…From the outset the first line is controversial: A line which makes an apology for masculinity in boys weakens the argument for “equal opportunity”.

...It’s that “part” of the debate which objects to the intrusion of femininity into the male role, that causes most anxiety and breaks down clear roles for boys in society by confusing signals for them!

…To suggest as do the feminists, that Women should be granted “Carte blanche” entry into all aspects of the traditional male roles is a failure, and does more harm to the cause of a "fair-go" for Women than does a more realistic approach of dealing with genuine discrimination such as unequal pay rates for example.

...Theirs has a political agenda which fails to consider the negative effects, such as the psychological confusion in boys a feminists "boots-and-all" approach is having on the role of our young males.

Diver Dan what do you mean by masculinity? Do you think there is only one way for a boy to be a 'man'?

Is there only one 'script' or one type of arrangement that all humans 'should' follow, as we sort out how to get along with each other. Are all men and women the same and all boys and girls respond in the same way to the experiences they encounter?

Another good article on gender differences.

"We all ought to be smart enough to take a critical look at the ideas we grew up with about gender roles, to identify the good bits from both masculinity and femininity and strengthen them and pass them on to our kids. At the same time we ought to be willing to recognise the harmful bits, to challenge them for ourselves and avoid passing them on to our kids."

The author makes a lot of sense in this summation.

Femininity doesn't have to include the often perceived weakness, and masculinity doesn't have to include aggression as such.

Women are often accused of trying to be more like men, when really they just want an equal go in life.

Many men, who accuse women of being too aggressive in their fight for equal opportunity, forget that most of these women have much loved men and boys in their lives, so why would they want to hurt them by some apparent feminist conspiracy against men?

If either a mother or father is bitter after a marriage break-up for example, the very worst thing you can pass on to the kids is a paranoid feeling that all men or women are somehow as 'bad' as your ex!

Suse.
Nope, aggression is an essential characteristic of masculinity, if you're not aggressive you're going to suck at being a man.
Female supremacists are obviously going to pathologise any essentially masculine trait which might give men and boys an an advantage in society, thus the female supremacist always uses the words "masculine aggression" in place of "male violence".
Aggression is how men overcome obstacles and challenges, aggression enables men to drive an F1 car at 300kmh or to push themselves to the limits of human endurance fighting a bushfire or rescuing earthquake victims. Masculine aggression build cameraderie, esprit de corps and self esteem among men, it's an essential component in teamwork and especially leadership, men won't willingly follow a timid or vacillating man.
Female supremacists who are fighting masculine aggression are simply trying to keep men and boys down, to turn them into docile, bovine creatures who will tug their forelock and mumble "Yes ma'am" when given an order.

Oh come on JoM, you're being a bit over the top surely?
I know many fine men who haven't got an aggressive bone in their body.
They are confident, assertive men who are doing well in society.

I guess it depends on your definition of aggression.

Wikipedia tells us that aggression "...is behaviour, or a disposition, that is forceful, hostile, or attacking...an intention to harm or an act intended to increase relative social dominance".

Now that definition certainly does fit for some people in society, and is very necessary for those in the police force or armed services at times, but for the average person living in suburbia ?

Hopefully not.

Maybe you look for these 'qualities' in others JoM, but I don't.

Thank you Jay for expanding on masculinity. One of the victories of feminism of the past 50 years has been the successful demonisation of masculine aggression as if it is a pathology or mental illness that must be cured. They have reduced masculinity to acts of physical violence, and ignored the sublimation man engages in when he creates art, science, technology, and advancements of all descriptions. We owe all these advancements to the men who can impose strict self-discipline on themselves and advance the field of expertise they are in.

The feminists, in their attempt to create a secular utopia on earth where everyone will live in harmony, have basically made men go to war against themselves. What I mean by this is not a physical war of man versus man, but an internal war in each man's soul where he has to combat his own masculine drives and instincts. Every time he feels a piece of aggression rise to the surface of consciousness, he must feel extreme guilt. Men, then, walk around with bad conscience about themselves; feeling utterly confused at what is there place in the world. The suicide rate of men confirms this.

The feminists want to control man's mind and soul. They have no time for balance or respect for the 'other.'

...It may be a romantic notion, a feminine figurehead of “Scout” Finch, but it not a desirable one! Women should be themselves, no argument; but women will “never” be men, and it would be a refreshing sign to see some acknowledgement of that fact in the world of the “feminazi”(or "Stalinist", you choose).

Diver Dan, Perhaps you are intimidated by me, a mere woman? Is that why you didn't reply to my questions? Are you unable to express that natural and admirable male 'aggressive' nature on the internet?

And furthermore, Diver Dan, when does that natural male aggression become nasty bullying? Let's have a clear explanation of how far you think a man can go in using his agression to deny a woman a choice.

Perhaps you simply unable to formulate a rational verbal response that explains your view? Of course a real 'man' prefers action to talk, aggression to negotiation.

But did you not ever notice that the old traditional western way of prescribing male/female relationships and family set-ups only works for a some people; it doesn't work for lots of people and you are not going to force us all to behave in the way that you think is 'best'.

It is good that you are able to use the term 'the other' but I wonder if you really understand the concept and the philosophy behind it? Could you give me a reference to something you have read about the idea, or perhaps you could provide some sort of definition that would show that you actually have the cognitive ability to understand the term because I'm quite sure that your usage is just rubbish lol.

Whoops it wasn't the Diver Dan man who used the term 'the other'. I can't remember now, who did gratuitously and erroneously use it, but the paragraph in the above comment refers to you; you know who you are.

Now ain't that just like a woman eh? They always get it wrong but they also are more likely to admit to making a mistake and this is a very good thing.

'However, depicting this as some clever, self-serving plot by men, who thereby enjoy great advantages, flies in the face of the facts.'

Oh come on. Haven't you heard about....... 'The Patriarchy!' Any feminist worth their salt knows we have those secret meetings.

'The more typically ‘masculine’ a man is, the more his health will suffer, the more prematurely he will die, the worse his intimate and family relationships will be, and the worse he will handle psychological difficulties, like surviving a traumatic experience.'

Yeah but that's all his own fault (Unless he's aboriginal or something). That's his own stupid pride, and that's his own stupid fault for trying to fit in and trying to attract females by being a bad boy or a 'Real Man'. Grrrr.

On the other hand, when chicks starve themselves for similar reasons it's all men's fault for being attracted to women, or else 'objectifying' them.

If there's one thing I have learned about feminism it's that women bear no responsibility for our culture. It's all the Patriarchy's fault, they plan it all in their secret meetings.

'Now ain't that just like a woman eh? They always get it wrong '

' when does that natural male aggression become nasty bullying?'
When any bullying task force is set up the first directive is to convince people they are being bullied.

'Let's have a clear explanation of how far you think a man can go in using his agression to deny a woman a choice.'

Let's be clear on how far a man is expected to go to protect a woman.

Mollydukes:

...You’ll have to stop behaving like a girl Mollydukes…man-up, remember it’s a world of equal opportunity!

It is me you are referring to, Mollydukes. I am cognizant of the term 'other.' I had it drummed into me when doing my undergraduate Artz degree. Levinas was the most prolific user of the term, however, it gets used by all academics of the leftist persuasion.

Generally, it refers to the "not I." That is, any group/person/tribe/nation that possesses different customs, characteristics, and/or beliefs than the dominant or most popular group/person etc. Therefore, it is in the correct context to use it against feminists. Feminists believe they are the "fair" sex/gender, the "egalitarian" sex/gender etc, and men are the brutal, unfair, domineering sex/gender; therefore men are 'other.'

You can moralise all you like, Mollydukes, but male aggression isn't going anywhere any time soon. It is an instinctual characteristic that even the most severe self-discipline and social engineering cannot eradicate. All attempts to eradicate it will only see it emerge in other ways. Want to eradicate physical sports? Then expect all that male aggression to come out somewhere else; maybe not in such an acceptable place.

Diver Dan so you actually have nothing to say except sort of feminists are rotten bitches and I hate them? Sour grapes perhaps?

Aristocrat - Aristocrat! Are you serious? Why would anyone call themselves an aristocrat or want to be one? Do you wear a curly wig and lace, like Louis XIV.

Nice try, but no, despite your lecturers having drummed 'it' into you, you clearly do not understand the concept and how to use it appropriately when speaking as a male about females. But whatever, good on you for trying.

Whatever the rest of your comment was about, it was not a response to the questions I asked.

Did you know that questions provide an opportunity for people to begin to understand each other and appreciate why we think differently. That seems to be the most efficient way for humans to solve problems. Have you not noticed that this is the go these days?

It isn't very useful for solving problems to just assert that something is so because you believe it to be so. What makes you an expert on male agression?

Your experience is not enough to provide you with all the relevant facts about this issue. Do you really think you can you speak for all men?

Good on you Mollydukes!

I like your 'aggressive' style of writing.

You should know however, that no amount of intelligent discussion will change these guys minds about an apparent ' feminist conspiracy' to bash the natural aggression out of today's 'real' men : )

I'm spectacularly unaggressive. Do I have to trade in my old fella for lady parts? Because not being to pee standing up is going to suck.

Cheers,

Tony

Mollydukes "Nice try, but no, despite your lecturers having drummed 'it' into you, you clearly do not understand the concept and how to use it appropriately when speaking as a male about females. But whatever, good on you for trying."

Usually, when you say someone is wrong you also state why.
My description of the term is generally right. Levinas also added an ethical dimension to it, claiming that a person's first reaction to the 'other's' face ought to demand an ethical response. Well, if that is so, I could ask the feminists to demand they act ethically and respect the masculine 'other.'

Mollydukes "Did you know that questions provide an opportunity for people to begin to understand each other and appreciate why we think differently. That seems to be the most efficient way for humans to solve problems. Have you not noticed that this is the go these days?"

So does this apply to feminists as well? Should they also appreciate and respect the masculine aspect of men?

Mollydukes "It isn't very useful for solving problems to just assert that something is so because you believe it to be so. What makes you an expert on male agression?"

50 years of social engineering has not put an end to aggression at all. 50 years of stocking the education department and the public service with "egalitarians" has not been able to turn men into women. Why is that? Why after 10-16 years of education do men still act aggressively?
This is where the "social construction" theory of behaviour falls apart. Postmodern social construction theory cannot account for why unwanted social traits keep appearing even after numerous measures are put in place to eradicate them. There is something about our essential nature that makes us prone to aggressive behaviour. Postmodernists hate any biological interpretations because it stands in the way of their social reformation agenda.

I would also point out, again, that unadulterated physical aggression is only one aspect of masculinity. The will to self-responsibility and self-control is also paramount. In fact, these latter two trump the former. The former is only required in war time (yet that too requires controlled aggression). In peace time man sublimates his aggression into his tasks. This is why man tinkers for hours in his shed, plays computer games for hours on end, designs and builds bridges and buildings, understands and masters science and philosophy. His essential nature demands he stamps his will onto something, anything. Those who don't usually become depressed and unfortunately end up suicidal

When feminism becomes sexism...

<Why I won't be taking up the "man prayer" or supporting 1BillionRising this Valentine's Day
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2013

The 1 Billion Rising campaign has created a YouTube video called "Man Prayer," with words by Eve Ensler and film by Tony Stroebel.

The video notes read as follows:

Violence against women hurts everyone, including men. We invite our brothers to take up this cause, and be free from the limiting strictures of our modern definition of masculinity! #MenRise

There are so many things wrong with this video and the 1 Billion Rising movement that it's hard to know where to start.

Of course I support initiatives to reduce violence around the world and in our communities. In fact, much of my work for the past 10 years has been doing just that. I don't however support initiatives that do this by stereotyping and stigmatising any group, be it based upon gender, religion, race, age, sexual preference, socioeconomic status or any other demographic category. And I don't support initiatives that aren't based upon the evidence.

The message I get from the video is that men, boys and masculinity are bad, wrong, broken, stupid, violent and domineering. A message like this only creates violence, it doesn't reduce it.

Imagine a similar hypothetical video featuring girls and women saying "may I be a woman who is more rational and less emotional, who is a better partner who nags less, who pays my own way rather than being a gold digger" - and on and on using the worst stereotypes of women and girls. Now imagine that this hypothetical video was written by a man. How many women would accept it? The fact that the "Man Prayer" video was written by a woman, featuring the made-up 'voices' of men is deeply offensive.

The "Man Prayer" takes the worst stereotypes of men and masculinity that are held by a small percentage of men (and also a small percentage of women) and reinforces them, while painting the picture that females are free from the same and other vices.
.....>
http://www.menshealthaustralia.net/content/why-i-wont-be-taking-up-the-man-prayer-or-supporting-1billio.html

Mollydukes,

You are a neurotic sour grape.

And your lapdog, Suse, also.

Testosterone.
Testes.
No amount of legislation will alter the chemical imbalances between the sexes. But Buddha knows, those with a vested interest will try to convince you otherwise.