The guy was out on the sidewalk, leaning into his girlfriend's parked car on the passenger side. He was yelling at her, and she was doing the stony staring out the window thing. As I walked past I could hear only very little of what was going on, but it was definitely hostile. As I passed, I looked back, and he was leaning into the car more, with his hands on the passenger seat and his whole upper body inside the car, yelling right into her face, and then, still screaming at her, he headbutted her, and I saw her head jog, and then she put her hand up to her forehead and leaned over onto the steering wheel. It seemed pretty clear that he had hurt her and I think she was crying.

I stood there on the sidewalk stunned for at least a minute. I wondered what I should do--but I was afraid to go over to them and tell him to quit it, and leave her alone, or intervene at all, because I didn't want to get whalluped. I finally walked away, but I still don't feel good about it.

I wonder, what does one do in such a situation? How could I have been at all helpful to the woman? Why is there such a taboo on interfering in bullshit like that--or is it just fear?

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: Lima Bean ]

If you personally intervened, you could get hurt. You are not trained to deal with aggressive people, the police are.

If he hit her in public or semi-public, it probably isn't new behavior on his part. After all, he's overcome his inhibition to act violently where he can potentially be seen by other people. Also, it's not uncommon for men who batter to be or appear sorry or ashamed afterwards. It's part of the cycle. Anger build up, trigger, violence, remorse, angerbuild up... He may hate himself for his actions but that alone probably won't stop him. Or he might look ashamed b/c his actions were witnessed by you.

You should always be careful when confroting batterers b/c they might turn on you. But calling the police if you can is a good idea, but not easy if they are not at home or in transit as you've said.

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

I generally go by what I like to call the phenomenon effect, whereby, if I've heard of something, or seen it, or know about it in some way, then it must be pretty big, and therefor have some grounding in reality, because I'm not so savvy a gal as to "be in the know"...Long story short, I feel that if this kind of violence has touched my life, it must be happening an awful lot. Compare that to female on male violence, which, aside from the aforementioned threads, has yet to enter my consciousness on any real level....

And then I just got really mad at the way all our threads have been hijacked by assholes who have no sense of what women actually face day-to-day and scoff at the solidarity and power we've struggled for so many years to achieve.

They impose inequality in the guise of equality. That 'I'm feminism' and the FGM thread were proof of that. Women's body parts are less equal than mens, because the organs we lose to FGM are only worth as much as a male foreskin! That doesn't mean that male circumcision is viewed as being right or not a bad thing only if you view it to be equally abhorrant in practice as FGM. A clitoral hood is equivelent to a male forskin but NO FGM method only removes the hood. Why? Because removing a woman's ability to have pleasure including self-pleasure from sex and thus her sexual power is what's paramount in terms of the goals of FGM.

sometimes I think that any woman who doesn't put men's issues and men's needs first ahead of their own 24/7 is a huge threat to them, b/c we are disregarding that privilage and if we do that, they see it as disregarding and ignoring them.

There are things women do that hurt other women we can't face. There are things that men do to men(a lot of things and there are race, class and sexual orientation breakdowns here as well)They can't face their own behavior, plus they resent the gains that women have made which infringe on their own privilage so they lash out at us women in the guise of only hating feminists.

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

quote:

---

Women's body parts are less equal than mens, because the organs we lose to FGM are only worth as much as a male foreskin!

---

Nobody said any such thing. There's a new thread on the subject... why not click by and take a look. Nobody's being asked to consider FGM "equal to" circumcision - rather, it's being suggested that both are unacceptable forms of mutilation. Not "equally" unacceptable, just unacceptable.

quote:

---

sometimes I think that any woman who doesn't put men's issues and men's needs first ahead of their own...

---

Calling FGM or comparing it to female circumcision is downright offensive. Clitoral hood removal, yes. Clitoris and labia, NO!

I have a friend who works with Equality Now. She has to deal with this stuff ll the time.

quote:

---

Female genital mutilation? Yes it happens, and is culturally supported in some countries. How about male genital mutilation? Circumcision. Done for exactly the same reasons, and equally abhorant. But it is commonplace in the western world.

---

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: Madame X ]

I have seen a shove in public. In fact, it was in the grocery store at peak time. A couple in their thirties. A woman was pushing the cart, an infant was in the main part of the cart in a carrier. Her male compainion was stomping around her yelling about her list, her lack of organization, how much things cost, why do we need this, etc. Everyone could hear him. She didn't say anything, and, he then shoved her and told her to answer him. She told him to keep his voice down.

I was really shocked. I did the same thing you did, I stopped and stared at him. He saw me and stomped down the freezer aisle, she tried to smile at me.

So, is that all a person can do? Just stand by as an obvious witness? Maybe call the police, if the situation seems somehow to warrant it, or if it seems like the police would be useful.

I do wonder about their response to such calls. Has anyone had experience with this sort of thing? I'm just not too confident that they'd jump up and run over, as I've heard so many stories of officers really being lackadaisical and uninterested in domestic assaults...

quote:

---

I do wonder about their response to such calls. Has anyone had experience with this sort of thing? I'm just not too confident that they'd jump up and run over, as I've heard so many stories of officers really being lackadaisical and uninterested in domestic assaults...

But maybe things have changed?

---

I called the police to report domestic violence at a neighbour's apartment early last spring. I didn't see anything but there was a great deal of shouting as well as alot of crashing sounds. I probably would not have called if it was just shouting. It took the police nearly half an hour to arrive. By that time things, luckily, had calmed down and all the police could do was ask what had happened.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lima Bean:

I stood there on the sidewalk stunned for at least a minute. I wondered what I should do--but I was afraid to go over to them and tell him to quit it, and leave her alone, or intervene at all, because I didn't want to get whalluped. I finally walked away, but I still don't feel good about it.

I wonder, what does one do in such a situation? How could I have been at all helpful to the woman? Why is there such a taboo on interfering in bullshit like that--or is it just fear?

[ 15 October 2003: Message edited by: Lima Bean ]

---

quote:

---

Peace agreements -- but no peace
David Warren
Ottawa Citizen
Thursday, October 16, 2003

Let me start by mentioning something fairly obvious that was overlooked in all the numerous media accounts I saw of yesterday's Gaza bombing.

If the reader has ever tried to plant a bomb in the middle of a public roadway, he will have noticed the problem of witnesses. This is especially the case when your bomb is a remote-control device, that requires not only some excavation, but correct wiring to a switch at another location. In a normal society, people may ask what you are doing. Or, if they are too shy to ask, will call the police and then the police will come to ask.

There is nothing normal, however, about Palestinian society.

---

What you felt is called empathy, the knot in your stomach the lump in your throat, the ambiguity that tore you between attacking the agressor and rescuing the victim is referred to in clinical terms as "the cartman triangle".

It is the most dangerous relationship you can enter into.

What you do is this, identify the location, identify the car, call the police, identify yourself leave contact information then leave the scene.
Don't loiter around because there could be someone else approaching to join in a beating that could be domestic, drug related, psychotic, psychopathic or panicked.
For all you know she could have stabbed, shot, or poisoned him and he was getting in his last licks.

In the triangle there are three "roles", Victim, agressor, and rescuer. As soon as a third person interacts with the other two the roles switch.

The pressence of the third person creates a new victim a new rescuer and a new agressor. The next interactive event - speech action or inaction switches the roles again, and so on until somebody panics and there is violence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Meowful:
The problem pax, is that most of the time, the man DOES come back -- most pissed off than before... and like the Dixie Chicks say "Walked right through that restrainin' order"

---

I doubt that it is most of the time.

But if it were a girlfriend of mine, I think I'd let her stay with me, and we'd work together on how to best extricate her from the relationship and any danger that her partner poses. Depending on the situation, maybe the police would have to get involved as well.

And yes, I know that this is complicated by the enabling conundrum, and becoming part of a co-dependent or otherwise destructive pattern, but I just don't know that I could wash my hands of someone who's so clearly in a lot of trouble, and not dealing with it very well on her own.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gayle:
Along the same lines, what would you do if someone you knew told you their SO, whom you also you knew, beat on them?

---

Well if this question is directed at me, I have two answers.
One, when I was active in crisses intervention work (trained with 7 years experience) I was required by law to inform police.
Two, oooooo, that is a very good question.
Assuming this has been posted here as a true assertion with honourable intention then I have one other question.
Why did the medical personell at the hospital not report this themselves?

Proceed with extreme caution. You can die if you get involved - I have to, by law, inform you of this reality not that it reflects any statistical signifigance simply now that I have identified myself as a trained and experienced worker it would be negligent for me to exclude it.

Please feel free to email me for further discussion of this topic as generic advice on specific situations is ... a bad idea.
or you may call me at the number I will include in my return mail to you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Mr. Magoo:
The hardest part is understanding
...
(Sometimes I think people fear being "alone" way too much).

---

another good interogative assertion, I doubt that the fear you refer to is the reason.
To quote (or qoute out of context) Tina Turner "what's love got to do with it"?
Some people value their love more than they value their safety.
To quote the police dective who intervened on my behalf with my domestic violence experience, "there is your side of the story, there is her side of the story, and the truth lies somewhere in the middle".

Women don't actually tend to pound on their spouses, they tend to use surrogates.
They tend to use the children as hostages, betting that their spouse will not call their bluff.
They also tend to employ other men, or the threat of such employment, in the excersise of violence.

[ 17 October 2003: Message edited by: Amateur At Large ]

I was 8 months pregnant and with my then husband, a police officer. We were getting into our car parked on the street and I noticed a pregnant woman walking on the sidewalk beside a man. I saw what I thought was him shoving her, so I kept watching. I then saw him knee her..in her stomach. I told my husband..he stood outside our car and yelled 'hey!'.

The guy came rushing over yelling at him to mind his own damn business, etc. and was right in his face. My husband said 'I'm a cop'. (He did this so that if the guy punched him, he was aware he could be charged with assaulting a police officer). The guy swore again and walked away.

In the meantime, the woman had fled..she was nowhere to be seen. My husband said 'well shit...she took off???'

I said at least she got away.

Women in abusive relationships on average need to leave 5 times before they can stay out. The times that I've seen women being attacked by men they obviously know, I've not seen a woman trying to get away or fighting back or defending herself. There really isn't much we can do but distract the guy, if that's safe for us to do, call the police if we think they'll get there in time - or we have identifying information like a plate # to give them, or help her if she's trying to get away. That can be done in some instances.

In wen do self defense training for women, we learned that if we were being followed, to turn and LOOK at the guy - then he knows we see him and can identify him. Pull out your cell phone and yell out 'I'm calling 911!' Yell out to someone else on the street 'you! in the purple coat! Call 911'.

But most importantly Lima Bean, I'm glad you've posted this because it's an important topic and I think it's important to YOU to debrief about it.

Also, abusers are very good at convincing their victim that it's the victim's fault. And it certainly doesn't help when friends and family reinforce that by blaming the victim for not having the courage or the strength to get away.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Lima Bean:

I just feel like if her closest friends give up on her (whatever the circumstance), then who'll be left to help? Who'll be there when she really does want to get out, or get better, and just can't do it alone?

And yes, I know that this is complicated by the enabling conundrum, and becoming part of a co-dependent or otherwise destructive pattern, but I just don't know that I could wash my hands of someone who's so clearly in a lot of trouble, and not dealing with it very well on her own.

---

You have to be careful when presented with alleged scenarios. While I won't argue with the authenticity of that presented I will say there is much psychobabble offered in the media that has no basis in reliable stats.

Enabling originally described a situation of substance abuse. It, like intimacy, has been twisted to fit a variety of contexts that it may or may not justifiably fit.

There is an expression that encapsulates the idea we learned about in crises training called "crises precipitation". An example of this is when an employer tries to help an employee suffering from chronic alcohol abuse syndrome (there is actually no such thing as alcohol addiction) the employer makes continuous concessions to make it "easier" for the employee to deal with life and cope with fixing the problem. This is the classic example of enabling behavior. When the crises infrastructure was put in place, our supervisors were instructed to follow standard procedure when dealing with chronic lateness or absenteeism. Those suffering from CAAS would inevitably confront "the wall" - this is your last chance or we are now going to proceed with your dismissal. This throws the employee into crises and people trained to deal with such crises were brought in at that point.

Even more important than the above is the following two factors.

1)The employee must consent to willingly participate or we would not agree to intervene.
2)One person's crises is another person's minor inconvenience.

[edited to fix my deplorable spelling]

[ 17 October 2003: Message edited by: Amateur At Large ]

[ 17 October 2003: Message edited by: Amateur At Large ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dianal:
Would you define 'crisses' please?

---

My pleasure (I thought no one would ever ask)

One is said to be in crises when : one feels compelled to make a decision but does not know what to do.

Beautiful is it not?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

The fact that many women ARE injured or killed by ex-boyfriends and husbands after they leave certainly doesn't do anything to reassure abused women.

---

Hi Michelle, the qualifier many hardly qualifies as a "fact". Although in substance threat of revenge is simply using fear to control someone. And in all fairness is quite effective as we know from long experience in politics and war.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

Also, abusers are very good at convincing their victim that it's the victim's fault.

---

I respectfully disagree, what you are refering to is called rationalising. I doubt that any victim needs to be coached or induced to rationalise their behavior. People are quite capable of rationalising all kinds of behavior quite completely on their own and in a wide variety of relatively benign situations. In fact the process of rationalising ones own behavior when one is the victim of distress of any kind, poverty, violence, loss of a loved one, natural disasters, can be an essential part of surviving the experience.

If you treat the rationalisation as agressor driven, then you invite the casual reader of these posts to make a potentially disasterous intervention or misadventure by challanging someone's rationalisation there by kicking out their supports (or the suport mechanism) possibly precipitating a crisses and involving all parties in a Cartman Triangle.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

There are all sorts of psychological reasons as well as logistical reasons why women stay with or go back to abusers. I have to say that it shocks me to see that there are still women, especially on a progressive board like babble, who blame the victim.

---

This is also misleading, as there are relatively few reasons that victims return to an evironment that is dangerous.
there are only three that I am aware of:
1) they want to go back. avengers, revengers, zelots, terroists, and on and on.
2) they feel compelled to go back. farmers, high steel workers, construction workers, gang members, platoon members, priests, missionaries etc. etc.
3) they have been ordered to go back a superior officer - vis
soldiers, firefighters, police, amublance workers, health care workers, disaster relief workers, rescures,
Respectfully,

[ 17 October 2003: Message edited by: Amateur At Large ]

[ 18 October 2003: Message edited by: Amateur At Large ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amateur At Large:

oops
[ 17 October 2003: Message edited by: Amateur At Large ]

---

[ 18 October 2003: Message edited by: Amateur At Large ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by dianal:
Would you define 'crisses' please?

and yes Michelle....Stockholm syndrome

---

I respectfully disagree. Stolkholm sundrome referres to a very specific condition whereby a hostage becomes complicit in criminal actions or behavior to survive the ordeal of being taken hostage.

To say that victims of spousal abuse who do not leave the dangerous situation are themselves complicit in criminal behavior or are themselves commiting criminal offences is in fact to blame the victim of a crime that has not even taken place.

Respectfully.

I don't want to start a flame war with you, Amateur at Large, but frankly, I don't feel like having to explain this dynamic to someone who invests a lot of energy into anti-feminist, homophobic web sites like the one you have posted as your home page. It makes me think that probably you're not here to talk about women's issues from a feminist point of view. And while it's true that you're being "respectful", I'm not really interested in hearing your "masculinist" insights into the psychology of abused women.

Hindsight is twenty-twenty though. I'm sure that's what I would have done-- in fact have done in one instance-- but I've also had that frozen feeling in other situations. It happens.

Like Mcgoo, I've sometime seen couples arguing while they walk down our street. Usually....hmmm...in every instance, young couples. I make my presence known, and in a couple of instances I followed for a bit.

I've never seen it escalate into violence. It may have been because I was there, or maybe not.

So then in college, away from everyone I knew, feeling isolated and depressed... I met This Guy. Funy, handsome, charming, and near-terminally sarcastic. Without any malice in all the world, with what I still feel was a genuine attarction to me, he made me feel about an inch tall. Then half an inch. Then...

All the while, you know, I absolutely knew it was all my own fault. I was oversensitive, I was moody, that was clear. I couldn't make up my mind. I said the wrong things at the wrong times; I had only myself to blame for the resulting acid mockery.

Ironically, my way out of this trap came because I was showing my mother a written coversation between myself and This Guy, to share what I thought was a particularly amusing joke of his. She read through the whole conversation, slowly, then looked up at me. "April... this guy's an asshole."

I swear it was like a light breaking into darkness, the shift in perspective was that abrupt. Oh. So... if someone else saw it that way, there actually existed a possibility that it wasn't my unbalanced perceptions after all! And if that were so - if one could actually trust one's own judgement - "You're right!" I cried joyously. "He is an asshole!"

When I went back to college, I informed the fellow as gently as I could that I was an emotional mess right then and so, for my own emotional well-being, it was necessary that I stay far away from him until I could find my balance well enough to deal with things. He looked genuinely bewildered at the thought that he'd hurt me.

He had, in fact, hurt me so badly that I wouldn't even date for a year afterward, and it took another man six months of patience to even get me to a point where I felt comfortable with kissing. (Yes folks, I married that man, and ten years later testify to this as an official Happy Ending to the tale.)

So there you go. You can say it's all my fault, because I was all messed up in the head. Maybe there's even truth to that. But the fact is that there are people out there who, due to upbringing or societal messages or whatnot, simply do not trust their own judgement enough to look at a situation and say: this is wrong, this person should not be doing this to me. Fear, as Michelle says, may be part of it, but that comes later.

As to where I got that lapse of judgement, well, I have a sneaking suspicion. I remember at one time my father was raging over something political. I scampered away to a more distant room, because the presence of all that anger and roaring scared me witless. My grandmother found me cowering behind a book, and scowled at me.

quote:

---

So then in college, away from everyone I knew, feeling isolated and depressed... I met This Guy.

---

I have one daughter who is very much like that these days, and I'm concerned that she'll get hooked up with the first guy who pays her attention, and that this guy will turn out to be abusive. I think those types probably look for women in that may be feeling isolated, depressed, or in a low ebb concerning their self esteem.

I try hard to be atuned to not only these external possiblities, but also the kind of example I set myself, as a father.

It's not easy.

One of the counter-intuitive things is that my daughters will shield me from stuff that happens to them, for fear that I'll over react and get myself into trouble. This in spite of the fact that I never engaged in any bombastic ïf this ever happens to you, I'll..." kind of talk around them.

When I was in college, though, I phoned home a lot, so maybe this'll reassure: when the going really gets tough, I'm betting your daughter still knows where the phone is, you know? See, the other side of knowing you're loved is knowing that you do have someplace to run. I survived later years of college by pasting up an email from my parents over my computer. It just said, "You can come home anytime you want."

Having formed a strong basis also makes it easier for a kid to break out of a destructive pattern, when she recognizes it for what it is. Meaning, just by being a concerned dad, you've given her some of the tools she'll need to escape such situations. Most women who find themselves in the really nasty traps lack such strong "support networks".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

I don't want to start a flame war with you, Amateur at Large, but

---

lol not a flame war but ...

My logic professor had some lovely things to say about that grammatical construction. It is known as "bait and switch". Among the most banal of "baiting" (trolling) texts in the lexicon of logical fallacies.

I rarely use such deceptive constructions lol it is truly difficult to use such constructions and remain helpful and open which is of course the point. The free exchange of ideas, which is what "discussion" and being Canadian is all about.

It takes two to have a war and you threw down the gauntlet when you brought it up. I just don't feel the need to defend my opinions, as I believe what I have posted would withstand serious criticism.

I just got up, yawn, and provided a private message sender with my web site address which contains a lexicon which can be found at the phobia phobic page.

The administrator of this site was provided with my web site address when I applied for permission to post here. I will honor "her" authority and comply with the rules "she" has set forth.

There is a glaring error on that page and wonder that you didn't notice it and take the opportunity to discredit my input. I haven't had the motivation to fix it yet and will wait to give you the opportunity to spot the error.

I wondered why the hits on my little site were up today, lol, thanks for the free publicity.

Oh you will notice that my address and phone number have been publicly available for some time now, through my three published letters to the editor and also through the whois domain name search facility.

True I am a staunch opponent of same sex marriage, and very suspicious of the alliance of lesbians, radical feminism and Marxists, which I believe to be a grouping of pure self-interest. I am a strong supporter of the nuclear family and a staunch opponent of the attempts by the homosexual lobby to gain access to family benefits so necessary for the welfare of families with children.

We live in a free and democratic society, and I respect your right to express your opinion without regard for mine.

God bless you and keep you and your family well and prosperous.

"Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view. "

that she won't make an issue of you posting here. I don't read or post here to debate feminism - that isn't the purpose. I don't understand why you are posting here given the stated purpose and I'd offer up that if you wish to debate feminism, then perhaps the site owners/moderators would entertain a proposal from you for just such a message board.

[ 18 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

quote:

---

So I respectfully decline debating with you any further on this issue. I'm not telling you not to post. I'm just telling you that I'm not going to engage you any further, and will instead focus on replying to posts by the feminists in this forum instead.

---

That message being, (and expressed in a very polite and restrained manner I might add) that further discourse with her appears unproductive, but go ahead and exchange your views with others.

That does not appear to me as flaming. For the sake of clarity, an example of flaming might be "Geeze Louise, what a pompous asshole", or "what an arrogant wanker". We don't encourage such ad hominem attacks here however, and Michelle would never say such a thing herself.

Hope that clears things up.

Respectfully,

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tommy_Paine:

Hindsight is twenty-twenty though. I'm sure that's what I would have done-- in fact have done in one instance-- but I've also had that frozen feeling in other situations. It happens.
...
I've never seen it escalate into violence. It may have been because I was there, or maybe not.
...
People like to help. But there are times when you have to realize that some
things are beyond your skill. Calling the police increases the possibility of the woman being pointed in the right direction for help.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by oldgoat:
As (until now) a mere humble observer of this thread, I was interested in the above exchange involving the most erudite Amateur at Large. With respect to his estimable logic professor, sometimes the word "but", is just a subordinating conjunction.
...
That message being, (and expressed in a very polite and restrained manner I might add) that further discourse with her appears unproductive, but go ahead and exchange your views with others.

That does not appear to me as flaming.

For the sake of clarity, an example of flaming might be "Geeze Louise, what a pompous asshole", or "what an arrogant wanker". We don't encourage such ad hominem attacks here however, and Michelle would never say such a thing herself.

Hope that clears things up.

Respectfully,

Plantagenet P. Oldgoat

---

Ah yes the non-flame flame hidden in the dubious innocence of an example. Clearly, we concur that appearances can be deceiving. May I repay the compliment to my good and noble friend as regards such an erudite example of the bait and switch technique. Complimenting the target and then slapping the target down.

It must be clearly an error of inference that it sounds so like I am being instructed with some authority by the author to watch my P and Q's.

As I have already stated clearly that I have no intention of flaming in a "discussion" forum, I must publicly wonder that the author felt compelled to re-state my own argument in the author's own words as if it were a revelation of the author's divine origin.

In fact I have made it clear that I will comply with the owner's rules and the owner's wishes as regards conduct on these boards. Inasmuch as I never alleged that I had been flamed and merely pointed out that my good and noble friend had broached the subject without warrant, and that such action could be inferred as an invitation to engage in the alleged activity, I have to wonder out loud again at the redundant claims made by the above.

I confirm with the author that there is a great deal more clarity now than there was before and when one has list of characters and their roles the process of interchange becomes substantially enlightened, and the effective responses much easier to smith.

As for my responses to enlighten our readers when I feel an error of fact has been carelessly entered into the public record. I reserve the right, as determined by the owner of this site to post in response to whom ever and about what ever I so choose, as we all agree that freedom of speech is of the utmost importance.

I am confident that the truth will triumph over confusion as time passes.

But I leave that up to our good and noble readers to determine for themselves.

quote:

---

Originally posted by dianal:
Amateur at Large: I would suggest that Michelle's posting was to say that even though this board is to

"Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view. "

that she won't make an issue of you posting here. I don't read or post here to debate feminism - that isn't the purpose. I don't understand why you are posting here given the stated purpose and I'd offer up that if you wish to debate feminism, then perhaps the site owners/moderators would entertain a proposal from you for just such a message board.

[ 18 October 2003: Message edited by: dianal ]

---

Oh my lord, I do appologise. I didn't realize that I had undertaken my posts on the board that was confined to feminism.
Good greif what a gaff.

I'm so very sorry that I have done this, when I came to this thread from the men's activism news web site I truly didn't realize that this was a pro-feminist thread or board. How unintentionally rude I have been.

so I appologise to everyone and invite the moderator to move or remove my threads in their entirety.

Thank you very much for alerting me to the error.

I feel quite foolish.

again I most humbly appologise and will refrain from posting further here as I am definitly not pro-feminist.

please forgive me I thought this was the off-topic area.

such an error

quote:

---

Originally posted by dianal:
"Discuss feminist issues from a pro-feminist point of view. "

..is from the description of this particular board within the entire rabble site.

---

Well assuming that there is a place for my contributions where should they be posted?

Be patient and be there. Do not be judgemental. Be lovingly persistant but do not push. Be assertive in what you see but not aggressive.

quote:

---

Originally posted by googlymoogly:
How about going to the "body and soul" forum? There's a gender thread there...

---

Yup that is the place. thanks I will get my butt kicked there for sure, looks like a great area with many bright and well spoken (written?) contributers.

Michelle?
I'm sorry, I was wrong to come on so stronly with you.
Maybe we can cross swords over there?
It could be fun.
lol
anyway I hope you will forgive me.

You can c'mon over there and give me what for anytime.

take care everyone

quote:

---

Originally posted by Amateur At Large:
As for my responses to enlighten our readers when I feel an error of fact has been carelessly entered into the public record. I reserve the right, as determined by the owner of this site to post in response to whom ever and about what ever I so choose, as we all agree that freedom of speech is of the utmost importance.

---