Society/Culture Feminism - 2017 Thread - Pt II

[Generalissimo]

Respectfully, I'm going to have to continue to disagree. Without going into great detail at this point (it's nearly 10pm here so I don't have the time), I have encountered a great many MRAs and MGTOWS, and for that matter, many different types of feminist. There's a lot of stuff on my site about it, as well as various blog posts. It's been my experience (having gone deep down this rabbit hole) that MRAs care more about hating women than they do men's rights. They are also greatly distorting feminism. I may respond in more detail over the next few days.

http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/what-i-think/feminism/

https://coalitionofthebrave.wordpress.com

I think there's a middle ground that neither side is really hitting. On one side you've got bombastic a-hole attack dogs like Paul Elam who genuinely care about men's issues but often go way too far in their criticism of women and feminism. On the other side you've got people who are definitely not misogynists, but whose approach to men's issues is focused solely on men's responsibilities towards women and women's rights over men; anything they say that might benefit men can only ever be a side-effect of helping women and needs to come with a lot of snivelling and self-loathing. I put guys like Michael Flood and Michael Kimmel in that camp.

Let me illustrate the problem with an example. We all know about the 200 girls kidnapped by Boko Haram and the "bring back our girls" campaign. But did you know of the Boko Haram murders of thousands of men and boys? Neither did I, until some MRA-leaning source brought it up. I would have never heard about it from the feminist-leaning mainstream media- and certainly not from university Gender Studies types- because they simply don't give a s**t. And the MRAs only care about having something to condemn the feminists with. Meanwhile, nobody does anything.

There's got to be better than what both sides are offering.

 

[domus]

Respectfully, I'm going to have to continue to disagree. Without going into great detail at this point (it's nearly 10pm here so I don't have the time), I have encountered a great many MRAs and MGTOWS, and for that matter, many different types of feminist. There's a lot of stuff on my site about it, as well as various blog posts. It's been my experience (having gone deep down this rabbit hole) that MRAs care more about hating women than they do men's rights. They are also greatly distorting feminism. I may respond in more detail over the next few days.

http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/what-i-think/feminism/

https://coalitionofthebrave.wordpress.com

No worries.

MGTOWS have nothing to do with MRA's. Here's a wonderful presentation by a formerly passionate feminist who made the documentary-The Red Pill who began the documentary with the aim of tearing apart the Men's Rights Movement and had renounced feminism and had her eyes opened to the many issues affecting men's lives by the time she had completed the documentary. Powerful stuff.
https://www.avoiceformen.com/a-voic...he-institute-of-noetic-sciences-a-must-watch/

 

[Farm Boy]

Respectfully, I'm going to have to continue to disagree. Without going into great detail at this point (it's nearly 10pm here so I don't have the time), I have encountered a great many MRAs and MGTOWS, and for that matter, many different types of feminist. There's a lot of stuff on my site about it, as well as various blog posts. It's been my experience (having gone deep down this rabbit hole) that MRAs care more about hating women than they do men's rights. They are also greatly distorting feminism. I may respond in more detail over the next few days.

http://meerkatmusings.co.uk/what-i-think/feminism/

https://coalitionofthebrave.wordpress.com

MRA's hate feminists - not women. Thankfully not all women are feminists. I'm sure there are many reasons MRA's hate feminists, but I don't think MRA's are the only feminist hating group. I think many groups (probably more groups than not) hate feminists. Many people (more people than not) don't agree with feminism. MGTOW's on the other hand, they do hate women. There is a difference between the two.

 

[romeohwho]

MRA's hate feminists - not women. Thankfully not all women are feminists. I'm sure there are many reasons MRA's hate feminists, but I don't think MRA's are the only feminist hating group. I think many groups (probably more groups than not) hate feminists. Many people (more people than not) don't agree with feminism. MGTOW's on the other hand, they do hate women. There is a difference between the two.

And all feminists aren't extremists. Most of the people who believe in women's rights are probably quite reasonable and certainly entitled to their contrary viewpoint without being hated. So people who 'hate feminists', well that's just another example of an extreme and unhelpful attitude.

 

[domus]

I think there's a middle ground that neither side is really hitting. On one side you've got bombastic a-hole attack dogs like Paul Elam who genuinely care about men's issues but often go way too far in their criticism of women and feminism. On the other side you've got people who are definitely not misogynists, but whose approach to men's issues is focused solely on men's responsibilities towards women and women's rights over men; anything they say that might benefit men can only ever be a side-effect of helping women and needs to come with a lot of snivelling and self-loathing. I put guys like Michael Flood and Michael Kimmel in that camp.

Let me illustrate the problem with an example. We all know about the 200 girls kidnapped by Boko Haram and the "bring back our girls" campaign. But did you know of the Boko Haram murders of thousands of men and boys? Neither did I, until some MRA-leaning source brought it up. I would have never heard about it from the feminist-leaning mainstream media- and certainly not from university Gender Studies types- because they simply don't give a s**t. And the MRAs only care about having something to condemn the feminists with. Meanwhile, nobody does anything.

There's got to be better than what both sides are offering.

This is a false equivalency. We have never once stood in the way of or expressed disgust about women receiving protection, justice or fair treatment in our society. Feminists have done and continue to do everything in their power to keep the Family Courts punishing fathers for being male, the governments from funding male victims of family violence and any reference to females as a part of the family violence problem is shut down and dismissed as lies from women hating men. Feminists express no outrage over the terrible gender bias in our criminal system or the ever declining rates of males graduating at our universities. MRA's don't chant hate and physically assault feminists who are attempting to attend a talk about women's issues. Feminists do this all of the time when men attempt to gather and discuss their issues. They have had the Red Pill banned from screening in countless theatres and unis. Can you provide an example of MRA's blocking or mounting campaigns to ban documentaries about women's issues? All we advocate for is that we show the same compassion we give to women and girls to our men and boys. How could you possibly equate the two?

We part company based on two of your statements. Paul Elam has done a magnificent job in bringing the lack of compassion and help for men and boys into the light of day. He is a deeply compassionate and sensitive man who has copped enormous abuse and had his name dragged through the mud by feminists who control the narrative in our society. They quote him out of context, write outright lies and call AVFM and MRA's a hate group. It is simply disgusting. So Elam uses strong language and gets in the face of feminists because he has seen the consequences of their gender bigotry having worked as a social worker for many years. All of the power and money resides in the feminist camp so Paul throws a few "* yous" at them and he is the monster. They have happily seen abused men and fathers suffer so badly due to feminist inspired attitudes to family violence and custody in family court disputes that suicide is seen as a way out. This is not hyperbole-it is fact. The only reason you even know his name is because he decided to get in the faces of these vile people.

As for MRA's only caring about condemning feminists but not doing anything to change the problems males are facing-not true. I have written countless letters to politicians and newspapers begging them to give some attention to a variety of issues. I have MRA friends who have lobbied local MP's and had meetings which usually led to nothing because no-one gives stuff about males-and that includes most men. I begged our deputy premier to give me 30 minutes of his time to discuss the governments approach to family violence and all I got in response was "I am very busy..have a nice day."

What can we possibly do without the weight and power of the media, governments and entertainment industry behind us? This is what we are up against. It is not in human nature to care about males. All women had to do was scream and cry about their "oppression" and men have been bending over backwards to right any perceived wrongs because it is wired into our DNA to protect and care for women. Look at the endless male support of the funding of breast cancer-it borders on obsessive. It is already the biggest funded, most researched and promoted cancer on the planet but that doesn't stop The Footy Show, Australian Cricket Board or Shane Crawford from continuing to pump more money and publicity into breast cancer. Just one example.

Why are you so dismissive of the many good men and women who devote countless hours of their time to fighting against a tidal wave of indifference to male suffering?

I have written a couple of articles about the Boko Haram hypocrisy for AVFM-what is wrong with bringing awareness to the gender bigotry? If we achieve nothing else that is something.

 

[domus]

And all feminists aren't extremists. Most of the people who believe in women's rights are probably quite reasonable and certainly entitled to their contrary viewpoint without being hated. So people who 'hate feminists', well that's just another example of an extreme and unhelpful attitude.

The radical man hating feminists occupy the seats of power in our media and government. It doesn't matter what some nice young woman in the suburbs thinks. It is the feminists who influence so much of the anti male agenda in our society through laws and media coverage who are rightly hated by men and women who truly care about "people" rather than one half of the population.

 

[domus]

brilliant...thanks for you're efforts

Thank you. Advocating for men really is the hardest job in the world. You are usually treated with derision, branded a woman hater or laughed at. It can be soul destroying. That is why I love Paul Elam and his ilk. It is a job which will yield very little fruit but an awful lot of abuse, vitriol and stress. But they still do it, because they love the men and boys in their life as much as they love the women and girls. I feel just the same.

Thanks again-your kind words have lifted my spirits!

 

[BORK]

Thank you. Advocating for men really is the hardest job in the world. You are usually treated with derision, branded a woman hater or laughed at. It can be soul destroying. That is why I love Paul Elam and his ilk. It is a job which will yield very little fruit but an awful lot of abuse, vitriol and stress. But they still do it, because they love the men and boys in their life as much as they love the women and girls. I feel just the same.

Thanks again-your kind words have lifted my spirits!

If you want to see just how twisted and evil some people attached to the third wave wagon are then argue for the recognition of children abused by or killed by their mothers. Argue for extra resources to be directed to single mothers who are perpetrators of abuse of children at highly disproportionate levels. Argue for the rights and welfare of children over the reputations of women and the protection of a narrative.

Seems simple and not even involving men so everyone even the bigot extremists should support it hey?

Not so simple for some who value the narrative and reputations of women over the welfare of children. Many who frequent this board.

 

[romeohwho]

The radical man hating feminists occupy the seats of power in our media and government. It doesn't matter what some nice young woman in the suburbs thinks. It is the feminists who influence so much of the anti male agenda in our society through laws and media coverage who are rightly hated by men and women who truly care about "people" rather than one half of the population.

Nope. When the government directs funding and resources into domestic violence, it is just recognising that our society has a problem in this area. The facts support that. When the family court judges award custody mostly to the female in divorces, it is just a reflection of our society. In an intact marriage, especially in the early years, the mother in most situations is the main carer of the children. Just a fact. It's not because rad fems have hijacked mainstream society.

 

[Lebbo73]

Nope. When the government directs funding and resources into domestic violence, it is just recognising that our society has a problem in this area. The facts support that. When the family court judges award custody mostly to the female in divorces, it is just a reflection of our society. In an intact marriage, especially in the early years, the mother in most situations is the main carer of the children. Just a fact. It's not because rad fems have hijacked mainstream society.

When judges award custody it should always be a 50/50 split for children under 15 unless it can be proven that it is not safe to do so or one parent moves far away.
Edit: or unless agreed to a different ratio by both parents due to other circumstances.

 

[JCHolmes]

Off track kinda but........ Man I enjoy working with baby boomer women! As each day goes on I appreciate these women even more. They can have a laugh at almost anything, they don't get easily offended and high horsey over what we say or interpret it as something when it not. They dont take s**t either if its overboard. They have there own ''sexist'' jokes, so do we. Common sense prevails. Banter between the sexes is a wonderful thing we need! Timid and unsure men is what society will have in a generation. And a s**t load of lifetime singles I would think.

 

[domus]

Off track kinda but........ Man I enjoy working with baby boomer women! As each day goes on I appreciate these women even more. They can have a laugh at almost anything, they don't get easily offended and high horsey over what we say or interpret it as something when it not. They dont take s**t either if its overboard. They have there own ''sexist'' jokes, so do we. Common sense prevails. Banter between the sexes is a wonderful thing we need! Timid and unsure men is what society will have in a generation. And a s**t load of lifetime singles I would think.

Spot on-they are like a breath of fresh air.

 

[domus]

Nope. When the government directs funding and resources into domestic violence, it is just recognising that our society has a problem in this area. The facts support that. When the family court judges award custody mostly to the female in divorces, it is just a reflection of our society. In an intact marriage, especially in the early years, the mother in most situations is the main carer of the children. Just a fact. It's not because rad fems have hijacked mainstream society.

You are simply wrong on this issue. If what you are saying is true them why are males not allocated a proportional amount of funding for shelters/counselling? Why are women never featured as perpetrators of violence against men and in particular children in government funded campaigns? There are numerous stories every year which report the murder of children by their mums yet somehow this never seems to correlate with family violence in people's minds. Why? There is no recognition of the problem because the reality is that the main factors contributing to the likelihood of family violence are mental illness, alcohol/drug addiction, financial hardship/unemployment and mutual partner violence. None of these factors are presented in government literature on family violence. They wrap it all up and place it in one big basket-it's all the fault of horrible, toxic masculinity. A lie and nothing more than feminist driven propaganda.

What other issue in our society could have billions of dollars thrown at it year after year only for us to be told by the very people in charge of finding a solution to this societal scourge that it is getting worse every year? It is an epidemic we are told as the government funnels another two billion into a problem using the same gender bigoted approach that has failed so miserably (by their own admission) for decades. Why? Would we not stop and reconsider our approach to lowering the annual road toll if despite all of our best efforts the death toll continued to rise each year? Of course we would. There would be an inquiry into why the current approach was failing so dismally and a concerted effort to find alternative solutions. The fact that this never happens is further proof that the whole issue is driven by an ideological agenda which seeks to demonize men.

You say feminists have nothing to do with the appalling bias in our family court. Again, you are wrong.



Why did feminists demand the amending of an act which said shared parenting was the ideal? This happened under Julia Gillard's Prime Ministership.
The 13 minute mark on is pertinent to this discussion.

 

[romeohwho]

You are simply wrong on this issue. If what you are saying is true them why are males not allocated a proportional amount of funding for shelters/counselling? Why are women never featured as perpetrators of violence against men and in particular children in government funded campaigns? There are numerous stories every year which report the murder of children by their mums yet somehow this never seems to correlate with family violence in people's minds. Why? There is no recognition of the problem because the reality is that the main factors contributing to the likelihood of family violence are mental illness, alcohol/drug addiction, financial hardship/unemployment and mutual partner violence. None of these factors are presented in government literature on family violence. They wrap it all up and place it in one big basket-it's all the fault of horrible, toxic masculinity. A lie and nothing more than feminist driven propaganda.

What other issue in our society could have billions of dollars thrown at it year after year only for us to be told by the very people in charge of finding a solution to this societal scourge that it is getting worse every year? It is an epidemic we are told as the government funnels another two billion into a problem using the same gender bigoted approach that has failed so miserably (by their own admission) for decades. Why? Would we not stop and reconsider our approach to lowering the annual road toll if despite all of our best efforts the death toll continued to rise each year? Of course we would. There would be an inquiry into why the current approach was failing so dismally and a concerted effort to find alternative solutions. The fact that this never happens is further proof that the whole issue is driven by an ideological agenda which seeks to demonize men.

You say feminists have nothing to do with the appalling bias in our family court. Again, you are wrong.



Why did feminists demand the amending of an act which said shared parenting was the ideal? This happened under Julia Gillard's Prime Ministership.
The 13 minute mark on is pertinent to this discussion.

George -u cannot be cereal.
Are you talking about the amendment that expands the definition of 'violence'? If so, that can only be a good thing and what's that got to do with feminists? The changes to 7C were made after research showed that the 2006 definition had led to increased violence.
Only 5% of separated couples find they need to go to the family court and the vast majority of these are involved with domestic violence, hence the amendment is a sensible move. And again, in the vast majority of households the mother is the main caregiver in those early years. Simple.

 

[domus]

George -u cannot be cereal.
Are you talking about the amendment that expands the definition of 'violence'? If so, that can only be a good thing and what's that got to do with feminists? The changes to 7C were made after research showed that the 2006 definition had led to increased violence.
Only 5% of separated couples find they need to go to the family court and the vast majority of these are involved with domestic violence, hence the amendment is a sensible move. And again, in the vast majority of households the mother is the main caregiver in those early years. Simple.

If you seriously believe slamming doors, shouting derogatory words, withholding sexual favours and attempting to hinder someone from maintaining certain friendships all constitute violence then every person in every household in Australia has committed family violence. What a joke. The definition keeps getting expanded because it allows feminists to keep producing ever increasing numbers of perpetrators (male) to add fuel to their cries for more funding and yet more demonizing of males.

As for mums being the primary carer-that is true. However, as Bettina Arndt pointed out, once these women are single again after separation they have no qualms about having their children stay overnight with grandparents/friends or even the babysitter yet the actual father of the child is often denied overnight access to his own flesh and blood. You are remarkably unfazed by the idea that because you are male (regardless of how good a husband and father you have been) you are in grave danger of having the children who are the meaning of your existence ripped from your life simply because your marriage has ended.

How is that in any way just or beneficial to the kids?

You didn't respond to my comments on our approach to family violence which you claim is simply a recognition from our government that there is a problem there!
Again, just imagine if we approached the "problem of suicide" in the same way.

• Billions of dollars in funding to men and boys mental health services.
• Millions of dollars spent on government advertising campaigns alerting Australians about the horror of male suicide.
• Slogans like: Australia says no to male suicide abound on tv, radio and billboards.
• Coloured ribbons worn by people who want to end male suicide.
• Endless newspaper articles and documentaries focused exclusively on male suicide
• Vicious attacks on anyone who has the temerity to ask why there is no concern about female suicide
• Begrudgingly these "man hating" fringe dwelling creeps are informed that men make up the majority of suicide victims, therefore all female victims and their families shall be ignored and remain entirely invisible.

As it is the fact that over 2000 men kill themselves a year barely causes a ripple of interest in our media. Mythical reasons for wage gaps and furore over jokes earn 100 times the coverage of male suicide. Imagine if 2000 women killed themselves each year. Phew! The media meltdown doesn't bear thinking about.

 

[Little Big John]

What other issue in our society could have billions of dollars thrown at it year after year only for us to be told by the very people in charge of finding a solution to this societal scourge that it is getting worse every year?

Errrr....

mental illness, alcohol/drug addiction, financial hardship/unemployment

 

[domus]

Errrr....[/QUOTE

.

What is your point?

I don't believe decades long campaigns costing billions of dollars have continued when those spending the billions say the problem is only getting worse-except in the area of family violence. Only fools, crazy or corrupt people would refuse to step back and review the effectiveness of what they were doing and implement a new approach.

It is the very definition of insanity to continue doing the same thing and expecting a different result.

I think the road toll is a far more apt comparison because the changes implemented years ago-compulsory seatbelts, speed limits, drink driving laws and ads that rammed home the horrors of road fatalities have markedly reduced people's attitudes and behavior in this area. The campaign road safety campaigns have many similarities to the family violence campaigns in the way they hammered home a message. This education of the public combined with new laws has reduced the road toll in a quite astounding way. Why has the same thing not happened with family violence?

We were told that the dark old days when family violence was hidden behind closed doors were the horror years for women. Now that it is openly talked about and there have been advertising campaigns to raise awareness as well as billions spent on practical support like shelters and counselling the no longer "dark secret" is many times worse now that it is openly discussed and victims supported. Something about our approach must be seriously wrong or alternatively they are lying about the level of violence in the family home.

Take your pick-it is one or the other.

 

[Little Big John]

What is your point?

I don't believe decades long campaigns costing billions of dollars have continued when those spending the billions say the problem is only getting worse-except in the area of family violence. It is the very definition of insanity

Really thought I'd simplified it enough for you, so I'll take a different tack and expand on it simply for you.

All three of those issued you'd mentioned (mental illness, drug addiction, financial hardship/unemployment) have had billions of dollars spent on over decades in this country without any solid consensus from either taxpayers (who fund interventions), professionals (who administer interventions) or government (who legislate intervention through policy).

I also have strong doubts that you have the clinical expertise and authority to diagnose "insanity", or even know what the word means when stripped of its hyperbolic usage.

 

[domus]

Really thought I'd simplified it enough for you, so I'll take a different tack and expand on it simply for you.

All three of those issued you'd mentioned (mental illness, drug addiction, financial hardship/unemployment) have had billions of dollars spent on over decades in this country without any solid consensus from either taxpayers (who fund interventions), professionals (who administer interventions) or government (who legislate intervention through policy).

I also have strong doubts that you have the clinical expertise and authority to diagnose "insanity", or even know what the word means when stripped of its hyperbolic usage.

So do those who work in the area of financial hardship and unemployment announce that the problem is the worst it has even been. Perhaps words like "alarming, scourge and epidemic" are used when describing this issue. I reckon we have had a couple of periods in our history where the problems in this area were undoubtedly at epidemic" levels. With regards to mental illness, are you suggesting that the many changes in our approach to this problem have not seen vast improvements in the way mentally ill people are treated or the way in which they live?

I don't get your point. Do you not think our approach to family violence has been a failure given the fact it is according to all of the "experts" worse than it has ever been? Surely that is the very definition of failure.

 

[romeohwho]

If you seriously believe slamming doors, shouting derogatory words, withholding sexual favours and attempting to hinder someone from maintaining certain friendships all constitute violence then every person in every household in Australia has committed family violence. What a joke. The definition keeps getting expanded because it allows feminists to keep producing ever increasing numbers of perpetrators (male) to add fuel to their cries for more funding and yet more demonizing of males.

As for mums being the primary carer-that is true. However, as Bettina Arndt pointed out, once these women are single again after separation they have no qualms about having their children stay overnight with grandparents/friends or even the babysitter yet the actual father of the child is often denied overnight access to his own flesh and blood. You are remarkably unfazed by the idea that because you are male (regardless of how good a husband and father you have been) you are in grave danger of having the children who are the meaning of your existence ripped from your life simply because your marriage has ended.

How is that in any way just or beneficial to the kids?

You didn't respond to my comments on our approach to family violence which you claim is simply a recognition from our government that there is a problem there!
Again, just imagine if we approached the "problem of suicide" in the same way.

• Billions of dollars in funding to men and boys mental health services.
• Millions of dollars spent on government advertising campaigns alerting Australians about the horror of male suicide.
• Slogans like: Australia says no to male suicide abound on tv, radio and billboards.
• Coloured ribbons worn by people who want to end male suicide.
• Endless newspaper articles and documentaries focused exclusively on male suicide
• Vicious attacks on anyone who has the temerity to ask why there is no concern about female suicide
• Begrudgingly these "man hating" fringe dwelling creeps are informed that men make up the majority of suicide victims, therefore all female victims and their families shall be ignored and remain entirely invisible.

As it is the fact that over 2000 men kill themselves a year barely causes a ripple of interest in our media. Mythical reasons for wage gaps and furore over jokes earn 100 times the coverage of male suicide. Imagine if 2000 women killed themselves each year. Phew! The media meltdown doesn't bear thinking about.

The shared parenting amendments came about after extensive research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the Family Law Council, Australian Law Reform Commision, NSW Law Reform Commision, universities in several states. Not about feminists.
And I consider the definition which expanded to include such things as stalking, killing the family pet, perfectly reasonable.

 

[domus]

The shared parenting amendments came about after extensive research by the Australian Institute of Family Studies, the Family Law Council, Australian Law Reform Commision, NSW Law Reform Commision, universities in several states. Not about feminists.
And I consider the definition which expanded to include such things as stalking, killing the family pet, perfectly reasonable.

No comment on the suicide analogy?

Sigh.

Have a good day.

 

[romeohwho]

No comment on the suicide analogy?

Sigh.

Have a good day.

Of course lots more funding and resources should be directed towards male suicide, males as victims of domestic violence but this is a thread about feminism and you made a couple of points about feminism which I have pointed out were incorrect -that is what I am interested in discussing. It's a good move for our society to see that domestic violence towards women is in need of attention. Not sure why anyone would take issue with that.
The poor men stuff belongs on its own thread as far as I can see.

 

[fleabitten]

Of course lots more funding and resources should be directed towards male suicide, males as victims of domestic violence but this is a thread about feminism and you made a couple of points about feminism which I have pointed out were incorrect -that is what I am interested in discussing. It's a good move for our society to see that domestic violence towards women is in need of attention. Not sure why anyone would take issue with that.
The poor men stuff belongs on its own thread as far as I can see.

"poor men stuff"

lol

So is DV "poor women stuff" then? And can you seriously not work out what domus' posts have to do with feminism?

 

[romeohwho]

"poor men stuff"

lol

So is DV "poor women stuff" then? And can you seriously not work out what domus' posts have to do with feminism?

i was very interested to see that 95% of separating couples sort it out by themselves, yet when one comes onto BF, crickey, every man and his dog has injustices reeking through. This strikes me as disproportionate -that so many on here have such concerns, yet out there in real life people are managing break ups pretty well. So I have to wonder about that discrepancy, don't you?
Yep, am pretty sure I get Domus and his tenuous links to feminism 'is to blame".thanks flea. That he resorts to the likes of George-( climate change is a greenie plot) and that silly duffer Betina to help him out instead of going to some facts( eg re amendment law) is pretty telling I would have thought.

 

[cartwright]

"poor men stuff"

lol

So is DV "poor women stuff" then? And can you seriously not work out what domus' posts have to do with feminism?

Remember when we had a thread on men's issues?

And no one posted in it?

But a thread on feminism... I think this is the 2nd or 3rd thread - woah - pages and pages.


But it's *not* about bitching about women

spare me