>> Young women are looking for it and young men need to come to the commitment party.

Could it be that commitment means different things to men and women?
My understanding is that more than 70% of marriage breakups are initiated by the woman. The reality does not match the dream and for many it never will. Commitment involves sticking in there, not running because you think life should be better and maybe will be somewhere else. Anything else is convenience not committment.

There are a lot of variations on the way people handle this, one of those realities is the thousands of dad's reduced to the role of contact parent and struggling to make ends in the face of an ex who walked out because life was not all she thought it should be and who is milking the system for everything she can get and using residency to do so.

There are other realities, most of them should not be keeping men away from committment.

Whilst I enjoyed much of what Daniel has to say it appears to me that he has chosen to ignore the realities which surround the modern family and some of the valid reasons why men of any age should tread with caution before entering into an open ended contract.

Talk by women about committment will mean more to me when women start treating commitment less like convenience.

I first read some of this article in a newspaper, and I thought it one of the worst displays of male bashing and stereotyping I have read in recent times.

I believe most of the article is made up. Nowhere does the author reference anything to any study, but makes an endless series of derogatory remarks about young men. This is concerning as I believe that male bashing and male stereotyping is now being carried out on males at a younger and younger age, and it is also occurring to boys. as well.

From the article “Mere Men” at http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/09/03/1062548898574.html

“Males are increasingly portrayed in the media as either incompetent, repressed or villains.”

“John Marsden, the best selling adolescent fiction writer, and author of the non-fiction books Secret Men’s Business and The Boy You Brought Home, says teenage boys are also among the most maligned group in our society. “They are more maligned than any other age group and gender. The media portrays them as either drug-crazed, illiterate, unemployable, suicidal, failing at school, sex criminals or vandals. So adults tend to treat them more suspiciously and that causes them (unconsciously) to become angry or frustrated or alienated.”

If any line is this article is true, it could be easily expanded to include both genders.

For Example:-
“It didn’t make my decision to have children until my girlfriend was pregnant any easier. But the reason many young men end their relationships after the crash is because society does not prepare them for it.”

This can very easily become:-
“I didn’t make our decision to have children until she became pregnant any easier. But the reason many young men and women end their relationships after the crash is because society does not prepare them for it.”

So how much of this article can be accepted as being true, or how much is just generalised, un-substantiated male bashing and stereotyping?

I think the latter.

Mr Daniel Donahoo is another of the 'new age journalist' who has lost foothold on the road called journalism and wandering in the bush serving interests that appear to appeal to his senses.

Allow me to explain the above.

Journalism is discussion of subject after full in-depth reading and investigation in full context of subject matter. After all that is what the readers of Age are paying for, someone else to do this job and provide the information in clarity and succinctly.

If one looks at the article it does not mention major determinants
- like' obey authority' we are drilled with as kids
- changed Schools education of now learning with decreased formal assessment and grading
- increased divorce that most children grow up in separation and trauma of it
- the family court common practice to harm the father-child care and relationship and other negative effects like CSA,
- multiplying number of statue laws that keep diminishing liberty
- individuals acting as justices failing their oath to office based on 'natural law of using our common sense of right and wrong to situation, which is universal among the animal kingdom.
- diminishing of maleness by the media and government bodies

And the list goes on. As we belong to the animal kingdom, reproduction is encouraged in environment of stability and prosperity, which we do not have. Most of us spend our day running around for someone else's benefit to earn a living to live and are having difficulty succeeding.

Which young male knowing the above would be 'encouraged' to marry and have a child. The facts speak for themselves. Decreasing marriage rate and women having more children as single parents. We created the mess we live in by act or by omission.

Now a article including some of the above would have made a interesting read. Instead Donohoo article comes across as a five minute job over coffee or could be somebody else's intent he just put his name to.

Journalism needs to find its honor, depth and value again, resisting external influences.

Sam

Ok. So, I'll break the promise I made to myself not to respond to online debates. But - gee you guys are hard to please.

Sam, I won't go into the journalism vs opinion writing issue again. Needless to say that the piece is biased and I intended it to be so. This is not honourable pure investiagtive journalism. Yes that is lacking in the world, but this is an argumentative essay. I think that is why they call this place online opinion - not online journalism.

I agree with much of what you blokes have to say. The article is critical of a society that sterotypes and advertisers to men negative images of themselves.

"And society must stop stereotyping young men and start entrusting them with responsibility." (paragraph 9)

But, the piece is also interested in young men not crying 'poor me' and supporting them to take control of the situation.

At the end of the day I sense that men like you are interested in keeping the battle raging. We can all role out statistics, experts comments and government reports and make them suit our argument - how else do we get such diverse opinion.

Yes, the issue is more grey and more sophisticated than the 700-800 words an opinion article allows, but for gods sake take it for what it is.

An attempt to quit the name calling and for men and women to start working on relationships together. There is a hell of a lot of unnecessery pain going on in this world and if men and women swallowed some pride and didn't argue with every single word of every argument we might make some more significant ground than we currently are making.

I'm really not interested in male bashing. But, it appears that many who contribute to these forums are interested in opinion writer bashing.

cheers.

Daniel,

There is an enormous amount of discrimination occurring against males, particularly in regards to such things as Family Law. If young males knew of what is likely to happen to them if they marry, then I believe none ever would.

The average marriage lasts 10 – 12 yrs, at the end of which, the husband will normally loose nearly all savings, and the majority of fathers with children will then only see their children every second weekend or less.

These statistics are very real, and it is totally remarkable that men still get married at all.

There is the well founded belief, that much of this negativity towards males originates in the press, and it particularly comes from feminist journalists. Enormous amounts of letter and e-mails have been sent by many different people in the past to Editors complaining about it, but rarely are any published.

Organisations such as the Advertising Standards Bureau and the Sex Discrimination Commission have been regularly contacted, but no action taken regards the maligning of males in advertising, the media, and even by the Sex Discrimination Commissioner herself.

So far as women are concerned, I have heard nothing from women’s groups except a continuation of the same un-referenced, stereotypic “opinions” about males, similar to what you portray.

So if you don’t like negative comments about your generalised, highly anecdotal, un-referenced and un-researched male maligning article, know that articles like yours are more than likely to be part of the problem.

Also see :-
“Separated dads fight long odds”
http://www6.lexisnexis.com/publisher/EndUser?Action=UserDisplayFullDocument&orgId=675&docId=l:258901397&topicId=13929&start=4&topics=single

“Goward joins 'blame dad' brigade on custody” http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/28/1059244556494.html?oneclick=true

"More men take exception to sexist ads" http://www.theage.com.au/news/TV--Radio/More-men-take-exception-to-sexist-ads/2005/01/02/1104601244047.html?oneclick=true

"Researching Fathers – Back to Basics" http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/smyth5.html

"Experiments in Living: The Fatherless Family" http://www.civitas.org.uk/pubs/experiments.php

"Postseparation Fathering: What Does Australian Research Tell Us?" http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/smyth03.html

"Feminist utopia, Social nightmare" http://www.ifeminists.net/introduction/editorials/2005/0119roberts.html

Daniel,

At your age my dream was no different. Needless to say, I was disappointed. The men above, are talking from real life experience, and they make some very good points you are yet to recognize.

“Our society needs to start selling the positives of being a father and a husband”. How exactly do you propose we do that, after seeing our feeble efforts so far on OLO? What makes you so confident, after half of us before you, have failed? If I was to claim that your chances of success are not so much determined by how hard YOU try, but by how your partner feels on that fateful day (that, and the prevailing legislation), would it dishearten?

We all support your dream, and hope you get your chance to “change the world”. Until then, we’ll party hard ;-)