Donate Child Support Calculator
Skip navigation

Open House

A place to Blah about topics

There needs to be a place to discuss topics that are posted.

Let This be that place

An opportunity for relevant and irrelevant discussion that can switch between like posts whilst making reference to material in them.

Perhaps best described as a coffee house to engage topical discussion in light hearted banter on posts that may have a relevant point to make but you wish not to lower the integrity of the post. This could relate to Informational articles, points of law that you may have a personal opinion on but do not relate to effective discussion of that law and perhaps things you may not quite understand and wish a little leg up to become more familiar.

Remembering that this is posted in the public section so discretion must be used in necessary areas.

I hope this will be used to it full advantage and fill a niche that all will be comfortable using.





I sometimes hear a term "Femi-Nazi's".

Who are they?

Is this just a term used to describe a female activist or is a term to describe those with opposing views?

Does the term mean different things for different people?
I would think a feminist who is extreme in her views and hatred of men?

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Feminazi is one who pushes the bounds of feminism (which initially, was about equal rights) to a place where women deserve MORE than men.

They are dangerous zealots.

Casper, I used to know a Casper on the Ralph site - is that you?

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
I gotta admit most times I've heard it mentioned it's done so in a derogatory term and may not fit the criteria it suggests.

To liken someone to a Nazi is very strong and would assume that the person actively follows the inhalation of a specific group to the point of obsession.

It's not a term I have ever been comfortable with because of my perception of what it means.

I think that a lot of the people labeled with the term actually are driven more by self interest a good dose of megalomania and self importance. Who tend to try and control things by exploiting fear to those who listen driving up intolerance of others. So they very much deserve the comparative name.

But I do not think it's productive to include those uneducated drones who follow them in the same light.

I also think that at some point name calling and labeling will serve to cause negative association will mens groups and to move forward and be taken seriously it will have to stop simply because it insights negative reaction and the point being made goes amiss.

Surely unless we lead by example we are simply stagnating ?
sorry haven't heard of Ralph.
But am a ghost writter.
Interesting little post by Matrix in the Dads on air section.

An article written by Peter van de Voorde. " Social Cancer "

I think back to a while ago when it looked like things may have changed for fathers being able to request 50/50, quite a buzz and hopes where high.
That must have been our dose of kemo that had very little effect but did achieve something, care and responsibility.

When you think of it this way I guess we are just looking forward to remission ASAP.

Wishing the gentleman a speedy recovery.

Feminism is not about equality

Speaking of feminism…

If feminism were truly about equality, as feminists claim, it wouldn't be called "femin"ism but "equal"ism.

Today's feminism - ANY feminism - is not about equality, but rather about female envy and greed, and about seeking advantage for females at the expense of males.

That certainly is how things play out in the areas of family (law), employment, education, law and policing and social engagement.

Feminism is misandrous (male hating) and typically views men as bad and women as good; it views women as superior to men, and believes women are entitled to the labour and wealth (income and property) of men.

Terms like "feminazi" are redundant (not to mention childish) because "feminism" already and adequately covers the feminist ideology.  Feminism may be a "broad church", with different types and degrees, to suit different personalities and interests, but at root it is nonetheless still motivated by envy and greed and a desire for control over men and their labour and resources.

Some ignorant people seek to assert that to be anti-feminist, as I am, is to be a misogynist (a hater of women).  That could not be further from the truth.  (More often than not such an uninformed view itself is a projection of feminist misandry (hatred of men).)

It is important to make the distinction between females, who like males, are a birth group, and feminism which is an ideology: a worldview, a system of values, views and ways of acting in the world; in essence a religion.  And it's adherents (believers) have all the passion and zeal of religious missionaries and terrorists - seeking to denigrate non-believers (males) and to assert their views and ways and control over others.

By and large, the "women's rights" campaigns of the past are not the same thing as feminism; they were in a large measure about 'equality' (though there was certainly misandry mixed in with it), whereas feminism is about supremacy for females.
I can not say I have ever met a woman who would admit to being a feminist, I have had discussions with women who may paraphrase some of the early calls to stimulate the conversation but they don't discount possibilities that these phrases are out dated.

I guess many women would indeed be equalists and more than a few going through the family law system would be opportunists yet very few would be feminists apart from those who perhaps are employed in certain areas pertaining to family law.

Perhaps fighting for the rights of opportunistic women lends credibility to a less than credible portion of society?
One of my ex partners was feminist - She used to get her daughter to 'stand up to me'. In other words I was the male training ground for her teenager daughter on how to abuse men.

It was interesting because what she was doing was raising FEAR in her daughter by revving her up to say that having a rational discussion with a man requires some sort of 'standing up" and instilling the idea that EMOTION was required to communicate (e.g. feel angry).

They used to play "I am Woman" by Helen ready - and sing along when we went on car trips.

I can pick them.

 Maybe I am not explaining myself well enough
D4E said
Interesting little post by Matrix in the Dads on air section.

An article written by Peter van de Voorde. " Social Cancer "

I think back to a while ago when it looked like things may have changed for fathers being able to request 50/50, quite a buzz and hopes where high.

That must have been our dose of kemo that had very little effect but did achieve something, care and responsibility.

When you think of it this way I guess we are just looking forward to remission ASAP.

Wishing the gentleman a speedy recovery.
Somehow I have missed something because I though this was about Feminism

The moment a Court accepts 'equal responsibility' it must consider 'equal time'. It was the rebuttable presumption of 'equal time' that was 'missing' from the Amended Act.

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
The idea of an open house is that topics can swap and change like a conversation, this way rather than it closing at one subject it can too and fro if someone see something that is  :offtopic:  then just add it in and start a new line of conversation.

Someone may post something they think may be of benefit for discussion but do not think they have value to add of a positives nature they can post here and reference the article.

Consideration of equal time is like a dog with no teeth to me, it looks the part but just has no bite.

I know many put in a lot of hard work to even establish that and I do not criticize anyone for the marvels they have managed.

But I do criticize the government for not giving equal rights to both parties and clarifying the importance of fathers as essential to children.
The problem that I see with PVdV's post, is that it misses the fact that the very same cancer is also evident outside of Family Law.

What I've not given much thought to though, is whether the cancer spread to or from Family Law or perhaps it contaminated/infected multiple areas of society at once.
I think any thing that concerns " Families " often does extend like rivers and tributaries feeding an ocean, many small aspects of things run into the same pool and have lateral effects.

Perhaps naive but my way of thinking is to start at 50/50 and work backwards. I think this will encourage and clarify BIC. Not only in disputes but also have a carry on effect in society.

I know its a big wish list but it could well bring focus back on the need for parenting children again and not entertaining them in your life.

   
You have to have presumption of shared care 50/50 because there is a coterie of women out there….nascent career single mums…..that believe because a child comes from them that it's theirs - lock, stock and steaming nappy.

It's only when the concept of having children is deemed a privilege and not a right or a cash cow or a lifestyle, that you will stem the tide of family law cases.

Yes, I am having a bad time with our ex, and that's why I'm posting here; in the vent area. 

Junior Executive of SRL-Resources

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (Look for the Avatars). Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
D4E said
The idea of an open house is that topics can swap and change like a conversation, this way rather than it closing at one subject it can too and fro if someone see something that is  :offtopic:  then just add it in and start a new line of conversation. Someone may post something they think may be of benefit for discussion but do not think they have value to add of a positives nature they can post here and reference the article.
I am wondering if this is a WIKI/CEDI which is available but not deployed yet? The only problem I see with a thread running off in all directions is it is very hard to find good solid information within the "usually very large" topic. There could be many many pages in this thread. A chat room would be much better and we are looking at deployment in the future. The new Search engine will index this topic so that might help find things.  :)


Site Director
ORR
I think D4E means a sort of general chat area as opposed to specific topics. But as you correctly say this is actually a software function that has not yet been fully enabled. This means that posts are going into the original Hyde Park Corner area (Venting Area) and of course these posts may not be venting.

Folks - meantime use the whisper function or start a personal topic. Or of course post in Miscellaneous or Hyde Park - that way the moderator's won't jump on you
 

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
 
MikeT said
The problem that I see with PVdV's post, is that it misses the fact that the very same cancer is also evident outside of Family Law.
 
Its a societal cancer and will invade any areas of weakness, Family Law being just one of them

Executive Member of SRL-Resources, the Family Law People on this site (look for the Avatars) Be mindful what you post in public areas. 
Trouble with the whisper function is it is one on one and many people through this forum are developing connections that would like to discuss topics in an informal manner without being "jumped on".

Hyde Park Corner satiates the desire to blow off steam which is also a great idea - who better to blow off to than those who have followed each others stories?

Maybe an "coffee shop" forum is in order for the casual chit chat where we can make our one liners, enjoy repartee and still keep the serious stuff where it is mean't to be?

Hey is it like the glossary rule - 6 counts and its in?

When you are swimming down a creek and an eel bites your cheek, that's a Moray.
Over the last week I've well sorta noticed that many like to discuss issues and take apart topics by posting their relevant views and perceptions as to what the post means on different levels. This may not be what the author wants.

I do believe this is very important in a community and can be constructive to help people alter the way they think, this type of banter can introduce a person who is one minded (as many are when first we start ) to constructive and destructive conversations with points being raised in a way that it may relate to them.

Although I understand ORR that a chat room will have a very usable interactive place people will need to be on the top of their game to participate as most are reactionary by nature.

This gives people time to read and feel how people react, the reason I feel it's important to have the written information kept is so people can read it.
A topic can be locked at it's source but still discussed keeping the clarity. If the topic is then discussed in the " Coffee Shop " the person who placed the post may benefit by adding to the conversation or realizing the post may not be issuing the desired effect.

Perhaps not designed to have information that can be used but rather as opinion and freedom of speech and brains storming, the idea is not to insult a poster but to talk and discuss and if an issue relevant to an article or topic that may benefit someone a reference can be put in ergo: " Hey D4E have a look at topic blah blah in the SRL section it covers this ".

Whisper is great for personal notes and should be used but lacks that community spirit.

Coffee Shop could also be used to move posts that seem bogged down and changing the direction of a topic, move it to the coffee shop and let the banter go. If there is a point of law then it can be stated and all benefit.

I don't know if other see this as a possible resource but I think it could be.

1 guest and 0 members have just viewed this.

Recent Tweets