otb,

Sorry, mate I don't comment on silly journalists with a line to push who employ terms such as "femi-fascist".

"Femi-fascist" - and this women pretends she's injecting something useful into the conversation?

(although I realise that a term like "femi-fascist" would start your bells ringing, otb)

".... you might direct your criticism at her claims and not just rely on slurs."

Not to just rely on slurs....why don't you tell that to Ms Devine - she appears rather fond of them.

Ignoring her incendiary "....end the welfare incentive for unsuitable women to keep having children to a string of feckless men." - let's take a gander at the rhetoric she uses in the article you've posted:

"femi-fascists"

"feminist dogma"

"domestic violence industry"

"feminist outrage sites"

"femi-fascist"

"domestic violence activists"

"femi-fascists"

"the sisterhood"

While I can see why you're such a fan - that is not the rhetoric of someone who is genuinely interested in a collaborative effort to get to the root of the problem.

That is the rhetoric of a self-promoting partisan commentator who employs "slurs" liberally as a foundation to her rantings.

Next....

Poirot, so "slurs" have become the red herrings in the discussion. Lets talk about the "slurs" and not the essence of Ms Devine's argument because you know you can't win there. Ms Devine provided a complete table to help her critics with basic analysis and which most twelve year olds would understand.

"that is not the rhetoric of someone who is genuinely interested in a collaborative effort to get to the root of the problem"

I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that the targets of those comments have absolutely no interest in getting to the root of the problem nor in any collaborative efforts that are not just about going along with feminist ideology.

The author is calling out fanatics who do everything in their power to ensure that the root of the problem is not discussed nor got at.

R0bert

Roscop,

"Poirot, so "slurs" have become the red herrings in the discussion. Lets talk about the "slurs" and not the essence of Ms Devine's argument because you know you can't win there...."

So pointing out that "violence" is more likely to occur in lower socio-economic environments is some sort of epiphany!

Golly!

Does Devine suggest anything helpful other than removing welfare from "women" - while labelling those women "unsuitable"?

Sorry I missed her "solution" - maybe because it was buried under so many slurs.

And while you're suggesting I attend to the "essence of Ms Devine's argument" - can you explain why, instead of attending to the "essence" of this thread, you decided instead to go for Rosie Batty?...a la:

"The legal process for obtaining an AVO is so carefully crafted it works a treat for a woman wanting to separate a father from his child/ren. It worked especially well for Rosie Batty..."

"People make choices for their own reasons. In the case of women like Rosie Batty who had Anderson's son at the age of 39, they are up against the ticking biological clock. She kicked Anderson out of her life and went to live and work in Sydney. Apparently, she didn't do any good in Sydney bloke-wise (obviously the good single blokes there are more discerning lol). She returns to Melbourne and after eight years she hooks up with Anderson again ("Im intrigued to catch up and see him") ...then she gets preggas and in her book blames Anderson for that..."I wondered whether I should go back on the Pill, even though I didn't feel comfortable taking it. But I didn't want to fall pregnant either. When I told Greg this, he protested. I'm not having sex with you if you're on the Pill,'he said." Well why didn't she go see her doctor and get fitted with a diaphragm or take some other precaution. The way I look at it, with Anderson dead she is now free to say anything she likes about what went on between she and him."

Practice what you preach.

Well there we have it, RObert,

Mr Reasonable says:

"I think it's been pretty well demonstrated that the targets of those comments have absolutely no interest in getting to the root of the problem nor in any collaborative efforts that are not just about going along with feminist ideology."

"The author is calling out fanatics who do everything in their power to ensure that the root of the problem is not discussed nor got at."

No she's not - she's employing incendiary rhetoric to get a reaction - and when she gets the desired reaction, she gets to write an article about that.

She's offensive...she's offensive every other day on twitter.

You think a professional journalist writing for a newspaper should employ rhetoric like this in an opinion piece?

""femi-fascists"

"feminist dogma"

"domestic violence industry"

"feminist outrage sites"

"femi-fascist"

"domestic violence activists"

"femi-fascists"

"the sisterhood"

...in "one" article.

Admittedly her conduct is in line with the usual trash one expects from those Murdoch sites, along with their photo-shopping and other gutter tactics, it's usual.

Frankly, she'd be more suited to ranting on here wth the rest of you - she'd certainly feel at home.

Piffle.

Poirot,

You have offered no rebuttal at all. Nor could the feminists who attacked her article.