“Women can only make a show of fighting for their rights if their men gallantly allow them to do so. In such chivalrous societies, strong and independent women know that their power ultimately lies in being able to make a scene to get their way, safe in the knowledge that gentlemen are obliged to back away in such circumstances. Thus do the feminists exult in their “strength”. This is how the suffragettes used their “power”; and this is how modern feminists like Van Badham – prone to behaving hysterically – also use it”. (Jonathan McClintock, Spectator, June 2018)

Interesting but not at all surprising to read of the paedophile ring among the liberal artist with feminist supplying their daughters for those 'artist'. Not likely to hear much from the ABC. Not the catholic church hence no outcry.

https://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/relationships/australian-celebrity-paedophile-ring-revealed/news-story/152f23a6d269437321f8e2f923a82e7f

It only works on blokes too weak to be anything other than their women's doormats.
Women don't want weak doormats anyway, they won't respect you.

Dear AC,

That reminds me of this joke:

Wife says to husband: "How would you describe me?"

Husband answers: ABCDEFGHIJK

Wife asks: What does that mean?

Husband replies: Amazing, Beautiful, Classy, Darling, Elegant,
Fantastic, Gorgeous and Hot.

Wife asks: What about IJK?

Husband relies: I - I'm, J - Just, K- Kidding!

//Women don't want weak doormats anyway, they won't respect you.//

Who cares?

Can't have sex with no bitch's 'respect', know what I'm sayin' dog?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqXi8WmQ_WM

What the girls don't seem to be aware of is that their male counterparts these days are not as chivalrous as we silly old farts were, and the girls are doing enough screeching, caterwauling and self-promotion that they don't need male help (or so they think). Young blokes are also sick of being treated like crap and taken for granted. When they try to be nice, they don't get any thanks for if. A young man gave up his seat on a bus for my wife recently, and he was so shocked that she thanked him that he was still thanking her for thanking him when she got off the bus.

Recently, a hugely pregnant Channel 9 reporter travelled on public transport to deliberately 'prove’ how ill-mannered everybody was. She started off with an 'attitude’ towards males, and they did indeed leave her strap hanging. Even dogs can sense what is thought of them. Anyway, pregnancy is not an illness, and if she can run around sticking microphones in the public’s face, she can stand up on a bus

anyone with half a brain can see feminist don't want equality, they want dominance. Problem is they were never created for this so its unnatural. That is why feminist are among the nastiest people going around.

Gosh - and here I am thinking that a feminist is
anyone who recognises the full humanity of both
women and men.

It looks though that - how can any woman be expected
to effect change in the world when they're not invited
or welcomed to participate in the conversation - and
when they do try to speak up they are demeaned and
slurred. Therefore any woman who chooses to behave
like a full human being I suppose should be warned that
the armies of the status quo will treat her as something of
a dirty joke.

Just ask Julia Gillard.

Well done fellas. Keep up your work - and then complain
about it.

'Gosh - and here I am thinking that a feminist is
anyone who recognises the full humanity of both
women and men.'

funny heh Foxy that the new feminist/marxist now don't recognise gender except of course when it suites.

runner,

I'm not familiar with Marxists - I wasn't aware that
they still existed.

And as far as feminists and gender
are concerned? - most of the ones that I know are not
restricted by gender as your generation appears to be
from your posts.
Today all possible options are open and equally acceptable
for both sexes. It's a person's individual human qualities rather
than his or her biological sex that is the primary measure of
that person's worth and achievement.

'I'm not familiar with Marxists - I wasn't aware that
they still existed.'

come on Foxy playing dumb really isn't your style. Heard of Ros Ward or ever watched the sisterhood of white male haters on then abc? Try being a little honest.

Foxy, Gillard was worse than any bad joke, she was more like a dangerous virus. She left a trail of poison for Oz that is still costing the country & it's people a fortune in money & kind.

Yep she is an example of a very nasty modern virus, feminism.

runner,

Good comment on Marxism; it is on the way back as the celebrations concerning the 200th. birthday of Karl Marx’s a few days ago proved. The neo-Marxist New York Times headline shouted: “Happy Birthday Karl Marx—You were right’”.

Their enemy is no longer the capitalist, not least because so many Marxists are very wealthy, even billionaires. The enemy today is the non-communist white heterosexual male. This follows from their priority today which is to fulfil Marx’s and Engels’ plan to undermine that most fundamental institution of civil society, the family.

Hasbeen,

That they put the man-hating ginger nut in charge of Beyond Blue shows just how low the blokes are rated.

And speaking of attitudes to white, heterosexual males, have look at today's Quadrant Online for a comparison of how heterosexual white male Craig McLachlan was treated following sexual harassment claims with how the ABC is mealy-mouthing over the same sort of claim against so-called comedian and non-heterosexual, Tom Ballard.

runner,

What about those self-proclaimed Christians who
smear and slur those who don't agree with their
world view. Who bomb abortion clinics. Marxists?
are the least of our worries - at least they
appear not to label people. They do seem to look
at the individuals behind the labels. Unlike the
"lovely" Christians who are so obviously of a
different category of species and whose opinions
are so poisonous - that all they know is
toxicity and attacks. Poor things.

U really r desperate Foxy. How many 'Christians' have bombed the murderous baby killing clinics? And why would Marxist bomb baby slaughterhouses that they promote and run? Your arguments and spurs are very lame.

Talking about killing, if we must, 52% of child murders are committed by women, and children surveyed report that domestic violence was 50-50. Of course, 'charities' like Mission Australia would have us believe that all violence is perpetrated by men, to get your money, the lying buggers. It is clear that women are equal with men on all the bad things. Slightly superior on child killing.

The heart wrenching murders of children are the product
of despair or incomprehensible madness and should not
be a catalyst for gender wars. To borrow the common-sense
words of social commentator Bettina Arndt -

"Neither sex has a monopoly on vice or virtue."

And to set the record straight - Do I have any sympathy for
those who kill children? Not one bit.

Nothing can ever excuse the murder of the innocent.

' The heart wrenching murders of children are the product
of despair or incomprehensible madness and should not
be a catalyst for gender wars'

tell that to the abc Foxy. For once I agree with you. It's a pity the feminist marxist don't.

runner,

I think that if we're going to try to have a positive
inter-action - we need to stop with the finger-pointing
and condemnation. A discussion is after all supposed to
be beneficial to both sides. We need to step back a bit
and try again. I'm willing to give it a go if you are.

Two quick points: there is a shortage of engineers in Australia, and 'Engineers Australia' says that “Australia's reliance on imported engineers is unsustainable”. Hallo, mass immigrationists. Get the message? The second point is, the same mob complaining about the lack of Australian-trained engineers is pushing for women to fill the shortages. So, here we go again: social engineering from people who should be concentrating proper engineering.

Maybe the girls don't want to be engineers. Only 6% of them do advanced maths in high school – half the number of boys who do. Only 13% of working engineers are women. If more women wished to be engineers, surely they would be already; there is nothing stopping them.

But, oh no! The gender card has to be played. Instead of calling for more training of engineers locally, male, female or whatever some strange people identify as, they have to bang the feminist drum. There should be more training in public relations to show these people how much they are pissing the community off with their gender politics.

Who are these people? Most of the women that I know
are hard workers and are too busy coping with their
families and raising their children or looking after
their grand-children. Feminism is so yesterday to them.
They got their hands full today. And they and their
husbands are sharing their work loads - especially with
the kids and at home.

I sometimes can't help wondering that some men (especially
old men) who prattle on about feminism a) don't understand
or know feminism and b) are scared of powerful women.
Most attacks by them - come from fear and ignorance.

Their theories are -

Feminism encourages women to leave their husbands, kill their
children, practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and
become lesbians.

Seriously?

'Once more unto the breach I go'.
The one thing no-one has mentioned is that this push for the female cause is a clear violation of the discrimination act, for those who may wish to consider little fact.
The men have never, ever said; 'we don't want women'.
The women have created this furphy to obviously promote their selfish cause or agenda.
As a consequence, they have awoken a sleeping, but now, opposing force.
MEN.
Selfish, self absorbed women started it, and guess what?
It seems as though it will come down the men, 'real men' to finish it. I don't know what is wrong with being a woman, that so many want to be men.
Guys, it's OK, like every other fad, this one will eventually pass.
I only hope the destruction it leaves behind will not be too onerous for us to repair, nor take too long.

For their part most men, especially younger men,
have generally reacted positively to the growing
equality of women, In fact, their own roles,
being complimentary to those of women, have
changed as well. Men have for some time now
been permitted a more gentle and expressive
personality that would have been considered
inappropriate a few decades ago.

The 1950s "John Wayne" image of manhood
has less and less appeal to both sexes these days.
Like the feminine role, the masculine role is now
more ambiguous, more flexible, more subject to
interpretation by the individual.

Resolving this kind of ambiguity is today - part of the
challenge of social and cultural change.

Under the old system, everyone knew what their roles
were, and most people during those long ago times
unquestioningly behaved as they were "supposed to".
That system constrained people, it stopped them from
the need to make choices.

There are fewer constraints today, and the individual
now has the liberty to choose his or her own path to
self-fulfillment.

Sexual equality does not mean gender similarity or a
"unisex" society. It does not mean that women will
adopt the characteristics of men or that the two
existing genders will converge on some happy medium.

What we can see today - that for many people, especially younger
people, is that many alternative lifestyles and roles
are becoming acceptable for both men and women.
Our society today is individualistic and highly open
to change - and therefore men and women are exploring
a wide variety of roles.

True liberation from the stereotypes and restrictions
of gender today means that all possible options are
open and equally acceptable for both sexes. In that way
a person's individual human qualities, rather than
their biological sex is the primary measure of that
person's worth and achievement.

Designated specific roles
based on one's gender and biological sex are rather
antiquated concepts of bygone eras,
and in fact do not play much of a role in
today's society. Except perhaps in the minds of
some very insecure men.

You know Foxy, one of the things that defines those like you was, 'You've got a mouth'.
And personally I'm indifferent to your slanderous, yes slanderous comments degrading men and trying to insult us by suggesting the younger generation is somehow becoming less masculine, ergo, more feminine and free to explore and......., what a load of utter rubbish.
Stop pushing your bent and twisted views.
You are way off track.
You give me no response to my comment about your attitude and others who push for a more inclusive role for women at the clear and obvious exclusion of men.
I thought it was illegal, (if you want to throw the law into the mix) to choose one gender over another.
Whilst you don't want anything to weaken your stance, I once again point out that a woman has a clear role in life.
They reject that role at their own peril.
They will suffer emotionally down the line in later years.
I know of several women who thought they were 'as good as any men', and have and are bemoaning their anti nature choice, and now are on medication and anti depressants and so on.
All because they looked back at all those years of motherhood and nurturing they missed out on and have now gone, never to return.
Sadly it is said to be one of the most dire feelings a mother could ever suffer.
It has been described as, similar to having lost a child in a tragedy.
Another of many examples.
It is a matter of fact that a person can either do one thing using 100% of their ability, physically and mentally.
Or they can do two things at the rate of 50% on each. NO-ONE can put 100% into twice as much work.
Now not even you can come up with a counter on that one.
BTW, don't forget to correct me on the legality of gender preference.

Insecure men who can't handle the opinions of females
and who get defensive and attack those opinions are
really not worth the time and effort.

If I feel the need to voice my opinion at certain times
it's because I feel super strongly about the subject at
hand Or... I simply want to piss some neanderthal off.

As you can see folks - I have succeeded.

BTW: One of the things that does define me is -

I have a brain.

And I know how to use it.

Yes and as you have clearly explained again and again,'for no good use'.
You obviously have been talking to yourself for so long you have convinced yourself that you are right and yours is the 'way of the future'.
You bad mouth me as much as you like, Ha, it's ironic, as it is you who have become the very things you accuse me of.
Every time I make a valid point you respond with attitude instead of to the question or point.
You don't realise it but you deflect quite regularly.
The evidence is historical and on the record for all to see.
Your stance is fraught with wrongs.
Your attempts at making a convincing argument are not valid.
You NEVER challenge my comments with direct and related responses.
You just keep prattling on like a broken record.
We have heard it all before and it does not bode well for you or your stance.
How about answering me on even one of my points, such as; is it not allowed, by law, to favour any one gender over another in the workplace.
Logically then, it follows that your stance is a clear and unambiguous example of discrimination.
There I've asked it again in case you missed it the first few times. Unlike you I do respond and challenge your baseless allegations.
Your continual reference to links proves nothing as they are based on opinions and intangibles.
And so it is that your ramblings are merely your opinion.
Oh, and BTW, please get back on topic.
You and I are not the topic.
As the saying goes, if you've got a problem with me, let's step out side, Ha!

Not worth my time and effort.

BTW: Your postings would be of great interest
to the psychology department at any university.
People studying mental conditions would be very
interested in your comments. You would make an
excellent case study. They're looking for volunteers
you should give it a try at your nearest university.

Hi all, it appears that Foxy is incapable of intelligent and diverse discourse.
Any attempt at extracting answers to questions and comments are immediately met with, at best erroneous assumptions or opinions personal or otherwise.
Even though she is reminded regularly to stay on topic she strays in a fanatical effort to have her views heard ad nauseum.
Her way of responding when she has no reasonable answer to a valid question or comment, is to deflect and completely ignore the post.
I am always one of the first to suggest getting back on topic.
I have taken leave, in this posting to set the record straight.
To do so I to, in response to Foxy, for the last time have gone off topic.
People, it has been said that any attempt to change someones mind or opinion on a forum is a waste of time.
I disagree.
If what someone is saying is simply based on personal opinions, fantasy or unrealistic expectations, they MUST be challenged otherwise they will infect the debate and steer it towards a wrong outcome.
Foxy claims to do a lot of reading and research.
What she is saying is she believes what she reads or sees.
This is not a healthy base for a debate or discussion because there are many versions to a story.
It is very narrow minded, presumptuous and arrogant to simply push a point at the expense of the truth.

I shall try one last time to clarify things for you.

This is a discussion forum. Therefore you have to
be prepared that there will be opinions that will
not agree with your own. If you choose to attack
those opinions - you will be subsequently ignored.
Nobody likes or support an illogical and abusive
debater.

You have displayed on this forum an irrational,
inflexible attitude toward an entire category of
people - women. Your negative feelings have shone
through. You've displayed antipathy, hostility, even
fear. The key feature of your assumptions is that
they are always rooted in generalisations and so
ignore the differences among individuals.

You have displayed a distinctive set of traits, including
conformity, intolerance and insecurity. You see the world
in very rigid and stereotyped terms.

Your thoughts are irrational, illogical, and inconsistent.

You are not at all concerned about genuine characteristics.
You simply accept any negative statement that feeds your
existing hostility. You are hostile towards people you have
never met or even had any contact with. And then you get
upset when I and many others don't choose to respond to
much of what you write.

You have to face the reality that unless you're willing
to listen to the opinions of others and not insult people -
nobody is going to take you seriously - because attitudes
like yours are no longer acceptable to most people.

I've reached the point where I no longer read what you post -
I simply scroll past when I see your name.

I shall continue to do this unless I see some changes in
your behaviour. So far this has not happened - hence I
have not responded to much of what you have written.
You have the illusion that only you know the "truth"
(truth cannot be owned). That people who disagree with
you are bad. And you show total disrespect for the
rights of others to hold different opinions.

My advice to you is - go to your GP and get a referral
for a medical professional who may be able to help you.

It is you who needs a reality check.
Your latest rant confirms it.
I am what I am, but at least I know it.
You on the other hand are the one you allege me to be.
As I said, 'look in the mirror'.
You see Foxy you can slur and slander as much as you like, but by doing so you have proven my case for me.
For example you have rarely responded to my charges.
Instead you have totally ignored the text and content, because you knew I was right and you had no viable response to counter with.
So you deflect in a spray of rage and frustration.
As for fear, you have enough of that in realising that your stance is a fantasy, another of your fabrications.
You can keep pushing your arrogant and self righteous agenda, you are one of those people with a questionable imagination.
Seeing as how you know people in the psych dept at uni, it is only fitting that you get yourself checked out first.
Ladies first.
And you say chivalry is gone.
You see I DO respect women.
BTW, if you wish to redeem your cred on this forum, please answer my question about it being illegal to show preference to one gender or the other in todays work place, or job adds.

Thank you for creating this thread ttbn and for your comments.
Jordan Peterson has made some interesting points in regards to this subject matter especially the interview with Kathy Newman who was perhaps a bit over her head. But it's sad that the Identity Lobby has been able to convince women to turn against their partners and in effect their families and their culture

Canem Malum,

Jordan Peterson - and his pithy sentences?

There are plenty of people out there looking for
a prophet.

High intellect, or just another angry white guy?

"Sort yourself out, bucko."

Foxy - Respectfully please watch the interview with Kathy Newman. Many here have probably already seen it.

Canem Malum,

I have watched it.

Have you seen him on "Sixty Minutes," with Tara Brown?
Equally respectfully.

CM, it is refreshing to see a mature and open minded person like yourself keeping us on the straight and narrow.
Some here are too set in their ways and refuse to discuss, debate or consider any other views than their own.
All too often their views and opinions are 'set in concrete' and even though they are proven wrong, will keep pushing their selfish and stubborn agenda ad nauseum.
They speak of others getting mental help, when it is they who are the psychotics.
ttbn's take on this topic stands as a clear and reasonable explanation of it.
It is only one view but it is closer to reality than the tripe some people are pushing.
The females are fearful of strong men because we are a threat to the ones pushing their ideals of pulling the men down so they can rise and dominate over the men.
Ain't gunna app'n any time soon let alone ever.
This push for equality also must not be allowed to happen.
There can only be one dominant gender.
A clear example is that women CANNOT protect themselves against a determined assailant.
As much as they want desperately, to be the 'overlord', it is just not possible.
The foolish notion that two people can arrive at a decision when they are set in opposite perspectives, is a fools fantasy.
In any sensible situation or discussion where resolution is ultimately required, you will find that there will the 'odd' person who's sole purpose is to break an impasse should the resolution be equal between the two opposing sides.
That is why men are physical and women are fanciful.

Of course there are natural differences between men
and women. Indeed there are. But differences does not
mean incapability - which is the big issue here.

Women score consistently higher than men in IQ tests,
and in highly educated countries like Sweden and Norway,
the gender gap in aptitude in maths and science among
teenagers is essentially nonexistent, despite the
long-held belief that girls suck at maths. A lot of the
so called "natural differences" really come down to
societal beliefs. Women are discouraged from going into
STEM fields for example because of gender stereotypes
that it's "for boys."

Men are stronger than women? News-flash. some are some aren't.

Most men aren't that strong unless they work at it.
And many don't work at it. Women who work at it are stronger
and quite able to handle men who aren't in condition.
Women also have better pain endurance and endurance in general.
So the question of whether men are stronger is not as simple
as some would have us believe.

Do feminists hate men?
Yes, all feminists want to lock men in basements and make them
do their bidding. (Joke)

That's why so many women marry men, date men,
have children with men, and regularly spend a lot of their time
with men.

Feminists are perfectly capable of loving men.
Especially those men who are secure enough not to be
threatened by women and who condemn silly stereotypes.
(GO, those dudes).

As for women who want equality? Women don't want to be the
same as men. They only want it to be a level playing-field.
They don't want to take anything away from men. They only want
to be given the same opportunities. I promise.
However, those times are a long way off yet. Men really have
nothing to worry about.

Van Badham has made a career out of a particular model of feminism that has two goals;
- Her type of pop-feminism is easy to sell to female consumers.
- Her articles are full of easily-refuted oversimplifications that drive traffic, because men want to pull her arguments apart.

Therefore, she churns out a steady stream of articles that follow a simple formula. A genuine problem is identified and simplistically explained. She then goes on to tell us how men need to change to solve the problem.

Feminism was started with the best of intentions and no one wants to roll back several decades of progress. It just a shame that marketers twisted it into a way of marketing things and driving Internet traffic. Van Badam is the Milo Yiannopoulos of feminism, if not the Kim Kardashian.

The Marxist feminists love emasculated men who really are cowards who fail to take leadership of their households. These men are regularly seen on the abc bowing down to the feminist domination. They are very poor role models for young boys.

runner,

If you're so concerned about young blokes growing
up to be top blokes, here's a link that might be
of interest to you. You might like to pass it on
to others who are as equally concerned as you are.
I believe their programs are excellent:

http://www.topblokes.org.au

They actually do something about problems that young
blokes face.

It would also be nice to see a few courses run for young girls on common sense Foxy but I suppose that would not fit the narrative of girls taken any responsibility for actions.

To Foxy.

I understand the insult you're replying to regarding ttbn's take on women activists. But on the other hand, do take it for the merit that it gives. And by example of it's merit take note of your comments in Big Nana's topic of "Changing Human Behavior."

The criticism that women activist's power "ultimately lies in being able to make a scene to get their way, safe in the knowledge that gentlemen are obliged to back away in such circumstances," that criticism has merit. In defense of the political parade of a tragic death your view (in Changing Human Behavior) has this quote:

"We need to call it out - no matter who's doing it - If we don't call it out - who will?"

Your position to spread the word on an issue is the same as the observation of "making a big scene to get their way."

It's a worth while criticism for a common behavior among women activists. Something to think about I hope.

Runner, 'beware the plot within'.
Apparently now it's only the feminists who like males with no norads, and who condemn men.
They apparently don't want to be the same as men.
Well that's alrighty then.
I feel a lot better now because they're not equal to men, it's the neuters they feel equal to.
Because the neuters and the females have finally got one thing in common at least.
They look pretty similar and they are both missing the one (or two) thing/s that definitely would make them the same; norads!
I am finally pleased to see we agree on some things, namely that MEN marry WOMEN, and have children.
It makes me feel so warm and fuzzy to see this sentiment being mentioned.
If we cherry pick we might find the 'odd' reference to women exceeding men.
The problem is it is such a minority, it does not count, whether here or Sweden or Norway.
As far as physicality goes, the weakest of males, more commonly referred to as, neuters, will still hold there own till the female with all her lesser muscles weaken, because it IS a fact that females can train as much as they like but do not have the stamina or the ability to last.
Have you noticed how in every physical endeavour/sport, the females times 'in play' are much shorter than the men's.
Their expectations are incongruous with the truth and that is the reality of it.
The bottom line for feminists is that they are trying to escape the 'mould'.
But the reality is, there are too many facts of nature which absolutely forbid it.
I was not going to say it because I thought it has been made clear, but staunch feminists need to have it in grained in their heads over and over, to the point of ad nauseam.
As for the difference between males and females, men and women.
Of course there are.
They are abundant and historical for anyone to see clearly.
That's if you are looking or really want to see, it, or the truth.

Runner- Do you have children? What are they like? I realise this is a bit personal, but I'm genuinely interested.

runner,

There are courses for girls as well.

Thank You for your concern.

Dear NNS,

On the other side of the coin we have insecure men
who as Yuyutsu has pointed out in this discussion -
are grotesque caricatures. Insecure men who can't
handle the opinions of women and who get defensive
and attack those opinions - they simply aren't worth
the time and effort.

They probably live with their mammas, scratching
their asses and lacking vitamin D.

Those men will never change - and talking to them is
about as effective as a fart in a blizzard.

However, in the real world - unless we change our culture -
nothing will change. And by that I mean - men have to be
a part of this change - blaming the women only - is not
going to bring changes. We can't keep on doing what we're
currently doing, and expect things to change. If we keep
doing what we're doing - we'll keep getting what we've got.

Hi Benk THanks to the mercy of God my kids are grown up. One is an an electrical planner, one a public servant and one a medical doctor. Not bad for a dunce like me who hardly passed high school. Fatherless they could well be in gaol.

Foxy said- "I have watched it." (Interview of Jordan Peterson/ Kathy Newman)

Answer- Some might not like Jordan Peterson but the issue is whether he justifies his position. Not liking someone is a smoking gun- you still need to find evidence of crime for a conviction. He made points about equality of opportunity, multivariate analysis, and others.

Foxy said- "Have you seen him on "Sixty Minutes," with Tara Brown?"

Answer- Yes I think I saw it- Jordan Peterson only got about one sentence and then went to two critics from memory and didn't give a "right of reply". Sixty minutes has ten minute segments- they ambushed him. Kudos to them- but it doesn't change my view.

ALTRAV- Thanks for your feedback. I've learned from public speaking that people that don't think before they speak have a disadvantage. It is a painful process going through different solutions to the worlds problems- things that you believe change- but some principles stand the test of time. Some hang on to certain principles long after they should give up on them- but their arguments become weak. It's hard for everyone. Some are opportunists.

ALTRAV said- "They speak of others getting mental help, when it is they who are the psychotics."

Answer- Yes I find it a weak argument to demonize. Play the ball not the man. I generally ignore those comments myself.

ALTRAV said- "This push for equality also must not be allowed to happen."

Answer- Some see the equality battle as part of identity politics a form of Trotskyist "Permanent/ World Revolution" and "Proletarian Internationalism" with elements of "Anarcho-communism" and strangely "Taylorism/ Capitalism". The far left (socs) and far right (caps) sides of politics appear to be cooperating- this is the reason for the rise of the "Alternative" movement. Many believe the "socs and caps" are trying to make their extreme ideas mainstream.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

There is a belief that the purpose of (Individual) Identity politics is removing evolved group identity in cultures, families, and genders. For those of us that believe that our cultures, family, gender identities are important "identity politics is problematic".

In animals- group behavior implies a dominance hierarchy- and probably does in humans too- although it's more complex. Humans have a reptilian, a mammilian, a primate brain, and a human brain- our actions are the sum total of these.
_____

Rightly or wrongly men and women have advantages and disadvantages that have evolved over time to form the social, family, gender structures that developed. Some argue that they are no longer relevant- but I haven't found all their arguments convincing.

Even a leader needs to listen to their experts. In a family there needs to be a discussion of options and then a decision- decision-makers need to take responsibility to fix the situation if it doesn't work out.

Often in families as in society there is juresdictional authority- traditionally women had power in home affairs and men with external affairs. Being born into defined roles can be useful- it can give individuals a sense of belonging in society- most people appear to want to fit in- could also be potentially problematic. In other contexts evolution is usually correct- and is probably here too- but sometimes it's all about the details. Feminism has gone through several iterations- I'm not aware of the details of the current one. There appears to be a political power motive in much of the current agenda.

MGTOW is an interesting way for men to address noise from women's rights demands. Men often feel powerless and trapped in the face of current courts and family departments. I wouldn't recommend any man to form a family in the current climate and to take extreme care with relationships- there have been some terrible outcomes of the family law systems. Sadly this could mean the end of our culture and our families. We can only try to change the government to one that supports men more equally. It's sad that women don't seem aware that our family lineage and cultures are at risk.

Canem Malum,

A few corrections.

I did not make any comment about what I thought
of the Jordan Peterson and Cathy Newman interview.

Nor about his interview with Tara Brown on "60 Minutes."

For your information Mr Peterson's opinions may not be
to everyone's taste - but he's certainly entitled to have
them. I thought in both interviews
they were well matched - and Mr Peterson was given the
right of reply in both interviews.

That's what made them interesting to watch.

The thing I find interesting yet confusing and also distasteful, is that females actually started this bizarre movement, with absolutely no visible or actual triggers.
I have aligned it to terrorism.
The facts are that somewhere in the past a female fell mentally ill and the result of this illness was to challenge and sideline men.
With time and determination this illness spread, turning women into females and then against men.
I do like stability.
Stability in all things, not just the economy, means security, piece of mind and therefore a healthier, happier lifestyle and demeanor.
I have yet to see any benefit from all this turmoil.
Is it so bad being a woman?
I think what is probably the most annoying part in all this is the continual push as if there is some kind of urgency or evil thing they are running away from.
I would not mind if it remained within the confines of a cult or group.
I would have the choice to avoid it, but this level and intensity of advocacy is bad.
It is not warranted and is badly affecting the greater population, quite negatively, just so a few mental patients can have their way.
Unfortunately as long as people, mainly men, shy away from confronting these terrorists, it just makes it unnecessarily harder for the rest of us.

//The thing I find interesting yet confusing and also distasteful, is that females actually started this bizarre movement, with absolutely no visible or actual triggers.
I have aligned it to terrorism.//

Of course you do.

Actually, the plain truth of the matter is that the suffragettes started their campaign just to annoy you. Because the whole world really does revolve around you.

//The facts are that somewhere in the past a female fell mentally ill and the result of this illness was to challenge and sideline men.//

Not quite. What happened was that somewhere in the past some people decided that taxation without representation was not a fair deal. Also one of the things that spurred the American War of Independence: the American colonies had to pay taxes to England, but had no representatives in the Parliament and therefore no vote. Strangely enough, taxation without representation tends to annoy people.

At some point in the 19th century, some women cottoned onto the fact that it wasn't fair if they were paying taxes and not being given a vote. And thus was born the suffragette movement. The rest, as they say, is history.

From the sound of things, you're none to keen on the idea of women having the vote and would like to wind the clock back to a time well before you were born... a Jacob Rees-Mogg level of conservatism. Beyond caricature and into the realms of performance art.

I think that most Aussies will agree that taxation without representation is a fundamentally undemocratic notion. If you want to bar women from the political process, I think the only way you'll be able to sell it to the voters is by making them exempt from tax. That way there's no unfairness.

But somehow, I can see you having a whinge that it's unfair that women don't have to pay any tax while the all the poor victimised men do.

It seems you're roundly in favour of taxation without representation. But I don't think anybody else is. So feel free to keep beating that drum for as long as you like, but I don't think it's going to do you much good.

//With time and determination this illness spread, turning women into females//

Some readers may find this an odd idea, but history does record that prior to 1831 it was actually the case that there were no female women in the general British population. It was all cocks in frocks, I'm afraid. No wonder ALTRAV yearns for the good old days ;)

The only females at that time were to be found in a small community in Cornwall, perfecting the art of tea-making for future generations. We owe them so much.

//I think what is probably the most annoying part in all this is the continual push as if there is some kind of urgency or evil thing they are running away from.//

Yeah, that thing they are running away from would be the attitudes of neanderthals like you.

//Unfortunately as long as people, mainly men, shy away from confronting these terrorists, it just makes it unnecessarily harder for the rest of us.//

Well you keep up that confronting, sport. You're doing a really great job there. Any day now, a little light bulb is going to go off in everyone's head and they're all going to start agreeing with you because you're so awesome and wonderful and clever and the world really does revolve around you.

To Foxy.

I should explain how woman activists that I have met have put their causes before the people around them. And that the cause was more important then several other things. A college teacher at one point teaching a lesson about history went on a tangent about how evil men were throughout history. The class was fine up to this point then as a student I realized men were not welcome in that field of study. The cause of woman's rights looked back throughout history was a reason to keep men from having a say or a stance in current studies of that topic.

This perhaps is just one misguided sociology teacher on a bad day. Except that this kind of experience is repeated in most interactions I kind among women activists. One friend married a woman who fought for her causes on Facebook and probably other social networks; from police brutality, gay rights, women's rights, or even to the accusation that all white people are racists (even her) and all men are sexists. (We have to point this out to the world or it will never change kind of thing). Watching this I found a close study of a woman who wanted to have a cause to fight for. To have herself involved in something to scream at the world about, as some other women have done to get their causes that they supported to be acceptable in years past.

The problem is that those causes in years past were worth while. Women voting, and having equal pay for the same job. Now a days it seems that some activists like to get involved in the struggle glorified about in the past and fight for any cause they can get a hold of. And if challenged or told differently, at least this woman was willing to drop anyone and any friend that did not agree with her cause of the month. A decent amount of strain on her husband's friendships through Facebook, and I think strain on their marriage as well. (Their now divorced).

(Continued)

(Continued)

These are two cases of the activists being someone I've met or known personally. Yet even these are not alone. In the cases of so many other causes I see a culture to silence and shun any man who says different from what the socialite activists are fighting for, and a much better demeanor (though sometimes still ugly) towards other women that disagree. On abortion it's "another man to tell women what to do with their bodies." On most anything else the response is to degrade the people in disagreement. Just as you had done in your post earlier. "They probably live with their mammas, scratching their asses and lacking vitamin D."

I've seen this approach towards both good men, and men that might fit their descriptions. It's therefore a worthwhile note to know what side effects being an activist might do to you. What's in your culture to guard yourself against. Or what reasons there might be to try a different approach or even to leave the causes alone.

Foxy, you sound like a good caring woman by your posts. Someone who sincerely wants to help the world around you. So I'm sorry to give merit to the arguments given against women activists here, but they do have merit. Be careful, and don't follow into the same traps.

Toni, it's a shame you waste so much time making no sense and going off topic, the only relevant part of your otherwise irrelevant rant, was the last paragraph.
Thank you, finally I'm starting to get through.
Seriously, my comments can't be that far off track because all I have seen is deflections and abuse but not one single sensible syllable challenging my comments with serious mature responses.
My radar is telling me, based on your attitude, you must be a female. If so then it will explain your stance.
If not, then you have issues.
As for your comments knocking the 'good ol days', if you were a viable reasoning person back then, you will remember how much better it was, for many things.
Also you give me far too much credit if you say they are running away from me and my kind of people.
Again your accolades are wonderful, thank you.
I try to put up truthful and rightful examples.
The fact that the gender challenged brigade happen to hate themselves and who they are, is not due to me but a mental disorder.
So don't waste your time bagging me, because I love being the centre of attention, and give me clear and viable, mature replies to my comments.
Please?

ALTRAV- Toni Lavis is a man I believe (Antonio). I believe you are refering to fourth wave feminism not earlier versions that Toni Lavis was using to deconstruct your comments.

Dear NNS,

I understand where you are coming from. I have
seen things in my own workplace at times that some
women can be too aggressive - and use the wrong
tactics to try to get what they want. They end up
achieving not very much if they use the wrong approaches.
But I can also understand the reasons for their behaviour
as well.

This is not about the problems with "feminists" past
or present. This is more to do with the inequaties
that still seem to exist all over the world.

For example, -

In 2014 women in full-time employment in America were
paid, on average 79% of the incomes paid to men.
That's despite huge rises in women's education and it seems
according to reporting in November 2015 - that it will take
over 100 years for women to be paid the same amount for the
same work. This reflects sexism in hiring practices,
inequality in maternity and paternity leave, glass ceilings,
hostile work environments, the cultural expectation that
women not fight for pay rises, occupational segregation and
women's work being undervalued among other things.

Or lets take women being threatened with death
for talking about gender inequality in video gaming or beatings
in real life. Or the fact that one in six women will be the
subject of a rape or attempted rape in her lifetime.
Or the huge numbers of people who filed official complaints
about sexual discrimination in the workplace and that women
file 82.5% of all sexual harassment complaints.

And the list goes on. That is why it is rather disheartening
to hear from some men that misogyny and gender discrimination
don't actually exist. It explains why some women are so active
towards fighting for their rights.

I have a very strong and
supportive family. Personally, I've not
had to fight for my rights. I have been lucky enough to have
been given all the opportunities that I've ever gone after.
I've got no complaints. I consider myself very fortunate.
However, I do understand where some others are coming from and why.

NNS, I believe if someone is a victim of some wrong doing, let them stand up and seek redress.
I personally reject those people and their pretense, that they are fighting or backing or understand a particular cause being promoted by someone else.
For example only those children who were abused are allowed to stand up and make a stand or seek justice or whatever they feel.
No-one has the right to promote themselves into their plight under the guise of being concerned or sympathetic to their cause and so on. These people are arrogant vultures looking to benefit from some poor souls distress and despair, simply to ingratiate themselves in the victims spot light for their own selfish self serving agenda.
When someone says they have had a good life free of all these bad things and has no complaints, and openly considers themselves to having been very fortunate, I find any comments this person has on any topic they have not experienced, to be just imaginary opinions, and as much as they may feel sympathy for the people and their cause, they cannot feel empathy, so, I'm sorry but their intentions, in their own mind, might be genuine, but their credibility suffers decrementally.

Foxy said- "In 2014 women in full-time employment in America were
paid, on average 79% of the incomes paid to men.
That's despite huge rises in women's education and it seems
according to reporting in November 2015 - that it will take
over 100 years for women to be paid the same amount for the
same work. This reflects sexism in hiring practices,
inequality in maternity and paternity leave, glass ceilings,
hostile work environments, the cultural expectation that
women not fight for pay rises, occupational segregation and
women's work being undervalued among other things."

Answer- Jordan Peterson has commented that even in societies such as Norway and Sweden women still are under represented in certain fields such as Engineering and over-represented in Teaching. He has said that there are many possible reasons why women may be underpaid and based on a statistical multivariate analysis says that prejudice seems to account for somewhere around 15% of the effect from memory. Jordan talks about equality of opportunity not equality of outcome.

There may be other reasons why men are paid more- eg. they may tend to be less risk adverse, there is perhaps a perception that men argue less so they are given more opportunities. If women want to get paid equally then they may need to get in there and get the job done. There are many situations in which females are happy to get positive bias- this sort of discredits their arguments as to equality. Equality means accepting the good with the bad. If women believe that men are harming them then women should be capable to set up their own women only society and put a wall around it. It is bound to be more productive than male society if the assertions of feminists are true. Most men do not rape women- to imply that men participate in a rape culture is offensive. Leave men alone to do their own thing with their own people. The world is not a perfect place and everyone has been in situations which are unfair- sometimes the harm is done by women.

Many men feel that they want to help women but the favour isn't returned and they have an attitude of entitlement. Many men feel more bullied by women than women feel bullied by them. At some point some men start to feel that is just the way women are and try to avoid them as much as they can. See MGTOW. John Stuart Mill - it's better to let thirty guilty men free than to convict one innocent man. It's disappointing when you realize that feminism will become irrelevant when our society is deconstructed by the war between the sexes. So much for the family facing off the world. An example of winning the battle but losing the war. The underlying issue seems to be that some men (and some women) use power in an illegitimate way to get what they want- this is the story of the world- we need to improve it- but alienating men is not going to achieve it- but I suspect that the trust between the sexes has degraded past the point of no return.

CM, kudos to you.
I enjoy reading your posts, even if I might not always completely agree with you.
Your latest one however is above and beyond.
Now a must warn you, I hope you have a good suite of armour and are thick skinned because you can expect a spray of negativity challenging you and your comments from the obvious quarters.
For my part I have challenged the notion of equality of the sexes and I have made it quite clear, I do not care for it and the reasons why. It is difficult to make headway when you make a valid point and the response is personal or off topic or a deflection.
In all these cases I have suggested that these are the antics of one who has lost the debate, as they cannot refute or challenge the facts before them.
So we continue with personal and emotional representations.
If we're lucky.

Calem Malum,

Studies have shown that anecdotal evidence is more powerful
in influencing people's opinions. Stats can only do so
much. I purposely chose not to go into my own personal
details in my response to NNS because I was sure
he'd understand the points being made.

I could have
thrown in my own experiences and those of my friends,
people that I know and worked with who discovered they
made less then their male colleagues who did the same
job.

I could have talked about attempts at being felt up
and poked on public transport and harassed by strangers.
I could have talked about surprised clients who couldn't
believe I was a "girl" and so good at my job.

All these stories (and many more) are true -
I just chose not to marshall them here. I preferred to
emphasize the positive because I've since tried to move
on.

As for Mr Peterson's comments?

The Harvard Business Review has found in repeated studies the
social cost of negotiating for higher pay has been found to be
greater for women than for men.

Ask your boss for more money and risk being seen as ungrateful
and pushy. Don't ask for more and you'll be paid less for the
rest of your career.

Thus discrimination in negotiation practices constitues
evidence of the equal pay gap and why it exists - and not as
argument against it.

Many critics argue that the gender wage gap does not reflect
reality and cannot take into account all of the factors that
might contribute to a disparity in pay between men and women.

Oeverall, there exists a variety of evidence to debunk some
of the most common arguments people use to discredit not only
the gender pay gap that exists but also other arguments
against sexual discrimination.

Hopefully with education about the inaccuracy of these
arguments things will continue to change for many.

To Foxy. In the last comment on page 8 of this topic, you said, "unless we change our culture -nothing will change. ... men have to be part of this change."

It's not that I disagree that women need more support in one way or another, but concern for women doesn't do much if the agendas follow the same pattern. To agree with them or leave.

Look at it this way. If it comes down to getting men to be part of the change, but only if they are "yes men," who only have a voice of agreement, how many other men are left out of the equation. By women making a scene and calling off all the men who disagree, it creates a whole other situation of who is willing to take part in the issues the women activists are trying to champion.

One group is the "yes" men. A group of dwindling men who eventually in one cause or another will either get a line to tell them to shut up, or they choke down their other silent opinions in the light that they aren't really wanted anyways. It has nothing to do with whether the cause is worth while at this point, because eventually there is likely to be a cause that he is not in line with the activist group. So even with those who might agree with a cause, due to the scene of the activists, many don't want to get involved. It's not worth the trouble and the men aren't wanted in the first place.

The second group is the "no" men. Those who either disagree with the cause being brought up, or disagree with the women activists as a whole. Same issue here as the yes men, who care wants to get involved in the topic? Those that say nothing might have good points in the topic of the cause but are polite enough to stay out of it. Leaving those who do speak up the ones that are fed up by the whole affair.

(Continued)

(Continued)

In my opinion, the culture in modern activists (especially women activists) promote for there to be belligerent agreement or belligerent disagreement. No culture change will happen if over half of the population knows they aren't wanted in the discussion anyways.

On too many issues, I would count myself as a "no" man. Some issues are worth standing against, others are just crazy trends for an activists to support to stay feeling active. The rest that I don't support are that I see other parts of the issue that are unwanted because it's not belligerent support.

On the specific topic of feminism (one of many causes that activists stand behind), I don't support it because the feminists that I've seen or met have been a reason to not support them. That and feminism has broadened to be more then just equality. You also have the die hard feminists who think women shouldn't choose to have a family nor to conform to the roles society has given them. It doesn't matter if a woman wants to or chooses to because it weakens what they are fighting for. You also have the man hating feminists who really do hate all men. Somewhere in between there's those who play the victim card in manipulative ways. All of which makes feminism a distrustful group.

These are issues worth knowing, regardless of the importance of a cause you might support. If you want to talk about specific issues to support or change, then do so without being part of the pattern that is identified in the women activists. Accept the nay sayers, even the belligerent ones, as part of the equasion. You don't have to reply to them, but you need to not tell them off, nor have a huge part of women activist culture being about telling off the angry nay sayers; as is currently done.

(Continued)

(Continued)

Does that make sense? If so, then I'd be ok to move on to the issues you brought up. About women in work places, about abuse, beatings, and rape. About the burden of being a mother and not leaving an abusive husband because you can't support the kids on your own, or on the burden of being a mother that can't quit a job to take care of their children because she can't support her family otherwise.

There are issues women face, some of them the only answer is that you have to make do with what you've got (like a working single mother). Others there might be more options but still some hurdles to know. You can't expect change from support unless the issues for how the justice system works and having fairness to even criminals be brought up in the discussion of rape. Do we need a harder system of punishments, or a better protection of the guilty so they aren't over punished. Each issue has it's own rebuke, that the culture of activists don't care about or don't intend to address. How will there be any change in that kind of enviornment?

Dear NNS,

It is inevitable that will run into certain men on
a public discussion forum such as this one. Men, who
amongst other things have opinions about a woman's
"place", about feminism, and misogyny.

Men whose views are rigid, stereotyped, and deal with
sweeping generalisations. Men who have set mindsets
and who attack rather than discuss.

I am a strong proponent of getting into debates with
these people, or at least trying to, and to attempt in
giving them rational reasoned evidence and arguments to
try to see things from a different perspective. My own
views are not set in concrete. However if the attacks
continue and judgements are not able to be modified
the result is usually a total breakdown in communication.
And results in my usually just walking away.

My view is that feminism is based on altering the historical
endemic discrimination against women across all segments of
society, from the economic to the educational to the sexual.

It believes that men and women should have equal rights and that
fighting against sexual attitudes and restrictions is necessary
to make this happen. However most women are also realists about
the world, and how far behind women have been and continue to
be.

They also recognise that men have rights and problems too.
Patriarchy has bad effects on men all around the world. It
keeps them from expressing their emotions, traps them in
gender roles they may not want, and causes damage all over
the place.

Feminism as I understand it is not about minimising men's
problems, or saying that they have everything the way they
want it. It is possible to focus on the difficulties (which
are many and long-standing) of one gender without pretending
that the other one is hunky-dory all the time.

It is therefore also possible to be a feminist and advocate
for other rights as well. All feminism does is highlight
some serious and very important issues from which fixing them
we can all benefit.

I have nothing further to add to this discussion.

I look forward to our next one.

Cheers.

Foxy- Men get felt up too in certain contexts. It's not right but I try to keep it in proportion.

Foxy said "The Harvard Business Review has found in repeated studies the social cost of negotiating for higher pay has been found to be
greater for women than for men."

Answer- Please provide a link to the article.

Canem Malum,

Yes, by all means lets keep things in proportion.

I shall repeat what has already been stated.

Feminism is not about minimising men's problems.
All feminism is trying to do is highlight some
serious and very important issues from which
fixing them we can all benefit.

If you want to discuss men's problems - you should
start your own discussion on the topic.

As for the Harvard Business Review surveys on the
wage gap differences - these are too numerous to
list here. However they are available on the web.
And you can Google them for yourself.

For me this discussion has now run its course.

CM, I have to confess that this inequality people (mainly females) talk about is there.
It is there for a or several reasons.
Every person who subscribes to this notion has their own views as to the imbalance.
Most people don't give it a second thought, it is only those who feel they are worth more than another in the same job.
As someone who has hired and fired over the years, I can tell you there are women who are paid more than men, not just the same.
Why?
Because they happen to produce more or perform better than their co-workers.
As employers we don't know from an interview.
On the other hand, people have to realise that it's my business and if I don't want to hire females or queers or anyone that does not suite me, I demand the right to run MY business as I see fit.
If under my bigoted, homophobic, biassed opinion my business is successful, I have done my job.
If I felt that being PC was going to benefit me financially, I would go down that route.
We are all individuals.
Like the baker in the US, it was his business, HE chose to refuse making a cake for the queers, it's his decision, end of story.
They should have simply thanked him for his time, left and gone next door where they were more sympathetic to queers.
Problem solved, but no, they have to make an International scene because they couldn't get their petulant bitchy way.
So I will take all the bitching vitriol and abuse, but I will not give up my right to open, free and frank speech.
Female activism is a disease which will only end badly.
If I don't like something or someone, and their arises a need to say so, I must say it.
Even if they are offended.
It's funny of the people I admire, one of them is a jew and the other is a queer.
Ben Shapiro and the other is Milo Yiannopoulos catch them on you tube.
I normally reject both demographics.

Ok Foxy. Take care. I know this has probabley been a trying conversation for you. For that I'm sorry and thank you for hearing it out to this end.

In the end I get that there are issues and causes that are worth fighting for, and that's what your defending. But my point was about the culture of those fights. In my observations the culture shift needs to also include the backlash, instead of have two countercultures compete on who can telling the other off the best.

Dear NNS,

Thank You for your understanding and for your civility.

It is appreciated greatly.

well done Foxy,
You kept a reasoned cool head in the face of some extreme male vitriol.

I think some of todays feminists confuse left wing globalism with feminism, they try to stand up for some cultures ignoring the blatant female oppression in those cultures.

I would say to some of the males on here who lack belief in the oppression of women.
That they are now ordered to spend their lives covered in black sheets, with just a few peep holes to see. They will no longer have a right to vote, must raise 10children, even though their bodies and bladders are torn to bits by childbearing. They will have no access to any money of their own, as they arent allowed to have a job that earns money. So if their husband says they are not allowed to buy something, they cant.
I will remind these "poor didums" men on here, that these exact curcumstances, were what womens lives were like in 1950s England and Australia.
Women had to go to, court full of men , and priests among them to be granted permission to the right to contraception to have some control over their own bodies.

Men might be feeling hard done by, now that women have walked away from the home and motherhood that were made unbearable by the control men exercised over them, physically and financially.
But I can tell them right now, your little greivances are just pathethic, when compared to the conditions women endured until they faught for the right to vote,the right to contraception, the right to some financial security, so they could leave a drunken abusive husband without having to sleep in the streets with their children, while the drunken perpetrator snored at home in his warm bed. Women were sacked from their jobs when they got married in the 1940s.
As to rape, I watched a Dateline documentary in Africa. 1 in 3 men there admit to raping women. And thats only the ones that admit it.
No wonder the place is a war-torn overpopulated, poverty stricken hellhole.
Male blame?

to the male poster on here who bragged about his superiority because of his muscles.

Yes Male muscle and power are wonderful assests and have many societal benefits,
But women have more all over, bodily, physical resilence and live 8 years longer on average than men. There are less women in pychiatric facilities, and prisons, and suicides. Women are also on average more emotionally and mentally stable.

Women hold families and societies together with their more nuturing and perceptive abilities.

Often when the mothers in families die, families dont visit each other and drift apart.
Anthropologists will tell you, that female empowerment goes hand in hand with advancement and progress in societies, because of the nuturing enablement of the female..

Cherful, you have given us a history lesson.
I care not what happened in the past, nor what is happening in Africa.
Those who feel sympathy for anothers plight are more than welcome to do so.
You see I have been to, and lived in various third world countries, and I have learned that it is what it is.
No-one can help them because they do not want help, on our terms.
So we harden our emotions and look beyond the immediate.
All the things you mention are what they are.
I have said it before, give a man a fish and he will eat for a day, give him the means and teach him to fish and he will never go hungry again.
All the examples you gave are all appropriate for their time and culture.
Speak to a Muslim woman today, they have spoken in favour of the 'letter box'.
Of course others do not.
You cannot paint everyone or every situation with the same brush.
What some commentors refuse to accept is that we all have differing views.
Why?
Because we are all different and we have had different lives and experiences.
For example in some third world countries you would not stop to give some food to a child, you could be killed for what they see as a punishable act.
And in these places there is no law and order.
One example, if you ran over a chicken you would be beaten to death.
Another, a Doctor driving his car, a man got too close and his wrap caught his rear bumper.
The man was subsequently knocked to the ground un-benown to the driver.
He was not travelling very fast.
He observed people yelling at him and attempting to stop him.
He sped away, fearing for his life.
Because of this he drove straight to the nearest police station, where-upon exiting his car found this man caught in his rear bumper.
With half his brain ground off.
In seeing the crowd approaching, now very angry, he quickly ran to the safety of the police station.

Cherful, your last post goes a long way to making one of my previous points.
For there to be a proper and healthy family unit, it needs a mother and a father.
I do not subscribe to this new age thinking and the idea that a single parent or part-time parenting is a the BEST or most ideal environment for the raising of children.
I do not advocate any form of physical abuse for any reason.
I remember once suggesting somewhere that when hubby starts getting physical, there should be an action squad that the missus can call up, (like you would any help line) and very quickly you would find two or three burly blokes on your door step that would proceed to give hubby a damn good hiding.
They would make sure that they left enough bruising (mainly on the face) for all to see what a prick he had been.
One of them would have to be some kind of medical professional so he would know when to stop.
The wife knew she had this to fall back on, and that someone had her back.
I guarantee he might have done it one more time but I doubt he would ever do it again.
And of course if he turned out to be a nutter, well he would end up inside.
On the other hand he would have no choice but to curb his anger, at least back to verbal, rather than physical.
Now that would address each problem case by case and not treat ALL men as wife bashers.

To chearful.

I don't think anyone on here lacks the knowledge of oppression to women in several societies; nor do I see arguments that are about harming women. But instead are fed up with the women activists and the pattern of arguments and behavior that they bring.

Personally I agree with most points made against the activists.

•From being unrealistic on having equal job oppurtunity on the jobs that require higher physical qualifications as in the end lowered the standards for those qualifications. (No one has argued against having equal pay).

•To women activists making a show in their activism to either further their cause because they expect everyone else to back down, or because it feels good to be part of the glow of having the spotlight on them while standing up for one cause or another.

•To the fact that though women have said and do say they want men to be part of these changes they promote, it s too evidant that they really don't want men's say in these things. If they agree great. Let's pile on many compliments to them saying they are real men. If they ever disagree, throw them under the bus, their opinion was never really wanted anyways.

That last point is one I've been stressing. But so far most of the points, (no matter how insulting it feels to look at), have a lot of merit and are worth their consideration by women activists in general. If you want men on board, then do two things. 1) Listen to their critisms, there might be more to them then you want to believe. And 2) stop the common attitudes to throw men under the bus at a moments notice. That just stops most men from responding to these issues except those that are too fed up to say silent, and those that are only in a supportive stance but lost their right to have an opinion outside of that.

NNS, Kudos to you. I could not have put it better myself.

Dear CHERFUL,

I've only just now come across your post directed
to me.

Thank You so much for your well reasoned and intelligent
comments.

You and I both know that for many women the "past" has not
gone away.

Some women want to stay home, raise children and get their
fulfilment from being spouses and mothers. And that is wonderful.
The key element of feminism is the idea of freedom to choose
in a supportive environment. Women should be able to choose
whether that's their destiny or not, and not be forced into
it by prescribed gender roles, bad employment opportunities,
no educational access and other restrictions.

In a perfectly equal world, everybody male and female should
be able to choose to be a house-partner or to march off to be
a CEO. The playing field is not level, even if a man's limited
experience dictates that it is. Women genuinely do just want
to be given the same opportunities and rewards (for equal work)
as men.

It seems relatively simple but you'd be surprised by how many
people fight it, or see it as threatening their vested interests.

The whole point is that women today are no longer willing to behave
as victims. They are fighting back giving themselves a voice and
making sure that everybody knows what's happening to them and
why it is no longer OK.

Once again - thank you for telling it like it is for so many
women.

Hi-Five! Foxy,

We did our best to make our brothers understand.