The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Shirtfronting: the dangerous diplomacy of hypermasculine Australian politics > Comments

Shirtfronting: the dangerous diplomacy of hypermasculine Australian politics : Comments

By Rob Cover, published 15/10/2014

In past decades, the most ideal form of masculinity in Australia was, indeed, epitomised by strength, brawn, roughness, larrikin behaviour and the refusal to let women and 'less-masculine men' dominate.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Unusual lad our sir tones.
Sadly he is our PM.
Posted by ateday, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 8:41:50 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I don’t think bullying is particularly confined to men. Perhaps we see more macho behaviour in politics because politics is dominated by men and the odd Tony Abbott type character is going to emerge from the ruck (to use a footballing term).

If women dominated politics I doubt that there would be any less aggression it would just be different. Women in power are just as prone to bullying as men.

Such behaviour by Abbot is indicative of Abbott not of Australian men in politics. Most people expected him to behave the way he does before he was elected. It is his policies that have ultimate effect on foreign policy and not the language he uses. I don’t think World War Three is going to begin because he said he wants to ‘shirtfront’ Putin.
Posted by phanto, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 9:20:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
a breath of fresh air after the previous Government's Emily's listers sarcasism and nastiness. Obviously not much news today.
Posted by runner, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 9:29:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Bullying" Putin, totally LOL. The man IS a bully, you know shooting down MH17 was not a sensitive new age guy thing (years of training in the KGB of the CCCP, building the workers paradise will do that). In-your-face is what he understands hence Abbott is merely being culturally sensitive and speaking in Putin's lingo.

At least Abbott is not eating his snot and suggesting Russians have a preference with rats that is suggested about New Zealanders and sheep.
Posted by McCackie, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 10:00:59 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Abbott is copping stick for his chest-beating comments and rightly so. But what about his opposite number? Shorten was ready to convict Putin of the shooting down of the Malaysian airliner without any convincing proof, merely an assertion coming from within the Beltway. Recent history has shown us time and time again how self-serving those assertions tend to be, once the rhetoric has settled.
Both our leaders have shown themselves to be the type to get their news from reading and swallowing the photo-shopped articles Rupert writes. They are a national embarrassment, as they strut the stage being little bugler boys from the B team.
Posted by halduell, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 10:26:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I am sure that Tony Abbott's actions will not do him any harm at the polls. His main critics come from the Chardonnay Sippers who would criticise him no matter what he does. Those of us who applaud his cutting of many left wing social programs are cheering loudly. However he could take a leaf out of Piggy Muldoon's book. I always loved Piggy for his nuanced statements. The one I loved best was when he suggested that the president of Nigeria consult a taxidermist.
Posted by plerdsus, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 10:28:35 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Is particularly objectionable when bullies falsely accuse innocent parties of wrongdoing. The civil war in Ukraine was a result of western meddling in politics to try and increase their own influence. Re downing of MH17, to those who have studied details, is obvious it was shot down with bullets through the cockpit by a Ukrainian fighter. Not a missile by either side.

Trying to blame the rebels and/or Russians is a blatant lie. Have been major coverups including air traffic control and black box info kept hidden. The main question is whether shooting down was deliberate or accidental. Including possibility that Israel misled Ukraine to believe it was Vladimir Putin's plane. This disaster diverted media attention from Israeli atrocity attacks in Gaza which started next day.
Posted by mox, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 10:53:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When Jackie Lambie has to tell Tones to tone it down he must has overstepped the mark. What a diplomatic clutz, but to be expected by this head cowboy of a cowboy outfit. Yeeee haaaaa.

I thank him for putting Australians around the world in the sights of Russia and ISIS. Puleeeeeze, will someone from the LNP get him to shut his cake-hole!
Posted by Luciferase, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 11:29:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Luciferase,

I think the Russians are having a jolly good belly laugh at his inane braggadocio and domestic grandstanding.

His "cake-hole" has provided reams of print in the world press for his immature and muddle-headed soundbites - not to mention his out-of-step policies.

I personally find it embarrassing to be saddled with such a crass headline-seeker as my Prime Minister.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 11:42:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we're going to act on accusations, surely it would require us to have some evidence for what we are saying. There is no evidence of Russian involvement in the downing of MH17, only belligerent accusations by various politicians. Acting on accusations without evidence takes us down a very dangerous path.
Posted by The Mikester, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 11:54:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Agree with MC!
And can only add; I'd like to see both macho men in the boxing ring and squaring off!
Little doubt our PM would win a fair manly contest between similarly aged REAL MEN!
However, and betcha boots, Putin would decline the invitation; because like most bullies, he is at heart, just another craven coward; able to get others to do all his fighting and dying for him!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 12:58:28 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
When you read articles like this, & realise it is by a professor of a fairy floss discipline, you start to understand how we got cretens like Rudd & Gillard in the lodge.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 1:39:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes there is some interesting stuff in the current edition of Uncensored Magazine (and all over the internet too) which describes how the downing of the Malaysian airplane was a deliberate "false flag" operation. And that the Ukraine crisis is also a deliberately fabricated exercise in extending USA hegemony and keeping Russia "in its place".
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 2:06:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As far as I know Putin is a highly accomplished Judo practitioner. As such he would make very short work of the strutting speedo budgie.
Posted by Daffy Duck, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 2:09:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Vlad the Hammer v The Mad Monk - what not to like! And Bibi Obama as ref?
Posted by halduell, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 2:25:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Mr Rob COVER...

Would you please define what's meant by this odd term of 'shirtfronting' ? As a gentleman who's obviously very well credentialed in matters of academia I was wondering if this term has some psychological or sociological importance ? I can't find either the term 'shirtfront' or 'shirtfronting' in the Oxford Dictionary, so how can it be so risky or hazardous ? If such a word, doesn't exist ? Please explain if you will Sir or sorry, Doctor ?
Posted by o sung wu, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 4:27:31 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Hegemonic masculinity", what a load of arse.
Rob Cover is a man hating Feminist ,like the Islamic convert the male Feminist always has to go that step further into extremist rhetoric to prove his commitment to the cause.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 4:27:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A snide, uncalled for, and dishonest attack by Rob Cover on the Prime Minister, even stooping to application of the baseless “misogynist” label.

Tony Abbot works best on strategy, and organisation, and is sometimes lacking in public relations, but he is the best and most effective PM we have had since Howard. We can do without Cover’s petty, vacuous effort.
Posted by Leo Lane, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 4:43:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Abbott should get on and run the country as we voters and taxpayers expect him to, as a sensible leader and not acting like a four year old who cannot get what he wants and so a tantrum, but then he is possibly under the control of Obama, until there is proof that the plane was shot down by Russian weapons of mass killing and not by the US weapons of mass killing then keep your big mouth shut, perhaps Abbott is jealous that his budgie snuggler weapon does not compare at all in size to Putin's large number
Posted by Ojnab, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 10:03:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Leo Lane,

"Tony Abbot works best on strategy, and organisation..."

Not according to Paul Kelly, as he wrote in The Australian in the wake of the downing of MH17.

""Abbott’s every instinct is to deploy Australian military and police assets and he needs to be persuaded by his advisers from such options."

"In the early days of the crisis several weeks ago Abbott wanted to put 1000 Australian troops onto the crash site in conjunction with 1000 Dutch troops. Nothing better testifies to his outrage at the event and his keenness to deploy Australian assets in a cause that affected Australians. This option remained on the table for a few days.

It was never going to be viable. Yet debate around this idea continued before the Prime Minister was talked around and decided it was too dangerous and inappropriate an option. Putting Australian troops into that highly charged situation would have been far too risky.

Yet it offers insights into Abbott’s approach to military issues: he is impatient with limitations relating to logistics and deployment...."

(Unfortunately, I can't provide the link - as it's now behind a paywall)

Abbott is impetuous as his wayward mouth displays - and thankfully he has advisers to put a lid on him and his unrestrained fervour.
Posted by Poirot, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 11:24:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,

'When you read articles like this, & realise it is by a professor of a fairy floss discipline, you start to understand how we got cretins like Rudd & Gillard in the lodge'

I couldn't agree more.

The only 'hegemonies' we should be worried about are the ones that have captured our universities and turned them into sheltered workshops for second rate thinkers.
Posted by dane, Wednesday, 15 October 2014 11:39:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hardly anyone here so far has actually addressed the gist of Rob's article, which IMO very adeptly analysed how the concept of masculinity manifests in our society and how it is evolving (though not exactly improving).

Why is it that analysing masculinity remains such a taboo? If any guy raises his head above the parapet and tries to lift the 'veil' on his own gender, he must be some kind of self-hating gay or a pussy-whipped academic.

Even feminists avoid going there - preferring to limit their criticisms of masculinity to the mystical realm of 'the patriarchy'; while feminists like to talk the talk about rape and DV, they base most of what they say on the premise that these are just things that men do to women ... because ... well, because they just DO.

Sure, the men's movement publishes copiously about 'masculinity', but it's a very reactive form of analysis - steeped in romanticised notions of biological masculine 'wiring' (Men are from Mars and all that) or noble male integrity embattled by the 'onslaught' of feminism.

When it comes to giving a fair hearing to any man (or woman) who wants to objectively analyse the kind of toxic masculinity that has ruled our culture for millennia, a time of social chaos and endless war as toxically macho men launch their limitless power struggles against other toxically macho men, we as a society still want to keep our pinkies firmly jammed in our ears.

Rob - Well done and an 'A' for trying. If I were asked for a list of OLO authors that I would like ask to a dinner party, your name would certainly be on it.
Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 16 October 2014 12:12:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney:

Would things be any less ‘toxic’ if women had all the power? It is easy to blame everything on men since we have no other measure to go by. It is also very poor logic to assume that it would be different under women. Show us some facts that prove it would be better under women.

Rob Cover can turn almost any issue into an example of the aggressiveness which he sees as inherent in the nature of men.

He does not stick to the topic at hand but wanders all over the place dragging in totally irrelevant material to support his gripe that men are too aggressive for his liking. His latest article focuses on the aggression displayed in a few hand-picked cases to draw the conclusion that all diplomacy is conducted in this way. This is extremely poor logic which smacks of desperation.

Men are an easy target simply because men occupy most positions of power. Where is his criticism of people like Margaret Thatcher? He is not concerned with removing aggression from diplomacy – he is only concerned with removing the aggression of men in general it seems. He says nothing about the aggression of women in diplomatic matters or in general.

It seems to me that he does not have a problem with aggression or he would speak out about all aggression. To be so selective indicates that he has a problem in his relationships with men more than with aggression. Perhaps he finds it hard to stand up to the aggressive men in his life and so he tries to change society rather than change the way he feels about his personal relationships with men and how he deals with those feelings.

Every article he writes is a cry for help.
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 16 October 2014 9:26:52 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phanto,
Empathy is a masculine trait, charisma comes from empathy that's why charismatic leaders are always men.
There's no such thing as female charisma because very few women are capable of real empathy, the women who are capable of empathy are the ones who rise to the top of corporations and such.
Look at the number of modern women in public life who have a had a bona fide cult of personality surrounding them, the list is pretty short, Margaret Thatcher, Mother Theresa, Aung San Suu Kyi, Indira Gandhi, Princess Diana...I'm struggling to come up with more.
Feminists like Rob Cover hate the idea of charisma because it leads to a natural hierarchy which directly contradicts their model of a scientific two tiered society based on top down enforcement of formal equality by an elite upon the masses.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Thursday, 16 October 2014 3:08:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JoM,

Empathy is a human trait.

End
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 16 October 2014 4:13:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Poirot, about 50% of those who comment on OLO are devoid of empathy but have large amounts of belief that 'might is right' and, to that end, blindly worship the Yanks.

Abbott's posturing is pathetic and he needs psychological help but it does attract the schoolyard bullies who instinctively value brawn over brains and group-think.

The most pathetic situation caused by the Australian brawn crowd are the handful of Australian war planes sitting in the Middle East. It seems they only let six of them be used because some of them might be shot down.

AIR COMMODORE ABBOTT with his six jets cuts a TERRIFYING WORLD FIGURE.

Just as well he didn't send our fleet of submarines! Australia would be even more laughable!
Posted by David G, Thursday, 16 October 2014 5:09:22 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JOM:

That's an interesting theory but you would have a pretty hard time trying to prove it!
Posted by phanto, Thursday, 16 October 2014 5:32:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phanto,
It's not my theory, I don't have any original ideas.
http://www.netplaces.com/raising-boys/boys-and-dads/fathers-and-empathy.htm
Who Is More Empathic;Men Or Women?
http://www.angryharry.com/Who-Is-More-Empathic-Men-Or-Women.htm
Women are more likely to respond emotionally to the psychological state of others especially when the other is distressed but that doesn't indicate empathy, it's more likely that a woman will be evaluating the chances of the same fate befalling her, her emotional response is fear, not empathy.
You can see men and women who are capable of empathy at work in any hospital casualty department, empathy allows people to correctly identify a person's state of mind and what they might be feeling and to take charge of a stressful situation, the person with no empathy is the one going to pieces, screaming at the triage nurse and demanding that their child be seen first.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Thursday, 16 October 2014 6:59:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
JoM,

Empathy is a whole of species trait.

"Empathy is the capacity to share or recognize emotions experienced by another sentient or fictional being."

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

You write:

"Women are more likely to respond emotionally to the psychological state of others especially when the other is distressed but that doesn't indicate empathy..."

Which, frankly, is bunkum.

If a human did not display empathy, then that human would be unable to participate in any meaningful way with the most basic of human interaction - see classic low-functioning autism as an example of impaired empathy.
Posted by Poirot, Thursday, 16 October 2014 7:31:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phantom

'Would things be any less ‘toxic’ if women had all the power?'

Why is it always assumed that, in the absence of a patriarchy (men in power), our only other choice is a matriarchy (women in power)?

Apart from the fact that the chances of a matriarchy ruling the world are zero to none, even if such an impossibility ever occurred, it would be beset by the same gender imbalance that has dogged the patriarchy for 6000 years.

What has made the patriarchy so toxic for humanity is not because men were ‘in power’, but because it skewed society too far into the masculine sphere. While masculine energy is fine in moderation, patriarchies give it far too much dominance, which is why it's been a millennia-long breeding ground for what Rob Cover termed 'aggressive hypermasculinity'.
Posted by Killarney, Thursday, 16 October 2014 10:16:53 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney:
My name is phanto and not phantom.

What exactly is hyper masculinity? I know what aggressive means and I know that given the same positions of power that men have traditionally occupied women are just as aggressive as men. So what is the point associating aggression with masculinity? Should not it be associated with power?

It should not matter whether men or women are in power. There is no value in having power for its own sake – it is simply a tool to get things organised and done. There has to be hierarchies of power in society or it would be chaos. With that power comes responsibility and the possibility that the power might be abused.

The existence of power is not a problem until it is abused. Power can be abused by people of either gender and there are many instances of that. Men have abused power more than women because they have had more of it. That does not mean that such abuse is a masculine trait.

In the same way aggression is not just a masculine trait. It is a trait of human beings. We have seen more aggression by men in power because there are more men in power. We have also seen women in power who have become very aggressive.

It is also very selective to focus solely on political and institutional power. Women wield enormous power over their children much more than men do. This power too can be abused and creates dire consequences. If we are looking for someone to blame for the ills of society we may just as well look in that direction. All ‘hyper masculine’ men have one thing in common – they all had mothers.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 17 October 2014 9:23:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney,
We already have matriarchal societies in our midst, in the U.S they call them ghettoes, go out to St Albans, Ashfield or Logan and see what a society without male authority figures looks like.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Friday, 17 October 2014 12:36:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phanto,
The problem with patriarchy is that just like Feminism it's gynocentric and subordinates the entire society to the needs of women.
In the case of our society we've never had men in power who've used their position to disadvantage or oppress women, the complete opposite is true, the material conditions and wellbeing of women have been on an upward gradient for over 100 years and powerful men have handed over large sectors of the economy and bureaucracy to women, lock stock and barrel.
Over the last 20 years the conditions for men have also started to improve and while we're not in such a bad way as our brothers in the U.K and North America there's a way to go yet.
Posted by Jay Of Melbourne, Friday, 17 October 2014 12:49:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
phanto

You know full well I've addressed you as 'phanto' plenty of times. The text default to 'phantom' after typing your name is an OLO bug. Usually I fix it, but forgot to do so on this occasion.

Most of what you say is typical patriarchy denial, the brick wall that all OLO gender threads hit whenever anyone tries to put masculinity under the microscope.

In a patriarchy, masculinity is sacred and thus criticism of masculinity is the last taboo. This is the main underlying reason why feminism is so irrationally hated and feared - out of all proportion to what feminism actually does.

You're also responding to what you think I'm saying, not what I'm actually saying. I've never claimed that women in power do not abuse the system. In fact, none of what I've written relates to women in power.

I've confined my comments to the skewed IMBALANCE of the masculine and feminine spheres over the last 6000 years, which I believe is the main reason for the chaotic and violent period those millennia have been for humanity as a whole.

But if you want to keep harping on about women in power behaving just as badly as men in power, then by all means keep doing so. But don't kid yourself that you are engaging with anything I'm saying.

JoM

Those social problems in those suburbs you describe are the result of poverty, not matriarchy. And if you want to blame single mothers for their own poverty and welfare dependence, ask yourself where did all the fathers go?
Posted by Killarney, Friday, 17 October 2014 7:18:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Killarney:
“Most of what you say is typical patriarchy denial” Is this part of your argument or an attempt to just dismiss me out of hand?

“In a patriarchy, masculinity is sacred and thus criticism of masculinity is the last taboo.” What does this mean exactly? Do you have a definition of masculinity that everyone agrees on? What does ‘sacred’ mean? How do you measure which taboo should come last? Sentences like that communicate nothing.

What exactly are the masculine and feminine ‘spheres’

“But if you want to keep harping on about women in power behaving just as badly as men in power, then by all means keep doing so.” Thanks but I don’t need your permission to harp on.

“But don't kid yourself that you are engaging with anything I'm saying.” Your right I’ve now come to the conclusion that I cannot understand what you are saying.
Posted by phanto, Friday, 17 October 2014 8:27:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Interesting. Abbott gets singled out for his masculinity, but Putin gets zero criticism. This is even more interesting when you consider Putin's nationalism and anti-gay stance is a lot stronger than Abbott's. So what kind of politics is Cover after? He states a few catchy slogans, such as " patient, calm, diplomatic and measured speech that marks the kind of understanding, ethical thinking and attention to nuance that should be borne by public leadership". But this is empty and meaningless.

The real issue here is that "progressives" hate reality. The world is a conflictual place, one where nasty things happen, one where inequality is here to stay, one where some people succeed and others don't. "Progressives" cannot tolerate this. So they write, write, write about some idealistic fantasy where the world will one day have perpetual peace.

So why are our taxes paying for the impossible fantasies and some disgruntled writer? Universities are supposed to be places of knowledge, and not the political arm of the Greens or the left-wing of the Labor party.

98% of funding for the Social Sciences and Humanities (and "School of Social and Cultural Studies") should be withdrawn.
Posted by Aristocrat, Saturday, 18 October 2014 8:46:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I reckon, Aristocrat, that Universities should give up trying to educate woozies and, instead, teach people the art of cage fighting.

The cage fighting phenomenon is simple in conception: two men or two women get into the cage and do their best to smash to a bloody pulp their opponent. The winner gets applause and the loser needs a blood transfusion.

But people get a lesson in what life is. Either you bash someone or they bash you. Most people can get that. They don't need no socialist fantasy to clog up their minds. All they need to concentrate on is: go for the jugular.

You'd support this idea surely!
Posted by David G, Sunday, 19 October 2014 11:12:20 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
David G, that is the type of idiotic repose I expected from a "progressive". "Progressives" can't mount an argument why tax payers' money should fund the moral zealotry of a few individuals.
Posted by Aristocrat, Sunday, 19 October 2014 9:34:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy