they want (as protection) must give way to the bits feminists don't want, which are the consequences of activist feminism.

The moral of this perspective is that feminists are the inhibitors to feminism. What it is they seek to avoid, they create.

Not one single feminist has ever understood this.

Let me put it in a family or social context. When one is not well, has cold or under stress, the last thing one needs to do to the family is to occupy the space that concerned family should occupy. This is because this is not your space it is the family's space.

If you occupy it, you are denying your family the space to be concerned for you, appreciate you and to mitigate your pain.

Feminists need to get the hell out of the space that does not belong to them. It belongs to those who might otherwise like to sympathise but are denied the opportunity because your squawkertariat has already occupied it.

When you can find it in your hearts to stop bullying society into acquiescing to your demands and actually make room for them to volunteer their perspectives, you will achieve your goals.

Dear Spindoc,

Thank you for your civilised take on the issue.
It is appreciated.

Dear Shadow Minister,

Wow. What a surprising and unexpected post from you.
Not up to your usual standard at all.
You complain that much as you can bed any woman
of your choice, despite your age, you could never
bed a "feminazi," and then you go on to inform
everyone on this forum that "feminazis" only
sleep with their "girlfriends," and you refer to
them as "bitches." (gulp).

You really don't need a crystal ball to see the
reason you could not be successful in bedding some women,
all you need is a mirror. I'm sure you'd have problems bedding
any female, apart from perhaps "working girls,"
if you were to refer to them in those derogatory terms.

Dear oh dear!

cont'd ...

Well folks, it looks like we've been had.

It appears that the postings are not from
Shadow Minister after-all but that SM
appears to either have lent the use of his
moniker to either
a family member of a colleague especially
to provoke on this forum, or that someone has hacked
into is moniker.

We all get the joke. However, as a male colleague
once stated about an acquaintance of his -
"If he's going to behave like a dick, he should
at least wear a condom on his head, so he looks
like one!"

Foxy,

It's not SM - or SM's account

(Check out the newest user)

Dear Poirot,

Thanks for clearing things up for me.

Graham appears to have deleted the
joker's posts.

What a relief that it was not Shadow Minister.

We may have disagreed on many issues but Shadow
Minister's posts were not of the low calibre of this
impersenator.

Dear Shadow Minister,

My apologies to you and I am so glad and relieved
that you were not in any way part of this
impersenator's act.