Spinoff: "Real women..."

[Els]

Well, you sound like a reasonable fellow, so I'll accord you the same in return.

 

So, the convention was that, upon marriage, either the husband or the wife had to stop work. Since the wife was very likely to have children custom and convention dictated that she was the one who should stop working.

 

The overwhelming majority of women did not see this as discrimination. They saw themselves as being lucky enough to have a system which allowed just about each of them to collar a man prepared to go out and earn a living in order to support her and her children.

 

Further, prepared to or not, like it or not, the man was EXPECTED to do this, by the monumental social pressures that societies typically exert through tradition and custom – and, in many cases, through the law.

 

Indeed, as an example, in the US, it was around this time that a young Frank Sinatra was indicted for failing in his promise to marry a young woman whom he had, allegedly, ‘seduced’. He was only saved from prison when she withdrew her complaint

 

--snip--

 

While misandric feminists like to portray men as having oppressed women by ‘keeping them at home with the children’, it is clear that both genders benefited hugely from the deal. The WHOLE of society did. Further, what this deceitful and gullible group of women describes as ‘oppression’, was, in reality, men trooping out, day in, day out, to work, sometimes in the most awful jobs imaginable, in order for their families to survive as best as they could.

 

And if anyone thinks in any way that the jobs of men 50-200 years ago, were, in any way, comparable to the jobs of today, you are poorly educated indeed! They were awful – and, at the very best, utterly tedious. And the hours were long with very little in the way of good transport to convey them to work and back, and with certainly not much in the way of rights and pay..

 

I think this is a perfectly valid argument - FOR feminism, not against it. True feminism is not aimed at derogating men as useless or disposable or cruel oppressors, but rather giving women the CHOICE to obtain an education and career so she could decide what to do with her life and contribute to the household funds if she and her husband decided she needed to.

 

Why would one decry feminism, and in the same breath, state that men themselves suffered for being REQUIRED (by immense societal pressure, as you mention) to single-handedly support a family? Have not those men benefited from women working in recent years? The entire point of true feminism (again, not the feminazi misandrist crap) was to free women, and thusly also men, from conventional gender roles and restraints. Feminism has allowed men to now have a choice, just as women do: share the burden of household income or have the woman stay at home and take care of the children. There are plenty of SAHMs who believe in true feminism.

 

The belief that women have been oppressed throughout History is only true to the extent that EVERYONE was oppressed by somebody else. For example, for every miner who ‘oppressed’ his wife at home, there was another man, an employer or manager, who oppressed 100 miners in the pits. And the idea that women were the only oppressed ‘victims’ in all of this is ridiculous, and completely beyond belief.

 

I agree completely with this.

 

One only has to look at the selfless way that men sacrificed their lives on the Titanic, where ‘women and children first’ was the order for escape and safety, to appreciate just how valuable the female gender was regarded by men in the recent past. This was the reality then, no matter what feminists will tell you about the ‘oppression’ and the ‘low status’ of women in those days. Indeed, if women had been truly oppressed and seen to be of low status, then they would have been oppressed right back into their cabins while the men escaped into the lifeboats!

 

I think this is true in a way, but not in another. You mentioned Asian communities that hold on to family values as a stronghold in society today. The truth is that women indeed are oppressed in many of those cultures - not the feminazi definition of oppression, but a true sort. In India, women whose husbands die first were required to die along with them. In China, baby girls were killed, or given as slaves to other families, because the male was seen as more worthy of limited resources (and the one-child policy). Don't even get me started on Middle Eastern cultures. In those cultures, female life was seen as worthless.

 

And what hope would there have been for any social groupings that gave the most power to those members least capable of using it effectively?

 

The issue is that the definition of capability has changed rapidly over the centuries, as we have come to rely less and less on brute force, and more on intellect. In that arena, men and women are reasonably equal. Think about the sort of men who held the most power in the past, other than monarchs descended by birth: They were warlords and commanders of armies, men of brawn and valor, combat-savvy and strong. The men dominating the current world, however, are men of shrewdness and intellect and cunning - most of them would probably lose an arm-wrestling contest with a female athlete. In this way, just as power would logically shift from the brawny men to the brainy sorts, so would it also diffuse into the social group that had been previously excluded from power due to lacking in its previous requirements - women.

 

Feminist-dominated societies and cultures will soon be washed away and completely over-run by those wherein women prefer to stay at home and have children. Very simple mathematics will demonstrate this. And given that white western women currently make up only some 5% of the Earth’s population then, in 100 years time, they will barely exist at all.

 

I'd really like to see soserious' response to this, seeing as she views SAHMs as lazy women who just 'wait with outstretched hands for the man to bring home the bacon'. Well, apparently now they're integral to the very marrow of society. Who would've known.

 

I do believe more people should stay at home and take care of the children... But I don't think feminism is solely to blame for women not doing so. There are many women who would love to, but the man simply is not interested in supporting them, or has not the financial and career capability to do so. In that case, it is good that the women have the option of supplementing the income, rather than have the children eat gruel and water everyday.

 

At any rate, it seems to me that the men angriest at 'feminism' are also the men who appear least willing to support a SAHM. I have not seen a single one of the posters here, at least, who openly speaks about the unfairness of 'feminism' to men and yet would be willing to be the sole breadwinner so that the wife might take care of their children. Hopefully you'll be the first.

 

And it is going to cause huge problems to western societies as they slowly continue to decay and decline under its malign and destructive influences.

 

I'll be the first to agree that western societies are decaying, but although extreme feminism may have contributed, there are far more factors than just that. I think the 'instant gratification' mentality that both men and women have demonstrated in Western culture is the largest contributor, IMO. Having come from an Asian culture myself, I was pretty horrified the first time I came on these boards and saw the sorts of reasons people were getting divorces for, getting abortions for, breaking apart other peoples' families... Both men and women are guilty of this.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Elswyth

[Woggle]

Many MRAS are taking the exact same road that some feminists took in the 70s and 80s which is making it more about hating the opposite sex than actually making things more fair and just. I used to actually be supportive of most of them until I go on a forum and see them praising George Sodini or saying that Gabrielle Giffords deserved to be shot. Do they seriously think they are going to win over any rational person with this?

[Els]

Many MRAS are taking the exact same road that some feminists took in the 70s and 80s which is making it more about hating the opposite sex than actually making things more fair and just. I used to actually be supportive of most of them until I go on a forum and see them praising George Sodini or saying that Gabrielle Giffords deserved to be shot. Do they seriously think they are going to win over any rational person with this?

 

Yes, precisely. This is why I get angry when I see women spouting misandrist or plain illogical crap in the name of 'feminism', because they are giving it and other women a bad name.

 

Is MRAS another name for masculinazi? :D:D

[Mme. Chaucer]

At any rate, it seems to me that the men angriest at 'feminism' are also the men who appear least willing to support a SAHM. I have not seen a single one of the posters here, at least, who openly speaks about the unfairness of 'feminism' to men and yet would be willing to be the sole breadwinner so that the wife might take care of their children. Hopefully you'll be the first.

 

I notice this also.

 

I do believe that Wolfy wants the women out of the workforce and in the home, barefoot, pregnant and completely dependent upon a husband for all her needs, but I think he is the only one who has expressed this position.

[Woggle]

Yes, precisely. This is why I get angry when I see women spouting misandrist or plain illogical crap in the name of 'feminism', because they are giving it and other women a bad name.

 

Is MRAS another name for masculinazi? :D:D

 

It stands for men's rights activists which in and of itself is not a bad thing but they are so extreme even I cringe at some of their views.

[Red Pill]

Feminists are FemaNazis, and I am for the MRM. Feminism is about female superiority and not about equality. Equality will never be achieved in this world. I'll bet anything and any amount of money that a thousand years from now, people will still be arguing about how women deserve equal treat in just about every place they operate. There will NEVER be equality in this world because you cannot have two things that are not equal by definition be equal. When one side proposes an idea of how to make things equal, the other side will always turn it down.

 

I think everything was just fine until feminism came along and has run amok and made everything corrupted.

 

In a few day, I'm going to come in here with an argument against feminism that will be the be all-end all of why that is a system that will never lead to the progress of women. I will make solid points that no one has yet to bring up. So stay tuned for that.

 

But first, I want to talk to those that truly believe that feminism has achieved so much for women.

 

Feminism has achieved “this” for women. Feminism has achieved “that” for women.

 

But this is just not true.

 

Feminism has achieved very little for women. If anything, it has retarded the progress of women. And, furthermore, it is likely to push back the ‘progress’ of women in the near future.

 

Women enjoy greater freedoms today because of progress in the areas of science, medicine and technology, NOT because of feminism.

 

Those who have doubts about this should try to imagine how feminist policies or attitudes could possibly have succeeded 100 years ago – or in impoverished places in the world today.

 

Ask a poor woman in Afghanistan why she still wants to wear the burka when she walks about in the street. Ask her why she would still much prefer to be married to a man who has some real concern for her welfare.

 

Women – feminists or otherwise – have probably always got what they aimed for throughout History. They were biologically designed to manipulate and to use men for their own purposes. This is why they survive in so many circumstances in which men do not.

 

The less harsh is the world outside, and the less vulnerable that women are to it, the more do they venture out into it.

 

When human beings were living in caves the women said to the men, “You go out first.”

 

And they did.

 

And this is the way that it has been ever since.

 

But in most societies ‘going out first’ was not a sign of liberation. And only fools and feminists would think so.

 

It is science, medicine, technology and MEN that have today ‘liberated’ western women to an unparalleled degree, not feminism.

 

Relatively safe contraceptive devices and abortion methods have saved them from being burdened by unwanted pregnancies and unwanted offspring.

 

Computerized well-funded welfare systems and incredible economic developments have enabled them to survive without the need for men solely dedicated to their well-being. Going out into the world of work is enormously more pleasant, safe and comfortable than it ever was. Communications, transport and security systems are more widespread, more effective and more powerful by a long way than they were, say, even fifty years ago.

 

These are the sorts of things that have truly ‘liberated’ women – and, indeed, men.

 

Feminism has been of virtually no significance at all in comparison.

 

It is also often argued that women in western societies were unfairly discriminated against in the past with regard to various ‘important’ jobs and roles that were more or less denied to them. The truth, however, is that they were discriminated against on very good grounds indeed!

 

For example, the vast majority of women were going to end up having children. This is what they wanted to do.

 

And it is still what most of them want to do!

 

And it was wasteful for society – and for individual families and organizations – to expend huge resources in training women over many years for jobs that they were extremely unlikely to end up doing.

 

Even fifty years ago, what would have been the point in training women to become, say, doctors or lawyers – thereby denying men such training – when the vast majority of such women would have dropped out pretty quickly to create their own families?

 

And what makes anyone think that younger women in those days actually wanted to undergo the serious long-term training that was required in order to do such jobs when they knew full well that they were extremely unlikely to want to do them?

 

The UK’s National Health Service was at one time suffering from significant inefficiencies and failures because women doctors were dropping out of work for years on end in order to have children – with some never returning.

 

In other areas of work where physical fitness and strength were important – such as in the police force or in the army – where was the value to society in employing women to do such work when men were not only available to do it but were also able to do it far more effectively? Even fifty years ago, such jobs were far tougher than they are now.

 

Can you imagine women police officers patrolling the streets alone fifty years ago, on foot or on their bicycles? – with a whistle being their only communication method when trying to rally some help in times of trouble.

 

Just look at the construction industry today. You will not find many women wanting to lay bricks or to climb scaffolding. But, of course, if ever there comes a time in the future where such work can be done merely by pushing one or two buttons while chatting to her friends and co-workers, then women will want to do it!

 

And, no doubt, the feminists of the future will then perpetuate the lie that today’s women were discriminated against in the construction industry and that they were mostly desperate to lay bricks and climb scaffolding!

 

Furthermore, in the past, where paying jobs outside the home were not very plentiful, and where there were no significant welfare systems to protect the unemployed, it would have been absolutely disastrous for communities if many families had no bread-winners at all, while others had two, or even more. And it was clearly in the interests of everyone that jobs were distributed among families as best as possible.

 

You only have to look at impoverished communities today to see what happens when the men – particularly the young ones – are unemployed.

 

And these are the reasons why, in the past, women often had to give up their jobs if they got married. The idea was to make their jobs available to men who had to support families, and the assumption was that married women would be supported by their husbands – which they WERE.

 

And for similar reasons, women were sometimes paid less than men for the very same jobs.

 

And, believe it or not, even most women in those days would have thought it unfair had they got paid the same as the men! They were not as selfish as the women of today, and they recognised that men had a financial responsibility to look after their wives and their children.

 

For example, In 1936, a Gallup poll asked a national sample, “Should a married woman earn money if she has a husband capable of supporting her?” By overwhelming majorities, both men and women said that she should not.

 

http://www.pbs.org/fmc/book/2work9.htm

 

 

 

 

But thanks to science, medicine, technology and men, – and, of course, the growth in the economy over the last several decades that they have brought about – women nowadays have GREATER access to the world of work, should they so desire it.

 

And feminism had VERY LITTLE to do with this.

 

Younger women also often claim that they are glad to be alive today rather than in earlier times not long gone. And they seem to believe that the feminists of the 70s are largely responsible for the better circumstances that now exist for them.

 

GET THE HELL OUT OF HERE!

 

Look, there is no denying that life is decidedly better in MANY ways nowadays than it was in the past – for both men and women – but what, EXACTLY, did feminism achieve?

 

It is often argued, for example, that feminists were at the forefront in loosening the shackles of traditional gender roles which made men masculine and women feminine.

 

Oh, really?

 

Surely, if any particular group is to be especially credited with leading the way in this area it was the GAY movement not the women’s movement.

 

Even the entrapment of people into fixed gender roles brought about by the huge influence of religion was loosened far more by the developments taking place in science (discovery of DNA 1953) and the very rapid growth of a ‘youth culture’ with its defiant pop music (during the 1950′s) than it was by the later influences of feminism.

 

It is also often claimed that men and women now stand far more on an equal footing than they did some decades ago.

 

Are you kidding me?

 

In what areas, exactly?

 

Women can nowadays kick their husbands out of their homes, deny them access to their own children, and, in many western countries, even make them continue paying for children who are NOT BIOLOGICALLY THEIRS!

 

There are now some 20 times as many men in western prison cells as women. Men currently die, on average, some 5 years earlier than women. And so on.

 

This is greater equality?

 

Indeed, it would be interesting to know on what basis there is greater equality today than there was in the past. And how does one measure it?

 

For example, does the fact that women were once not entitled to vote (as it was true for most men) not somehow balance the fact that men alone could be conscripted into the army?

 

Does the fact that – even only 50 to 60 years ago – the vast majority of men had to do really awful jobs for very long hours in order to cater for themselves and their families not somehow balance the fact that the women were mostly stuck at home with the kids?

 

So what, exactly, is more gender equitable about today’s western world?

 

The feminist trick that infects the ether is to hold up examples of what appears to be unfairness toward women in the past, but to hide the unfairness that was being heaped upon men.

 

The suffering of women is highlighted and exaggerated and the suffering of men is denied and hidden. For example, look at the way that the domestic-violence industry still caters only for women and denies the existence of such violence against men.

 

And the modern-day history books have been cleansed by the left wing and the politically-corrected in the educational establishments and in the media in order to hide the suffering and the achievements of men and to elevate unduly into the public consciousness those of women.

 

And the extent to which these lies are continually perpetrated is absolutely astonishing.

 

As just one example, a few years ago, TV viewers were subjected persistently to images of the Taleban police in Afghanistan whacking away with their sticks at the women (mostly at their heavy clothing) as they ‘got out of line’ in the long queues for food. Over and over again the same images were presented to us to drum into our heads how badly women were being treated by the extremely religious Taleban. But in one scene on the BBC – which was shown once, and never shown again – a TV reporter asked one of the policemen why they were not whacking the men! He chuckled and said that they did not need to do this because the men were so terrified of them that they always did what they were told!

 

And, sure enough, the men could be seen standing in an orderly line without the pushing and shoving that was taking place among the women.

 

And so what these images really showed was that the women were completely unafraid of the policemen wielding their sticks while the men dared not put a foot out of line.

 

The truth of the matter was the complete opposite of what the media were persistently trying to portray.

 

Even a lot of men seem to think that feminism has benefited women in some major way. For example, in his truly excellent piece Fundamental Feminism even Richard Davis says,

 

“In contrast to progressive feminists, fundamental feminists do not seek gender equity. Their goal is gender superiority and authority. There is no question that women and men now live in a more gender equitable world than the one this author was born into. As a father of three daughters and two sons this author expects and demands equity of behavior and equal opportunity for all five of his children. Most of the credit for this contemporary view of gender equity must be given to progressive feminism.”

 

Pardon?

 

“Most of the credit for this contemporary view of gender equity must be given to progressive feminism.”

 

Where is the evidence for this?

 

And what on Earth is ‘progressive feminism’?

 

I have never even heard of it!

 

How can it possibly be that this ‘progressive feminism’ can be given the ‘credit’ for our current view of ‘gender equity’?

 

Where? How? When? WHO?

 

What the Hell is it?

 

And what about the ‘independent’ feminists, the ‘equity’ feminists and goodness knows what other types of feminists who are also often alleged to have brought about this current view of gender equity?

 

Do they count at all?

 

And have the gays not contributed most significantly to the current view of gender equity?

 

And what about black people?

 

Yes. Even the black racial activists witter on about gender equity. And even many raging white male anti-feminists, if not most of them, are pretty sold on the idea of ‘gender equity’.

 

And so the idea that feminists – of any kind – have some superior claim when it comes to the successful promotion of ‘fairness’ and ‘justice’ toward women is just nonsense. They are but a small fraction of the hundreds of other groups that have sought goodwill, justice, fairness and peace on Earth etc.

 

And the worthwhile achievements of feminists are almost non-existent.

 

Richard talks about wanting the same opportunities and the same fair treatment for his sons and his daughters. And quite right too!

 

But if you travel back fifty years in time and beyond, what meaning could this POSSIBLY have had?

 

There was just no way that normal young males and females could have been treated the same way and the results be equal.

 

For example, how could it have been ‘equal’ to insist that your son and your daughter both train hard for several years and to imbue them both with high professional expectations when the daughter would most likely want a completely different life for herself as an adult? – i.e. marriage to a suitable young man.

 

Do loving parents who believe in ‘equal’ treatment fill their children’s heads with grandiose ideas and expectations knowing full well that they are extremely unlikely to achieve them, or when they do not even want to achieve them?

 

And what, for example, if one lived in a mining community?

 

Would it have been ‘equitable’ to treat the boys and girls in the same way, and expect them both to work down the mines for 12 hours a day as a future career?

 

Similarly, allowing your 15 year old daughter to stay out until midnight and not requiring her to have an escort home would have been the height of madness fifty years ago. Even today, most responsible parents will have somewhat different rules for their boys and their girls when it comes to how they view their socialising habits.

 

And, of course, girls who got pregnant fifty years ago would have found themselves in ALL SORTS of trouble.

 

It makes no sense at all to believe that society could have treated men and women the same way fifty years ago. And if it had done so, the results would certainly not have been ‘equitable’.

 

Indeed, if feminism had been of major influence in those days our societies would have collapsed completely.

 

You only have to look at the effects that feminism has had on our poorer communities to see what a disaster it has been for so many people.

 

The state that the economy is in, things are not looking good for so many people. If western economies were to continue to deteriorate significantly in the future, and if millions of jobs were lost on a permanent basis, there is no f'n way that feminist policies could be implemented or enforced.

 

EVER!

 

For example, people might demand that jobs were distributed on the basis of one income-earner per household. And if, for some unimaginable reason, the only jobs available were onerous ones, or the world outside became a particularly dangerous place to be – as it used to be – women would willingly rush back into being housewives again.

 

And just imagine what would happen if, for some strange reason, abortions became unsafe and the contraceptive pill disappeared!

 

When you look back even fifty years ago, it is quite clear that women were not being oppressed by the ‘patriarchy’. The patriarchy was serving them very well indeed, given the circumstances in which people lived.

 

In summary, feminism has achieved very little indeed.

 

It is science, medicine, technology and men that have today ‘liberated’ western women – and men – to an unparalleled degree, not feminism.

 

Goodness me. The two MEN who came up with Google will do far more to ‘liberate’ women – and many others – than feminism could EVER do.

 

Feminism has damaged our society. It has damaged all of us.

 

And it continues to do so.

 

Not only is it a hugely destructive force but any society that is largely influenced by it is actually doomed to disappear.

 

The birth rates in feminist-dominated societies have plummeted to well below their population replacement rates, and the children who are being born are increasingly the offspring of those with lower levels of ability.

 

Well, with any luck, science, medicine, technology and men will, once again, manage to deal with the problems that will arise from such things.

 

But, firstly, this will not be easy. And, secondly, feminism has got to go.

[Mme. Chaucer]

In a few day, I'm going to come in here with an argument against feminism that will be the be all-end all of why that is a system that will never lead to the progress of women. I will make solid points that no one has yet to bring up. So stay tuned for that.

 

Please feed it to us slowly, in little pieces. The gigantic walls of text are going unread.

 

Especially if they start with an insulting falsehood like: "Feminists are FemiNazis."

 

I'm not poking at you; I am being sincere. You have your handful of women haters here and even if none of you agree on specifics (women should work, women should not work, women disagreeing with you is shaming, women disagreeing with you is not necessarily shaming, etc.) the bond of your brotherhood is solid: WOMEN BAD.

 

If "preaching to the choir" and getting some high fives from your bro's here is your aim, then carry on.

 

If you want to actually engage with people who are not already in your camp, though, you really need to make your point to them (us) in a digestible manner.

 

Just a tip.

[Queen Zenobia]

Women enjoy greater freedoms today because of progress in the areas of science, medicine and technology, NOT because of feminism.

 

Absolutely. "Isms" rarely have anything to do with liberation.

 

Ask a poor woman in Afghanistan why she still wants to wear the burka when she walks about in the street. Ask her why she would still much prefer to be married to a man who has some real concern for her welfare.

 

You can actually get raped or groped if you don't wear a burka in parts of Afghanistan (and other countries as well). I think that might have something to do with the willingness to wear a burka. Although, I will certainly admit that there are many women who choose to wear such attire.

 

 

And it was wasteful for society – and for individual families and organizations – to expend huge resources in training women over many years for jobs that they were extremely unlikely to end up doing.

 

In some circumstances, certainly. In others (women who didn't want to have children, women who couldn't have children, etc.) it made a lot of sense to train women for jobs.

 

In many cases I would say women are much better with investment decisions for instance. The IMF and other organizations have largely stopped giving loans and aid money to men in developing countries because they found that when they gave money to men they ended up spending the majority of it on guns, booze, and drugs. Women, on the other hand ended up using the money to start and invest in small businesses, and to educate their children. Their loans were paid off far quicker than the loans given to men.

 

Just something to keep in mind.

 

 

So what, exactly, is more gender equitable about today’s western world?

 

Well, because we're an advanced economy, women can now work outside of the home, or at least be qualified to do so. Therefore, if a woman gets married to a man who beats her or what have you, she's not bound to him (like a serf) because he happens to provide for her financially. Unless you're advocating that women stay married to a man no matter what.

 

 

As just one example, a few years ago, TV viewers were subjected persistently to images of the Taleban police in Afghanistan whacking away with their sticks at the women (mostly at their heavy clothing) as they ‘got out of line’ in the long queues for food. Over and over again the same images were presented to us to drum into our heads how badly women were being treated by the extremely religious Taleban. But in one scene on the BBC – which was shown once, and never shown again – a TV reporter asked one of the policemen why they were not whacking the men! He chuckled and said that they did not need to do this because the men were so terrified of them that they always did what they were told!

 

What is your point here, exactly? Are you advocating for some kind of American Taliban?

 

 

 

Do loving parents who believe in ‘equal’ treatment fill their children’s heads with grandiose ideas and expectations knowing full well that they are extremely unlikely to achieve them, or when they do not even want to achieve them?

 

I think a loving parent would encourage their children (male or female) to do whatever it is that they feel they can do and not prescribe a role for them solely on the basis of gender.

 

 

For example, people might demand that jobs were distributed on the basis of one income-earner per household. And if, for some unimaginable reason, the only jobs available were onerous ones, or the world outside became a particularly dangerous place to be – as it used to be – women would willingly rush back into being housewives again.

 

People can "demand" that jobs be distributed however much they want, but that's not how a successful economy works. An employer selects the most qualified available and interested candidate, man or woman, whether or not they're the only worker in the household or whether or not their spouse works as well. In a successful economy, there is more than enough work to go around, you don't need to go "distribute" work like some kind of socialist planned economy.

[dasein]

One example of this is of a case where a MRA group (called Men and Women Against Discrimination - which I hadn't heard of but maybe others have) took a government agency to court over the funding of domestic abuse shelters. Perhaps this is a well known case in the US?

 

If public funds are involved, there should be no gender discriminatory expenditure, and lawsuits should be brought if there is. Such lawsuits are legitimate, and citing ONE suit that lost demonstrates nothing about the presumed legitimacy of complaints against feminist political actions.

 

Women use about 80% of public health funding in the U.S. as it stands, and a gigantic multiple of public funds are spent on breast cancer over prostate cancer for example. That's de facto discrimination, and if the publicly funded "women's issues industry" were a school, it would have been sued to hell and back for discrimination by now if not shut down entirely.

 

No idea whether the UK is similar. When threatened with lawsuits, the offenders blithely declare, "well we don't turn away men," a plain lie. The entire infrastructure is set up to funnel public funds to a gullible female constituency, not male, and go about their "other civic purpose" of spewing out endless amounts of propaganda demonizing men into the local community. But of course the propaganda purpose of these vilification factories is somehow never allowed to be the topic of conversation, it's all about the abused child or woman shelter, not the filthy lies those spam in the community. I rode by a billboard the other day, "She trusted her Daddy" with a sad beat up little girl on it. These images are everywhere, television, print, radio, despite the actual incidence of these crimes being very small. Somehow have never seen one depicting "She trusted her MOMMY" Wonder why?

 

How would you feel if your entire gender had been the focus of fear mongering, demonizing propaganda, funded by your own tax dollars, for half a century? How would you feel if you complained about it and were told, "you are being vexatious and obviously just have an axe to grind?"

 

I just find it really unfortunate that some segments of the MRM seem more concerned with making adversarial gestures against feminism....by attacking resources that exist to assist victims of crime or violence.

 

If feminism weren't a marxist sham designed to destroy the family unit, the institution of marriage and demonize men under the ostensible "equality for women" canard, I'm sure lots of the "adversarial gestures" would go away. As it is, the avalanche is just beginning. Good luck brushing it off as "fringe" MRA elements as it grows.

 

Feminism is a political movement. Your statement above and others in your post equate to "I just find it really unfortunate that the Conservative Party seems more concerned with making adversarial gestures against the Labor Party."Unfortunate or not, that kind of thing is exactly what is involved in political discourse and has been forever. Yet feminism is somehow exempt from that political process I suppose? Why?

 

Some male posters here are asking women to define why they are feminists and if they even know what that means. Speaking personally, it's a label that is applied to me on here by virtue of the fact that I'm female and that I participate in discussions like this. I'm not an activist, except in so far as it's my job to procure justice for my clients.

 

OK, but the question of what are the tenets of feminism besides the rule of law "equality of women" remain unanswered somehow other than in the links NXS provided. I still contend that if most "feminists" in the U.S., where we aren't quite as friendly to Marxist doctrine as you all over there are, actually knew what mainstream feminism actually is, its true origins and stated, well-documented intent, they would be hesitant to proudly state, "I am a feminist." If not flee from it in droves.

 

However, if these groups keep springing up and abusing the judicial system with vexatious actions, then I think a lot of sane and rational people will start becoming somewhat more activist in taking a stand against them. And rationality will win out, just as it won in that appeal case I linked.

 

Who are you to determine what a legitimate use of the courts is? I certainly don't claim to sit as a tribunal of which lawsuits are legitimate or not. IMO it's lazy as hell to stop the analysis of the merits of a case at a pronouncement of "legitimate" or "illegitimate." Convenient, but lazy. Moreover, the outcome of any particular case has no bearing on its legitimacy, none whatsoever, yet you are claiming it does somehow? You mentioned clients, are you an attorney? I can't believe any attorney would make that claim.

 

It seems that once disagreement reaches a certain point with you, it becomes "vexatious" by default. Convenient. Yes, let's hope rationality wins in the end.

 

http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/05/04/13/roberts.htm

 

http://www.fed-soc.org/publications/pubID.1368/pub_detail.asp

 

 

Come in with a grievance about a doctrine you don't like, and an idea for a vexatious action aimed at delivering a gut punch to that doctrine, and I will kick you out the door for trying to inveigle me into abusing the judicial system.

 

LOL, more "vexatious," is that like "more cowbell?" And now you sit in judgment of what is a legitimate action and what is a mere "gut punch?" Thank god I don't live wherever the "Court of Taramere" is in session. Here's a secret for the lurkers, any attempt to haul the lies of feminism and its abusive political actions into the light of day is eventually "vexatious" by default, illegitimate. Don't believe the asserted "balanced" position that it will ever be otherwise where feminists are concerned. Any disagreement will eventually become mere "vexation" the closer to the bone it comes. Nice trick. Transparent though.

 

Unfortunately, axe grinders get in on the act and start raising these maliciously intended court actions that consume court time and money for the benefit of absolutely nobody. In order do battle with these invisible dark forces known as "feminism". Then wonder why courts and other authorities fail to take them seriously.

 

Everyone has the right to access the courts to accomplish their legal goals or to seek redress for wrong, even feminists. Moreover, everyone has the right to speak out and condemn doctrines they disagree with, in court or elsewhere. Feminists certainly have been doing both for half a century, yet when opposition becomes serious, it's merely "axe grinding." Convenient and thoroughly disingenuous.

[dasein]

Of course the man who stumbles into a lawyer's office armed with 10 boxes full of files, newspaper clippings and grievances believes he has a fantastic, unloseable case.

 

And of course there have always been people like you throughout history who are willing to "preadjudicate" that case based on your solitary POV before an opportunity to be heard on the merits. We call that a "Star Chamber" in the U.S. What do you call it?

[dasein]

The usage of the very same tactics one abhors in one's opposition, to get one's 'point' across. Come now, surely you see the similarities. The feminazis used to cry, "Misogynist!" in response to any opinion that differed from theirs - crying, "Feminazi!" in response is no different. The feminazis skew statistics and 'history' to fit their agendas - guess who's doing that now?

 

Skewed history my ass.

 

Tell you what, I will stop referring to feminism as a marxist sham full of lies when someone convincingly rebuts my posts referring to the facts about Betty Friedan, cultural marxism, second wave feminism, the stated intent of feminists (cited by NXS), and Communist indoctrination methods.

 

And then only after I have used such descriptors as many times as I've heard the words "hate," "oppression," "patriarchy," and "misogyny," abused and misused by feminists over the last 30 years or seen some inflammatory publicly funded message demonizing men. So will be happy to comply with your funny, guilt trippy request sometime around the year 2085.

 

Mmhmm, I'm sure that your entirely rational and logical self would defend me similarly if I posted:

 

You should go ahead and drop this and the straw manning that follows. The nature and intent of soserious' post, especially in light of her subsequent clarifications, together with my response to that post were crystal clear.

 

relentlessly pursuing an agenda and agreeing blindly with everyone who purports that same agenda, regardless of how illogical the other person's words or how inane their methods may be.

 

Let's give you a hint: you just described the behavior of feminists for half a century. Backlash is a bitch.

[dasein]

the bond of your brotherhood is solid: WOMEN BAD.

 

That "feminism" = "women" is a lie.

 

Real people don't lie.

[Taramere]

are you an attorney? I can't believe any attorney would make that claim.

 

I'm based in the UK...so the word attorney isn't applicable. I used to be a litigator, and I moved into alternative dispute resolution which is a better fit for my professional background generally...though I still handle employment actions.

 

A vexatious action is one that is taken to annoy, harass, oppress or obstruct another individual (or in this case an organisation) rather than to pursue a remedy against breach of a wrong that has affected the complainer adversely. As an officer of the court you have a duty to that court to avoid raising vexatious actions on behalf of clients. Some sail closer to the wind than others, but potentially a person can be struck off for raising a vexatious action.

 

That case I cited quite clearly decided that the complainers had no standing to raise the action. Which is different from "losing" a case. Where I live, vexatious litigants lists detail people who cannot raise an action without express permission, on account of a history of raising vexatious actions.

 

Anybody working in the legal profession has to be mindful of the existence of such serial litigants. Most experienced practitioners will recognise them very quickly and come up with an excuse not to deal with them.

 

While you might find it hard to believe that a lawyer would make a decision about what is and isn't vexatious litigation, I'm pretty sure anybody else here who has acted as an officer of the court will agree that making such judgement calls, as part of deciding whether you should raise an action on behalf of a client, is an essential part of the job.

 

If that MAWAD continue raising actions and continue to be found to have no standing, then the risk of an attorney representing them getting into trouble for raising a vexatious action will increase.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Taramere

[dasein]

In many cases I would say women are much better with investment decisions for instance.

 

That's interesting, I find more male investment managers and advisers, traders, hedge fund managers listed in "superstar" lists of such. Last I saw it was about equal in analysts, or even slightly more female, but technically analysts don't make a living by investing money.

 

The IMF and other organizations have largely stopped giving loans and aid money to men in developing countries because they found that when they gave money to men they ended up spending the majority of it on guns, booze, and drugs. Women, on the other hand ended up using the money to start and invest in small businesses, and to educate their children. Their loans were paid off far quicker than the loans given to men.

 

This sounds like it says more about the IMF as a propaganda organ of feminism than any kind of dispositive truth. Even if taken at face value, I'm not sure generalizations about what goes on in the developing world have much to do with what goes on in the industrial West. The less PC among us still call it the "third world" for a reason.

 

Well, because we're an advanced economy, women can now work outside of the home, or at least be qualified to do so.

 

Technology, not the state of the economy, allows the reproductive capacity to work outside the home without the threat of extincting a population subject to high infant mortality and low life expectancy. There is a big distinction there. My great grandmother, born in 1881, not even a week ago in human history, birthed 9 children. Three survived. Those births took a physically weakening and even physically deforming toll on her, she was not suitable for any kind of external work her whole life as result. (Don't feel too bad for her, she lived happily to 94, outliving her husband who was crushed by a grain elevator at work in his early 50s). The reproductive imperative for 99% of human history has been "protect the reproductive capacity at all costs or extinct out." We are the product of countless generations of that imperative, and feminists nitpicking out of it some kind of enslavement of women as second class citizens and the chattels of men are beyond dishonest.

 

I think a loving parent would encourage their children (male or female) to do whatever it is that they feel they can do and not prescribe a role for them solely on the basis of gender.

 

Couldn't agree more, but keep in mind that the reproductive imperative described above foreclosed that option as impractical, suicidal even, up on into the 20th century, yesterday in world history. And lo and behold, just last night in human historical terms, no work options are foreclosed to women. The instant women could be allowed by the reproductive imperative to choose other than the home and hearth they did so, with no opposition from some imaginary "patriarchy" whatsoever.

 

Feminists dishonestly justify affirmative action for women based on a myopically distorted view of the realities of human biological and technological history.

Edited November 16, 2011 by dasein

[Queen Zenobia]

Feminists dishonestly justify affirmative action for women based on a myopically distorted view of the realities of human biological and technological history.

 

Certainly. I would definitely concur with you that it was fundamentally next to impossible for the current situation to exist for most of human history. Although there were certainly women in history who took jobs as merchants, and other less physically demanding jobs, but that's another story.

 

However, that doesn't change the fact that women and men are far more equal today than they were 100 years ago. Women and men weren't unequal in the past because of the patriarchy, but largely (if not completely) because of circumstances. So on that we agree. And I also don't support Affirmative Action (for anyone) so on that we also agree.

[Queen Zenobia]

Technology, not the state of the economy, allows the reproductive capacity to work outside the home without the threat of extincting a population subject to high infant mortality and low life expectancy. There is a big distinction there. My great grandmother, born in 1881, not even a week ago in human history, birthed 9 children. Three survived. Those births took a physically weakening and even physically deforming toll on her, she was not suitable for any kind of external work her whole life as result. (Don't feel too bad for her, she lived happily to 94, outliving her husband who was crushed by a grain elevator at work in his early 50s). The reproductive imperative for 99% of human history has been "protect the reproductive capacity at all costs or extinct out." We are the product of countless generations of that imperative, and feminists nitpicking out of it some kind of enslavement of women as second class citizens and the chattels of men are beyond dishonest.

 

Well, yes and no. Technology fuels economic progress and economic progress fuels technological advances, so you're sort of right. All those technological advances that allowed for more reproductive freedom and reproductive prenatal and infant health were largely done with economic incentives in mind. They weren't merely the products of inventor's imaginations.

 

And when I say "advanced economy" I mean one that is not based predominately around subsistence farming, cash crops, and crude manual labor the likes of which you see in most third world countries.

[dasein]

A vexatious action is one that is taken to annoy, harass, oppress or obstruct another individual (or in this case an organisation) rather than to pursue a remedy against breach of a wrong that has affected the complainer adversely. As an officer of the court you have a duty to that court to avoid raising vexatious actions on behalf of clients. Some sail closer to the wind than others, but potentially a person can be struck off for raising a vexatious action.

 

Is "vexatious" a statutory term then, a term of art? If so I understand you using it, at least some of your use of it. If it's just a personal assessment on your part though and not part of express civil or criminal procedural language, I stand by all of what I posted about your use of the term.

 

I think such lawsuits would be referred to here as "frivolous," and carry sanctions for the court to decide, not the disputants, who would be naturally inclined to categorize the opposing party's position as frivolous or vexatious. Would be called "scorched earth lawyer BS" over here, just part of the process, not dispositive of the truth of anyone's claims. It's why I prefer for the most part to attack feminism on actual substantive grounds rather than procedural grounds such as "vexatiousness" or "standing."

 

Procedural qualities of a legal case don't actually speak to the underlying merits at all, do they?

 

Apparently you feel procedure somehow trumps the substantive nature of a claim and speaks to the overall truth of a claim. I imagine defense lawyers who get clients off caught redhanded with bales of cocaine based on bad searches or something like "lack of standing" or some other -technicality- would agree with you, the police would likely have a different POV, as do I.

 

Personally, would hesitate to categorize any suit that was allowed by a court to proceed past opening motions as either "vexatious," or "frivolous."

 

And don't know about here, but given the coopted and corrupted makeup of our judicial bench in the U.S., a product of decades of wrongful affirmative action and feminist patronage and appeasement, I wouldn't be surprised at all that lawsuits concerning discrimination against men are regularly tossed out of court on technicalities. In fact, I would expect as much.

 

Anybody working in the legal profession has to be mindful of the existence of such serial litigants. Most experienced practitioners will recognise them very quickly and come up with an excuse not to deal with them.

 

So exactly how many lawsuits did this particular group file, over what time period, and what result? It would seem those would be the dispositive facts of whether a party were a "serial litigant" or not. I hope you made a careful analysis of those facts before pronouncing them as such. Based on your assessment, we might pass off any litigation where the ACLU files an amicus brief as being "serial litigation," and thank goodness those civil rights lawyers filing suit after suit in Mississippi and Alabama 50 years ago weren't barred from the court based on their "vexatiousness," "lack of standing" ("It's really those inconvenient jew lawyers, not the blacks who are so upset about 'our' way of life, and lookie here, they don't even have any STANDING.") and supposed characterizations as "serial litigants."

[dasein]

However, that doesn't change the fact that women and men are far more equal today than they were 100 years ago.

 

I disagree as to the "factual" nature of the above, but for the sake of argument...

 

in what respect(s)?

 

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

 

and moreover, if such were the case for the sake of argument, what portion of that equality is attributable to feminism versus attributable to the natural progress of human civil rights? Feminism, IMO, has been counterproductive to any quest for gender equality.

Edited November 16, 2011 by dasein

[Queen Zenobia]

I disagree as to the "factual" nature of the above, but for the sake of argument...

 

in what respect(s)?

 

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

 

and moreover, if such were the case for the sake of argument, what portion of that equality is attributable to feminism versus attributable to the natural progress of human civil rights? Feminism, IMO, has been counterproductive to any quest for gender equality.

 

60 million died in WWII, the vast majority of the deaths were civilian, I hardly see how that relates to gender equality. Sure, almost all of the uniformed people were men, but in WWII, I'd rather be in the French military than be an unarmed French civilian.

 

But, as for equality in general, I would say that 100 years ago, a woman, unable to work outside the home (physical demands, lack of skills, etc.) was essentially out of luck if she married someone mentally or physically abusive, someone who went insane, or who decided he wanted something different out of life, whatever. Sure, in many places she could get a divorce, but then what? Live a life of poverty? Find some other person to live off of? Go back to elderly (and probably dying) parents?

 

Or, what if a woman didn't want children? What if she wasn't even attracted to men? What then?

 

Today women have options. They can choose to live alone, or they can choose to voluntarily give up some sovereignty (same as men) to be in a relationship or marriage. They can also choose not to have children if they don't want them. Men have had these options for years, and now women do as well. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

 

And yeah, I wouldn't credit feminism with cultivating equality between sexes at all. I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "counterproductive" (perhaps neutral) but certainly, the general progression of humanity has been the overwhelming factor. Same goes for the civil rights movement.

Edited November 16, 2011 by Queen Zenobia

[dasein]

Well, yes and no. Technology fuels economic progress and economic progress fuels technological advances, so you're sort of right. All those technological advances that allowed for more reproductive freedom and reproductive prenatal and infant health were largely done with economic incentives in mind. They weren't merely the products of inventor's imaginations.

 

I'm certainly not arguing against the profit motive, nor that the formation of capital is not required in the process of mass technological advancement. Yes, those hinge on human decisions that enter the purview of microeconomic theory. But they are certainly not, and have never been dependent on the existence on any structured macroeconomy (in the common sense that term is used, macroeconomic analysis is certainly possible wherever there is wampum). Such may enhance technological progress, but does not necessarily precede it.

 

The reason I make a deal of this is that terms like "the economy" are readily and frequently used by feminists as examples of "patriarchal systems," and that potholed track leads back to the supposed exploitation of women.

 

There's really no way to link biological reproductive imperatives affected mostly by technological progress alone back to "patriarchal constructs," though I imagine in the nebulous realms of feminist hogwash even that has been attempted, so that's why I prefer to couch the discussion in the way I did.

[dasein]

Sure, almost all of the uniformed people were men,

 

and that's all the analysis needs to demonstrate that in actuality, skip the rationalizations, women have been more equal than men for as long as there has been warfare and conscription. Remember I'm not making a "we have it worse" case, merely denying "women ever had it worse." "Denied the right to vote?" or "Lose an arm in a cotton gin?" Tough choice. Neither alternative palatable. Talking about who had it worse, the nonvoting woman or the coal mining man? who was more or less oppressed? Not productive, even counterproductive.

 

Mainly counterproductive because, despite all the back and forth on this, almost NONE of us in the West are oppressed today regardless of gender, and the back and forth merely breeds resentment, polarization, and the victim identity that has torn our social dialogue right to shreds. Men are getting really tired of it in a climate where unnecessary and unconstitutional affirmative action is still based on lies about wage gaps and glass ceilings. Enough is enough.

 

I'm not the one who wants to talk about these things, feminists are. They won't shut up about them, and have proven their intractability for so long, that male and female voices of reason no longer have a choice but to attempt to breathe rationality into the mess.

 

but in WWII, I'd rather be in the French military than be an unarmed French civilian.

 

I'm sure the folks who died at the Maginot Line will be interested to hear that. I was also unaware of any French laws prohibiting armed militias pre WW2, were the partisans throwing balls of pate'?

 

But, as for equality in general, I would say that 100 years ago, a woman, unable to work outside the home (physical demands, lack of skills, etc.) was essentially out of luck if she married someone mentally or physically abusive, someone who went insane,

 

Sounds exactly like what men were subjected to in mills, on ships, on the battlefield. No difference. God forbid a man drew the short straw and ended up under Ahab or Custer. Give me an insane spouse at home, at least I can whack her/him with a firepoker and not get keelhauled.

 

Or, what if a woman didn't want children? What if she wasn't even attracted to men? What then?

 

A man who didn't want marriage or children was just as screwed. Marriage and children weren't just quasi necessities for women.

 

Men have had these options for years, and now women do as well. I fail to see how that's a bad thing.

 

Eh, see my post in this very thread describing the prefeminist state of my grandparents. Both grandmothers had college degrees, neither GF did, one GM worked, the other raised the six kids she wanted while that GF slaved in a dangerous factory. I submit that the reality of my GPs was more indicative of mass reality than the lies and distortions feminists have demanded we accept without question for half a century now.

Edited November 16, 2011 by dasein

[NXS]

Here's an interesting case from the UK, a former Gender Studies student is suing the London School of Economics for discrimination based on the curriculum:

 

http://sexismbusters.org/why1.html

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6y9_oklmHvU

 

Should be interesting to see how they claim that "Gender Studies" is obviously about women and that there's no discrimantion in the reading list. Looks like a whole can of worms is about to be opened.

[Queen Zenobia]

and that's all the analysis needs to demonstrate that in actuality, skip the rationalizations, women have been more equal than men for as long as there has been warfare and conscription. Remember I'm not making a "we have it worse" case, merely denying "women ever had it worse." "Denied the right to vote?" or "Lose an arm in a cotton gin?" Tough choice. Neither alternative palatable. Talking about who had it worse, the nonvoting woman or the coal mining man? who was more or less oppressed? Not productive, even counterproductive.

 

Well, I think that's probably a discussion for historians. The thing about voting though was that the justifications for not giving women the vote wasn't that women had less hardships in working life, but because women couldn't be trusted with the vote.

 

Mainly counterproductive because, despite all the back and forth on this, almost NONE of us in the West are oppressed today regardless of gender, and the back and forth merely breeds resentment, polarization, and the victim identity that has torn our social dialogue right to shreds. Men are getting really tired of it in a climate where unnecessary and unconstitutional affirmative action is still based on lies about wage gaps and glass ceilings. Enough is enough.

 

I'm not the one who wants to talk about these things, feminists are. They won't shut up about them, and have proven their intractability for so long, that male and female voices of reason no longer have a choice but to attempt to breathe rationality into the mess.

 

Fair enough. You'll never see me complaining about oppression or advocating for affirmative action.

 

I'm sure the folks who died at the Maginot Line will be interested to hear that. I was also unaware of any French laws prohibiting armed militias pre WW2, were the partisans throwing balls of pate'?

 

Fair enough. I should also point out that most of the civilians were Russian and Chinese many of whom were in fact completely unarmed and incapable of fighting back against the Germans and Japanese.

 

 

 

Sounds exactly like what men were subjected to in mills, on ships, on the battlefield. No difference. God forbid a man drew the short straw and ended up under Ahab or Custer. Give me an insane spouse at home, at least I can whack her/him with a firepoker and not get keelhauled.

 

A man who didn't want marriage or children was just as screwed. Marriage and children weren't just quasi necessities for women.

 

The difference is your spouse is not supposed to treat you that way. Sure, neither is your employer, but home is supposed to be a sanctuary. Husbands who beat their wives are not entitled to have those wives stay with them.

 

Eh, see my post in this very thread describing the prefeminist state of my grandparents. Both grandmothers had college degrees, neither GF did, one GM worked, the other raised the six kids she wanted while that GF slaved in a dangerous factory. I submit that the reality of my GPs was more indicative of mass reality than the lies and distortions feminists have demanded we accept without question for half a century now.

 

I'm not exactly sure that we're all that far apart. I certainly agree with you that life is better for everyone now than it was 100 years ago. Women are better off (more freedom) of course this is also true of men, poor people, old people, sick people, etc.

 

I'm not saying that women have experienced unique forms of oppression, I'm saying that the fact that women work outside of the home, have the right to own property (which they had in the Near East a thousand years ago), and the right to stay single or divorce their husbands, is not a bad thing at all.

[Taramere]

Is "vexatious" a statutory term then, a term of art? If so I understand you using it, at least some of your use of it. If it's just a personal assessment on your part though and not part of express civil or criminal procedural language, I stand by all of what I posted about your use of the term.

 

Dasein, I'm going to start charging you by the hour soon. I'm serious. Not to mention how totally off topic we are by now, but so far Tony seems to be turning a blind eye.

 

You could easily check that one out yourself. However, yes...it is a statutory term. There has to be a pattern of raising cases of little or no merit....and no, certainly where I live, these cases don't just get thrown out at the initial hearing.

 

In Taramereland that hearing's purpose is to decide whether a case should to to proof or debate, or be continued for further adjustment of pleadings or sisted (put on hold). A sheriff might comment on the dubious merits, but the merits aren't examined in depth at the options hearing. I don't know how it goes in the US.

 

Here's a discussion which gives some insight on vexatious litigation.

 

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:49kO-mFxOxQJ:www.centrefoi.org.uk/portal/images/Eugene_Creally.pdf+court+session+petition+vexatious+litigant&hl=en&gl=uk&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEEShto1KHMh6hh0pnIzB5QL3G5EvKGxpcVghrlU6zhRu1jg-FOK8dkvy4EwXkQErYAJp-1M-zuJgKUbQgc7Y6Zn4a347s82tZToqv_XjGeTXEXqX4k_adPl60sXonA-fGAsf07ZY6&sig=AHIEtbQliPsBpPiJLA9Fy0NUq4uxZYGmrg

 

No doubt there will be material online relating to how these matters are dealt with in your jurisdiction.

[dasein]

Dasein, I'm going to start charging you by the hour soon. I'm serious.

 

No more pro bono for me? In that case you're fired.

 

Not to mention how totally off topic we are by now, but so far Tony seems to be turning a blind eye.

 

I doubt Grkboy will be too annoyed at the derail of his "real women" thread. And to reiterate, I didn't stir up the gender rhetoric here initially, you can lay that at the door of a poster named "metis" IIRC.

 

No doubt there will be material online relating to how these matters are dealt with in your jurisdiction.

 

Well since it was your example from your jurisdiction... I'm not overly concerned with court procedural rules in this discussion.

 

I still maintain that your categorizing that litigant as vexatious or serial, rightly or wrongly, is irrelevant to the underlying merits of their case, and thus irrelevant to the discussion here.