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 > In praise of men > Comments

In praise of men : Comments

By Warwick Marsh, published 19/11/2009

Today is International Men's Day: 'The world needs men. Men are the key architect of our bridge to the future.'

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All
"It is amazing what happens when men get together. Here in Australia a few friends got together over a beer in the city of Melbourne ..." and then found themselves running down Lygon Street naked at 1.00 am.

But I'm with you all the way.

Men are important. Men are well, men. And amen to that.

I just wish the men on the HMAS Sydney had been a little bit more alert to the fact that the little old cargo ship they were hauling over was a German raider. I suppose that's a case of risk taking behaviour - which would have been a more interesting subject for your article.
Posted by Cheryl, Thursday, 19 November 2009 2:02:53 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
Not your most compelling effort, Warwick, but I applaud your intention. The contribution of men in our world today is often overlooked, with little regard given to the often dangerous ways in which that contribution is made. As an example, I know hundreds of tree loppers and as many landscapers, fencers and builders thanks to my work. There would be fewer than a dozen women among the lot. Even when I add in the joiners, furniture-makers and cabinet-makers I can only add another half-dozen or so women. The work that all of these trades do (and my own, milling) is dangerous, physically draining, dirty, noisy and not especially well paid (apart from the builders and they're on a knife-edge). Women will take the poor pay, but none of the rest, especially when they can earn the same whilst sitting in an air-conditioned office or shop, chatting with like-minded women.

Cheryl, your point about risk-taking is well made. Sadly, there is little reward for risk in our society, except at the level of the stock market, perhaps. Without risk takers we risk stagnation. They are the ones who allow the rest to live at ease.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 19 November 2009 2:36:57 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
Boy the silence is deafening, and speaks volumes.
Posted by JamesH, Thursday, 19 November 2009 4:39:04 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
Antiseptic “Without risk takers we risk stagnation.”

Yes, why is it when they are seen in one light, the risk takers are the hero’s of the day but

Change the nature of the risk and those dirty “speculators” are demonised as the scourge of humanity.

Whilst every child acquires half their genetic makeup from the mother, the other half are a bequest of their father.

I have always believed children benefit the most from the active involvement of both parents in their lives and was delighted when the previous Australian Liberal government applied an appropriate adjustment to parental / custody laws, correcting the irrational errors of the previous socialist government.

I personally find the notion of a special “Mens Day” a pointless exercise in stating the bleeding obvious,

just as a “Woman’s Day” is equally pointless but

the UN is an organization populated by political manipulators but with no teeth and as such is perfectly suited to sponsor of the completely pointless
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 19 November 2009 4:43:53 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
This is a classic!

Is there any day in the calendar that isn't someone's day.

Actually there is a gap on June 7. That's the only day left. I propose a day called international Tourette Syndrome sufferers who are Owners of Gay Dogs day!

Classic Article.

I liked...

' 1. improving gender relations between men and women; '
If only the feminists had that as their no.1 goal! Once again men lead by example!

'Yes, men are necessary. '

This shows the state of the world, where it needs to be said that yes, men are necessary. Not valued or loved or anything like that, just necessary. A necessary evil perhaps?

'Men take risks and die to save other lives during calamities and war.'

Queue feminist rebuttal... No more than women! Women are the unsung heroes of war and the major casualties, the innocents! Men are the ones who create the wars! If the world was run by women, there would be no war! The history books are full of the history of men, all the power and recognition in the workplace is given to men, they don't deserve their own day! It is women who are the ones in need of recognition! Behind every great man is a greater woman!
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 19 November 2009 4:53:22 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
Houellebecq <"The history books are full of the history of men, all the power and recognition in the workplace is given to men, they don't deserve their own day! It is women who are the ones in need of recognition! Behind every great man is a greater woman!"

Oh hear hear Houellebecq! This is the best comment I have read in ages.
A voice of reason in a sea of testosterone!

Yet again, Warwick comes up with a 'woe is all men' article, with the usual bitter anti-maternity groupies nodding wildly in excitement at his words.

Yes, we should praise some men who are truly heroes, both in and out of the home. Just as we should for the many female heroes we have in the world.

Anticeptic extols the virtues of the many tradesmen in our society, who do indeed have some very dirty, heavy jobs that are necessary to us all at times. There are often many nice things that can be said about tradesmen.

However, Anticeptic seems to suggest that it is only men that do the important, dirty jobs. Would you say that nursing and caring for the sick and elderly in our society are clean jobs? These jobs are predominantly attended by women, because many men just can't handle it.

Let's just praise everybody who does a good, difficult job, rather than praising one gender over another.
Posted by suzeonline, Thursday, 19 November 2009 7:26:13 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've often heard the saying "If the world was run by women, there would be no war!" and sometimes wonder if this is true.

To be able to gain sufficient power to 'run the world' or even influence it, and assuming that we are talking about a world full of people like we have now (as opposed to pacifists), a leader will have to have certain characteristics. These include intelligence, influence, prestige, ability to take risks and to use force, ruthlessness and be egotistical. I believe any person, male or female, with these characteristics would be likely to use conflict as a way to gain/maintain power.

This is my opinion on this narrow topic, does anyone else have a view on this?
Posted by Stezza, Thursday, 19 November 2009 8:23:37 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
Human progress depends upon the intrinsic difference/balance between Men and Women.
History defines and confirms the contribution of both sexes throughout time.

Crossing over to the modern world, plastics are contributing through exposure to "phalates" (a softening agent in plastics) to a future generation of genetically modified men, that and more feminine, according to recent evidence from science showing a definable in-uteri change to the fetus.

Who currently feels the effects of , " the plastic age " most strongly today?
Mothers or men?. I believe men do. And are women for the first time in history at risk of a judgement error when they support the trend for a more feminine sort of male? .

Men are essential to human progress/survival, as are women ! , and science for preference or profit without regard for the natural scheme of things, threatens progress and the future for both/all sexes regardless of our trivial lifestyle choices.
Posted by thinker 2, Thursday, 19 November 2009 8:29:54 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
Suzeonline:"Anticeptic seems to suggest that it is only men that do the important, dirty jobs. Would you say that nursing and caring for the sick and elderly in our society are clean jobs?"

They're "nice" jobs, surrounded by "nice" people, in a "nice" environment. They have their own forms of "dirty", such as bedpans and cleaning drssings and the odd abusive patient (who can then be sedated, how "nice"), but they don't involve much risk and they don't involve much dirt or noise or heavy physical labour. No more than the average home, anyway. They can be very stressful and challenging, certainly and there's no question they're necessary. Women gravitate to them because they have been carefully designed to suit the demands of women workers since their first invention and because women, for whatever reasons you care to put forward, are drawn to "caring" roles, just as men are often drawn to more risky ones.

One of the worst aspects of feminism is the tendency to try to minimise at all times the role and the capacities of men, as well as to demonise the very sorts of workaday risk-taking that allows trades like tree-lopping to exist, as well as the more extreme sort that is required in warfare. If nursing or aged care is the riskiest, dirtiest thing you can think of to compare those with, then I think Warwick's point is made. I do agree with your closing statement in general, but this was a piece for International Men's Day, so had every right to focus on men. Not everything is about women, despite the best efforts of the bandwagon-riders to make it appear so.

Houellebecq:"they don't deserve their own day!"

Yes Dear...
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 20 November 2009 4:29:26 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
All this navel gazing and quotes like 'It is amazing what happens when men get together.'

Sounds like it's straight from a book club get-together passing around the talking stick. I had hoped men never fell for the example of self obsessed ranting about 'woman-hood' that women seem to love.

Are we all going to start off sentences with 'As a man, I think...'?

Or are we gonna 'celebrate' our masculinity? Perhaps stand around in a circle and jerk off together? Get over yourselves!

What is wrong with what we've always done. Get smashed at a pub, punch each other in the face and then have a laugh about it the next day? What's wrong with knowing we aren't 'special'. Who needs to be 'special' anyway.

We're just bloody people. Women are the 'special' ones.

Oh for the days when we were happy with being 'necessary'.

I'd prefer a man day when everyone just acknowledged, 'men; well I suppose they aren't quite as bad as all that. Just for today, we wont slag them off like we usually do.'

COl,

'Change the nature of the risk and those dirty “speculators” are demonised as the scourge of humanity.'

Poetic as usual.

Stezza,

'To be able to gain sufficient power to 'run the world' or even influence it, and assuming that we are talking about a world full of people like we have now (as opposed to pacifists), a leader will have to have certain characteristics. These include intelligence, influence, prestige, ability to take risks and to use force, ruthlessness and be egotistical. I believe any person, male or female, with these characteristics would be likely to use conflict as a way to gain/maintain power.'

Definitely. Women love to believe it though!

anti,

'Yes Dear...'

I'm thinking you said that a lot when you were married. Go and buy yourself a new power tool. You're worth it!
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 20 November 2009 9:44:27 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 can remember looking through Triple J’s top 100 for this year (as voted by the listener). Nearly every song was a love song, and every artist except one was male.

Looking at the inventors program on TV, and nearly every inventor has been male.

Walking down the street, and nearly every building has been built by a male.

Looking around in the home, and nearly every device has been invented or designed by a male.

70% of the personal income tax collected by government is also supplied by males.

The evidence is constant and all around, and it has been this way for a very long time. In reality, it is mostly males who are the lovers, builders, workers, discoverers, inventors and designers.

However, it is very concerning that International Men’s Day is not being celebrated in the schools, when International Women’s Day is, and perhaps the culmination of this would be the feminist teacher at a QLD school who held up a picture of teeth marks in a chocolate bar on International Women’s Day, and said to the students that the picture of teeth marks in a chocolate bar represented “men’s violence against women”.

No stone was left unturned by this feminist teacher in their denigration of the male gender.

While huge volumes could be filled with negative comments made by feminists about the male gender, I have never heard of any recorded evidence of a feminist within any school or university ever saying one single positive word about the male gender.

This is at a time when boy’s marks are declining nationally, and many boy students are obviously de-motivated and underperforming.

The country cannot afford this any longer, and certainly International Men’s Day should be celebrated within the schools and universities as a counterbalance to any bigotry, miss-information, discrimination, prejudice and denigration of males being carried out by a feminist or anyone else within the education system.
Posted by vanna, Friday, 20 November 2009 12:35:09 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
November 25 is White Ribbon Day.

The day that men are encouraged (blackmailed?) into wearing a white ribbon to say that they are against violence against women.

Sounds fair enough.

Except that in all age groups men outnumber women as the victims of violence. Those figures are from the Australian Bureau of Criminology.

But the male victims of violence don't matter, according to White Ribbon Day.

Twice as many males are murdered than females.

But the male victims of murder don't matter, according to White Ribbon Day.

Around 80% of victims of self inflected lethal violence (ie suicide) are males.

Sort of really shows why we shouldn't bother have a 'ín praise of men' day. Because men don't really matter. They are expendable. Simple as that. Us males should just get used to that and not expect anything else.
Posted by Dougthebear, Friday, 20 November 2009 8:34:44 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
"No-one will ever win the battle of the sexes, because there's so much fraternising with the enemy."
Anon

All chauvinism is mistaken but people are entitled to their intolerant opinions. What they are not entitled to, is coerced funding to propagate those opinions.

So if the original problem you are trying to correct for, Vazza, is "bigotry, miss-information, discrimination, prejudice and denigration of males being carried out by a feminist or anyone else within the education system", the political action you should be calling for is the abolition of government funding for such chauvinism, *not* for a whole new set of propaganda funded under coercion to try to offset it.

One thing I would like anyone to answer is, what is 'equality' supposed to mean? Obviously human beings aren't equal in fact, and if they were, human society would cease to exist. If one group of human beings have babies, and the other doesn't, what does it mean to say they are or should be 'equal'?

The concept of equality seems to be literally meaningless, unless anyone can shed any light on this.

But worse, it seems to be used to introduce a double standard by which women have the advantages of patriarchy without the disadvantages, namely an obligation on men to provide for their biological offspring, without an obligation on women to provide sexual services in exchange. According to this now-dominant orthodoxy, if women use coercion to force men to submit to being treated as money objects, that is fine, in fact it's a 'right'. but if men use coercion to force women to submit to being treated as sex objects, that is rightly regarded as a crime.

If 'equality' is to be the basis of gender relations, and this is the basis for forcing men to pay for women's interest in looking after their children, then why does not men's interest in having sex "equally" justify the use of coercion to obtain satisfaction of this interest?

It is no answer to talk of men's supposed 'responsibility' to provide for their offspring, since that is what is in issue.
Posted by Peter Hume, Friday, 20 November 2009 8:50:52 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
Anticeptic <"They're "nice" jobs, surrounded by "nice" people, in a "nice" environment. They have their own forms of "dirty", such as bedpans and cleaning drssings and the odd abusive patient (who can then be sedated, how "nice"), but they don't involve much risk and they don't involve much dirt or noise or heavy physical labour."

Yeah right Anticeptic! I have been in the industry for years and have seen many male nurses and carers come and go- they usually find it too dirty or tough. Let's talk dirty shall we?

Cleaning faeces covered people- often dried on.
Patients vomiting stomach contents or blood onto you.
Washing blood or faeces off beds, walls and floors after a messy death.
Cleaning maggots from festering wounds.
Emptying loose bowel contents or urine from bags into containers.
Emptying wound drainage bags of foul-smelling pus, bile or -whatever.
Holding sputum mugs while people cough up parts of their diseased lungs or green phlegm. Or not catching it, and you clean it off the walls. Using caustic antiseptics and cleaners on a daily basis.
Picking bits of bone, flesh or cartilege out of cancerous wounds.
Collecting gangrenous toes from dressings after they have fallen off the foot. Smelling the gangrene- and retching.
Stepping over or into animal or human faeces as you make your way into someone's home to care for them.
Do I need to go on?

All this, and the emotional trauma that goes with death and sickness.
Is any of this dirty enough for you?

I don't see a gender difference as far as jobs in our community go.
We all do what we are good at, or can physically or mentally handle.
I certainly don't see it as some sort of contest to see who has the worst job.
Posted by suzeonline, Friday, 20 November 2009 9:48:37 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
suzeonline:"I have been in the industry for years and have seen many male nurses and carers come and go- they usually find it too dirty or tough"

Oh dear, Suzie, did I cut a little close to the bone? As i said, nursing is a field that has been tailored to the requirements of women, so it's hardly surprising that the few men who might like to have a go find it a less than welcoming field.

When a field is male-dominated and has evolved to suit male preferences there is likely to be action by the Anti-Discrimination Commission. Of course, the Commission can't hear any cases involving workplace discrimination against men, so nursing should be safe from an enquiry for a while...

Thank you for your list of "dirty" nursing jobs. As I said earlier:"They have their own forms of "dirty", such as bedpans and cleaning drssings ", which your list confirms.

Houellebecq:"you said that a lot when you were married"

Not as much as she would have preferred, apparently...
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 21 November 2009 5:54:56 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
Actually I don't think that there is a single 'real world' job that cannot be equally performed by men or women. It is the nature of the individual, apart from their gender, that counts.

Of course there are some 'jobs' that do require one gender or the other: those in the performing arts or 'adult' services come to mind.

Where I see women as different is, almost universally, in their attitude towards personal appearance and certain other intangibles. I would have a lot more respect for women as a gender if they could bring themselves to a collective decision to not need all those manicure and pedicure shops that have proliferated. To not need to get their hair done so often. To not spend exhorbitant amounts on shoes and fashion. And to agree that astrology and horoscopes are really just trash. (when is the last time you saw an asrology section in a "men's" magazine.) If you add 'cosmetic surgery' to this list you will see what I mean: most women who want boob jobs should be seeing a psychiatrist rather than a plastic surgeon, and that goes double for their male partners.

I will believe more in equality when the frippery has gone. So much wasted time, effort and money.
Posted by Dougthebear, Saturday, 21 November 2009 9:03:52 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
I'd like to make a tribute to all the men who have stood up for a cultural change against violence.

"White Ribbon Day was created by a handful of Canadian men in 1991 on the second anniversary of one man's massacre of 14 women in a university in Montreal."

http://www.awu.net.au/182_2.html

I'd like to publicly acknowledge my gratitude to my father-in-law who overcame the adversity of his childhood, as an orphan, to become one of the most decent people I've ever known. He's now deceased but his role modeling made my spouse the wonderful man that he is and that legacy has in turn been passed on to our son - who knows how to use his strength for good, and our daughters who measure every man by the standard set by their father and brother. I'm grateful to my male relatives who gave me a bounty of wonderful childhood memories; especially Uncle R., an ANZAC like many of my relatives, who imprinted on my heart and mind the knowledge of how noble, loving and loyal a man can be, having cherished the love of his life for 50 years.

I thank the ANZACs and others in our Armed Forces who have fought bravely and suffered nobly for good and just causes. I thank the men who have welcomed women into their ranks in all fields and those who have shared centre stage to acknowledge women's accomplishments too, in same or parallel occupations, past and present.

Thanks to all the good men,

Pynch
Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 21 November 2009 12:23:33 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
Btw Suzie, you didn't mention all the heavy lifting that nurses are required to do, as well as technical knowledge and expertise they must have (eg: in ED and ICU) in spite of having to achieve academically to get into the job in the first place and to further their profession in research and teaching.

Thanks for all that you do too; and thanks to the blokes who have the courage to take on a supposedly 'girlie' occupation.
Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 21 November 2009 12:30:18 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
There is something incredibly patronising in the articles by this author. He writes as if men's morale is all his responsibility.

We don't need a men's day or a women's day. If we do the things we do each day for recognition and praise then we are doing them for the wrong reasons. People do their work because they get a wage in return or they volunteer because it is satisfying in itself. Recognition and praise are never good reasons for doing anything and people who seek these things usually fail miserably at what they do. People who do things for the sheer satisfaction in itself are much more valuable to the community. They just get on with it and do not go round seeking praise or affirmation or hugs or any thing else that this author would like them to have.
Posted by phanto, Saturday, 21 November 2009 12:58:34 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
Thanks for that Pynchme, you have restored my faith in humankind on this thread.
Looking back at my last post, it makes nursing sound like a terrible profession. It isn't.
I like to help people feel better- even anti-maternity men!
Cheers, Suze.
Posted by suzeonline, Saturday, 21 November 2009 5:44:59 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
Gosh, nothing like a good gender article to bring out the martyrs.

Good men and women should be praised, good men and women are wonderful and both are necessary to society. It will take good men particularly to support society in reducing violence and make it into a social issue rather than a women's issue.

But please no more special days for this that and the other. Otherwise the intent becomes meaningless.

Hugs to all good men.
Posted by pelican, Saturday, 21 November 2009 10:19:35 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
pelican:"It will take good men particularly to support society in reducing violence and make it into a social issue rather than a women's issue."

It has become a "women's" issue because the Feminist movement has coopted it to their cause. As long as we are prepared to discount violence against men and exaggerate violence against women it will always be a divisive and destructive issue.

Men suffer violence at several times the rate that women do and women perpetrate violence at about half the rate of men, especially violence against kids, which is predominantly instigated by women.

To move forward, we must get rid of the self-aggrandising, self-promoters who have managed to get hold of the media spotlight and have created a very nastily skewed propaganda campaign to their own purpose.

I will never support the White Ribbon Campaign because it denigrates men - all men. I will gladly support a "freedom from violence" campaign that is inclusive rather than exclusive violence siffered by males.

phanto:"People who do things for the sheer satisfaction in itself are much more valuable to the community. "

Yes, indeed, but altruism is not something that can be relied upon in individuals, sadly. It is even harder to find when the level of "satisfaction" is low, such as it is for anyone working on men's issues, with little support and almost no social recognition of the validity of their work, thanks to the corrupt influence of the Feminist bureaucracy and self-serving politicians. It's sad that Warwick was forced to set up a church to be able to fund his endeavours - all the Feminists have to do is register an "Institute" or an "Association" and watch the taxpayers funds roll in.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 22 November 2009 6:54:14 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
Anticeptic, why does domestic violence have to be a gender based issue with you(apart from this apparent conspiracy with feminists)?

Can't you just accept that it is males who perpetrate the most violence against women and children? They are physically more able to do more damage, and that will never change.

No one ever says women don't perpetrate violence, because of course they do. However we don't see hundreds of safe houses around the country for men, because there is no call for them.

If the feminists are working to provide an awareness for domestic violence against women and children, it is because for years some violent men have had free range on violence in their houses because they have considered the women and children within as their property, and it is no one else's business. And God help them if they dare try to leave him. Well, those days have gone.

What men's groups can do is to try something positive for domestic violence, and work towards providing 'cool down' houses for violent men. These places provide accommodation for the men who are taken out of their homes for the safety of all their family.
They are then taught anger management and various coping mechanisms that work towards having them return safely to their family.

I guess that would be threatening to some men though, because that would be admitting that there is a problem.
Posted by suzeonline, Sunday, 22 November 2009 10:44:13 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
suxeonline:"Can't you just accept that it is males who perpetrate the most violence against women and children?"

No, because it's not true. Men perpetrate the greatest proportion of violence against women and other men, but women are responsible for most of the violence directed at children. moreover, male victims of violence outnumber female victims by at least 2:1.

Why can you not accept that these are facts that make the concentration on violence against women discriminatory?

As I said, I cannot support the White Ribbon campaign because it is inherently discriminatory and those behind it have a history of dishonestly reporting facts.

Why are you so scared of dealing with the problem of violence in a rational and just way, without feminist ideology?

Suzeonline:"we don't see hundreds of safe houses around the country for men, because there is no call for them. "

Erin Pizzey demonstrated very clearly that there is much less genuine need for "safe houses" for women than the various gravy-train riders associated with that industry would have us believe.

the rest of your post is nothing more than a man-bash. Hardly surprising...
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 22 November 2009 12:13:25 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
Antiwomen: << I cannot support the White Ribbon campaign because it is inherently discriminatory and those behind it have a history of dishonestly reporting facts >>

Are you sure about that, old chap?

<< White Ribbon Day was created by a handful of Canadian men in 1991 on the second anniversary of one man's massacre of fourteen women in Montreal. They began the White Ribbon Campaign to urge men to speak out against violence against women. >>

http://tiny.cc/Xu4C3

Your posts lately are descending to nothing more than women-bashing. Hardly surprising...

It's a pity. You were almost reasonable for a while there.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Sunday, 22 November 2009 12:33:20 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
CJ - g'day :)

One of the things I was interested in is the list of ambassadors for the WRC. I see there are some footy reps in there, which is very heartening.
Posted by Pynchme, Sunday, 22 November 2009 4:51:50 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
Quote:

<< White Ribbon Day was created by a handful of Canadian men in 1991 on the second anniversary of one man's massacre of fourteen women in Montreal. They began the White Ribbon Campaign to urge men to speak out against violence against women. >>

Unquote

So because one man massacred 14 women in Canada 18 years ago all men need to agree that only men can be violent against women, that men are not the victims of violence and that no woman is ever violent?

Maybe what we need is a group of women to start a baby-blue ribbon day because Kathleen Folbigg killed her four children, proving, if the idea of White Ribbon Day is to be accepted, that everyone of the same gender as the perpetrator must wear sackcloth and ashes one day a year due to the action of one person?

So ladies - when are you starting baby blue ribbon day as a way of having all women say that they won't kill their own children?
Posted by Dougthebear, Sunday, 22 November 2009 7:40:27 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
Suzeonline,
You will get no argument from me on the worth of a nurse.When eg I had my accident one nurse used to lift and roll me around to bathe me,at the time I wieghed in at 120kg and that one nurse had to do that and try not to cause me to much pain, although I did put up with a lot because of her caring in not trying to hurt but it is pretty bloody hard not to hurt a person that has just had a ton of steel from 12 feet crush him
And yes half the time I would rank a nurse as having to have the cast iron gut of the old pan boys that changed the toilet pans in the old out houses
Women seem to make it as teachers and nurses as they just seem to have a more gentle nature on whole
This is changing in this "modern" society though and women are becoming more aggressive while society is trying to make men more passive
But, Sex discrimination is at every government level as there is a Minister for Womens Affairs, but where is the counter part, Minister for Mens Affairs?
Nurses though have my deepest respect they had to put up with a patient like me
Thanks
From Dave
Posted by dwg, Sunday, 22 November 2009 7:50:46 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
All this white ribbon tosh.

I still remember their antics last year trying to say 1 in 3 boys at school thought it was ok to hit a girl. Low and behold, turns out that the study actually showed 1 in 3 GIRLS thought it was ok to hit boys. Pity the retraction didn't make as much as an 'impact' as the original claim they used to advertise their cause.

They would have had my support if they had used this latest White Ribbon Day to publicise the retraction needed for 2008.

Jack Marx had an hilarious take on it.
http://blogs.news.com.au/jackmarxlive/index.php/news/comments/cross_fingers_day/desc/

Ah love it when a topic about men ends up all to do with women. As I said, I'm happy for women to be the 'special' ones, and have their special days, but most men just don't need or want to be 'special'.

Apart from some of the sad sack men on here that is. I think I'll give antiseptic the golden talking stick.
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 23 November 2009 10:18:41 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
Hume,

'If 'equality' is to be the basis of gender relations, and this is the basis for forcing men to pay for women's interest in looking after their children, then why does not men's interest in having sex "equally" justify the use of coercion to obtain satisfaction of this interest?'

Well, I don't know about you, but I have an 'interest' in looking after my children, and also an interest in my partner looking after OUR children when I'm not there because I have to earn some money.

Pretty disgusting argument all round. Obviously women don't want sex in your mind, and men hate children. Men should be able to rape women because we have to pay for children? Don't think you've thought this through very well.

bear,

Maybe what we need is a group of women to start a baby-blue ribbon day because Kathleen Folbigg killed her four children, proving, if the idea of White Ribbon Day is to be accepted, that everyone of the same gender as the perpetrator must wear sackcloth and ashes one day a year due to the action of one person?

So ladies - when are you starting baby blue ribbon day as a way of having all women say that they won't kill their own children?'

Very good! Or even the national Women's Netball team raising awareness of prostate cancer, like the Men's cricket team and rugby league raise awareness for breast cancer. But no, the Women's netball ALSO raise awareness for breast cancer.

And beyond blue.. for women only...

'
beyondblue
Charity Partner of Netball Australia

1 in 5 women will experience depression in their lifetime, young girls experience depression at nearly twice the rate of young boys, women and young people – netball’s core participants – are considered “at risk” sectors of the community by beyondblue. Netball Australia is pleased to help deliver beyondblue messages to the netball community. '
Posted by Houellebecq, Monday, 23 November 2009 10:50:19 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
Peter Hume,
Schools and universities are well aware of International Men’s Day. None celebrate it to my knowledge, and I also see an increasing disinterest in boy’s education.

With the teachers I have personally spoken to , not a single one of them has ever said anything positive about boys. I have heard everything from boys are lazy, to boys are trouble makers to boys are immature, but not one single positive word has ever been said by any teacher regards boys that I have personally heard. That is the attitude of so many teachers.

Allowing men into the schools to talk to the boys on International Men’s day can help to put the record straight. It is mostly men who are the lovers, workers, innovators, discoverers, inventors and designers. That is fact, (and it has been this way since the dawn of time), and allowing men into the schools to talk to the boys can help to motivate the boys.

Boys marks have been declining for over 20 years, and the teachers are not motivating the boys. With the amount of feminism in the schools, there is no hope at all that the boys will be motivated by teachers in the future.

The teachers are not being paid according to performance, and many if not the majority couldn’t care less if boy’s marks fall even further. If boy’s marks fall even further, the teachers are still paid the same.

So it will be up to outside organisations and people outside the education system to motivate the boy students
Posted by vanna, Monday, 23 November 2009 11:13:25 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
Houellebecq
"Well, I don't know about you, but I have an 'interest' in looking after my children, and also an interest in my partner looking after OUR children when I'm not there because I have to earn some money."

Then there's no need for either to use force or threats, is there, and the issue of coercion does not arise.

"Pretty disgusting argument all round. Obviously women don't want sex in your mind, and men hate children. Men should be able to rape women because we have to pay for children? Don't think you've thought this through very well."

I don't think you've thought it through very well. Your mind-reading is an invalid form of argument. I'm not saying men should be able to use coercion against women to get what they want from them. Are you saying women should be able to use coercion against men to get what they want from them? Because that's what's in issue, and nothing you have said has given any reason to justify it.
Posted by Peter Hume, Monday, 23 November 2009 7:37:41 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
What a load of rubbish all this anti-women ranting is! If this is all Mr. Marsh can inspire in the males he so admires, then he has failed miserably to prove the worth of the male of the species on these pages anyway.

For goodness sake Vanna, do you not think that all these poor boys, that are so hard done by at all the schools you speak of, have mothers?

Do you not think that those mothers would move heaven and earth to ensure their sons get as good an education as possible? Mothers love their sons as much as their daughters. Wouldn't their fathers do the same?

No amount of 'feminists' at the schools would stop the boy's parents from speaking out if they felt the boys were hard done by.
The school where my children went certainly had a strong boy-friendly policy.

There seems to be plenty of boys going to tertiary institutions and universities, so the schools must be doing something right.

There are many male only schools too- where would the feminist influence come from in those schools Vanna?

The education department and all the parents associations around the country acknowledge that boys are learning at the same level as they always have, but that the girls are starting to catch up at last.

That doesn't mean the boys are worse off, it merely means that girls are doing better now.

Maybe boys do need more male influence in their lives, so male teacher numbers should be encouraged. Maybe the males in these boys lives need to step up and try to be more encouraging.
Most real men don't blame women for all the ills of the world.
Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 12:17:51 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
Maybe sometimes we all need a reminder that things are not always as they seem to be. The 9am David & Kim interview with Dr Elizabeth Celi was an eye-opener and well worth watching:

http://9am.ten.com.au/video.htm?vxSiteId=4a40990c-a06c-401b-8663-6f890bb8f3dc&vxChannel=9am%20General%20Health&vxClipId=1427_9am793-lg6-180609&vxBitrate=300&CMP=LEC-DANCEgetVideoLink
Posted by Cornflower, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 3:44:40 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
vanna, you're absolutely correct. Outcomes for boys are much poorer than for girls. Boys can be rambunctious and female teachers find that difficult to deal with, so boys are often shunned in the class, or drugged with amphetamines for the teacher's convenience.

suzeonline:"Most real men don't blame women for all the ills of the world."

Real women don't try to be men. Real men quite like real women. Real women quite like real men. Pomeranians quite like humping legs and sniffing crotches looking for a pat, but that's another story. I'll leave you to judge who the real women are on this forum.

Cornflower, excellent link and a really impressive speaker. It was very encouraging to hear a real professional with such a genuine working grasp of the issues saying the same things that we here have been saying for a long time.

That was the first I'd heard of the recommendation for a review of legislation in relation to inherent misandry. It sounds like a good idea, but difficult, so I hope it doesn't get set aside for too long.

Let's hope that this is just one of many media projects addressing this issue. There is a huge group of men in this country who are feeling very much second-class citizens and as I've said many times, there will be a backlash that will not be pretty if that resentment is not well managed.

This country needs women to work, there's no question about it with an aging population. There is no reson why that process has to be a divisive one and on the whole, it hasn't been.

what has caused division is the one-sided nature of legislation, such as the anti-discrimination act, domestic violence laws, family law, child support law, as well as the one-sided propaganda, much of it vilifying men, that has accompanied it and been spun off from it, such as the "pinky" campaign she referenced. I could also mention the way in which it is implemented by the bureaucracies set up to do so, mostly staffed disproportionately by women.
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 5:51:23 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
Suzanonline,

Your argument that boys have mothers has no weight at all. Many mothers and far too many fathers have little knowledge of what occurs in schools.

Your belief that girls marks have improved is incorrect, but a widely believed myth.

National benchmark tests undertaken over 20 years show that girls marks have stayed constant for over 20 yrs, while boys marks have fallen, although girls marks could now be falling also. The latest results for QLD primary schools show science marks are below international average, and English reading for grade 2 students is now below the accepted minimum Australian standard.

More girls are going to university, mainly because of the lowering of entrance scores with very few girls undertaking a trade, and also what feminists don’t tell you is that 40% of female university graduates do not earn enough money to ever pay off their HECS fees in their lifetime. 40% of female graduates do not work enough years to ever pay of the cost of their education.

As far as economics go, it is imperative to ensure boys get a good education, because they work longer and pay much more tax. In effect, they keep the system operating.

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the attitude towards boy student by so many teachers is an attitude of negativity, prejudice, feminism, denigration and bigotry, and it is easy to see why so many teachers welcome in feminists into schools on International Women’s Day, but will not celebrate International Men’s Day.
Posted by vanna, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 1:39:18 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
Suppose masculinist propagandists were to be appointed to ‘compensate’ for the effects of feminism in schools, who should decide the content? How could it be anything other than politically motivated? How could these be anything other than an arbitrary indoctrination of children with political opinion, such as we object to in the case of feminists?

The mistake is in confusing the case for women’s or men’s liberation, with the idea that we have a right to illegalize anything we don’t like, and subsidise anything we do. There is no need to decide, in general, what male and female should be forced to do.

Rather, people should be free to choose, and relations between male and female should not be politically regulated at all, and should be decided by consent in each individual case. The only regulation justified is to ban the use of coercion. Abolish the rest, and relations between the sexes will find their own level based on *mutual* consent, which is now lacking, because men are unequally being forced to pay for the feminist agenda.

At present, the feminist double standard, shared by most men, is to oppose the use of coercion by men to get what they want from women as being an abuse, and favour the use of coercion by women to get what they want from men as being a 'right'.

The key measure that will swing the balance back in favour of an ethical, harmonious, maximally justifiable liberation equally for both sexes, is to abolish any coerced taking from people in general, and men in particular, to pay women for looking after their own children.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 8:44:52 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
Vanna - sorry this post should precede that last one:

I don't think there's any doubt that contemporary Australia has a public culture of sneering hostility to men and men's interests, of which the 'man-as-buffoon' television ads are just a symptom. We need to wake up to ourselves and make some changes. But the question is what, and how?

I get the impression that suzieonline is one of these people who thinks that anything she doesn't like should be illegal, and anything she likes should be subsidised. Unfortunately this mentality is very common in Australia, and underlies the idea of a 'national men's health policy'.

I have six dogs. If I fed them an equal amount, one would be obese while another would be emaciated. So I feed them unequally, so they are all approximately equal in their relative weight and condition.

This is the kind of thing that egalitarian social policy aims at. But any kind of social policy can only aim at 'equality' among human beings if we regard people as some kind of dog owned by the government. It is this kind of thinking that is causing the problem you are trying to fix. It means that someone in authority will decide what people are to receive so as to comply with the social engineers' ideal of equality.

It is quite misguided to try to remedy the problem on the collectivist rationale that 'we' need 'women' to work, or 'we' need more resources for 'men' because they pay more tax! According to that line of reasoning, if boys were succeeding unequally at school, the state would be justified in deliberately pulling them down a bit, to even things up; and vice versa. This is just more of the same mentality that is causing the problem.

But even grant it, suppose for every policy or bureaucracy favouring women, we had an opposite one equally favouring men. They would often be at cross-purposes, both wasting tax funds, and we no better off than if neither existed.
Posted by Peter Hume, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 8:47:28 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
Peter Hume <"I get the impression that suzieonline is one of these people who thinks that anything she doesn't like should be illegal, and anything she likes should be subsidised. Unfortunately this mentality is very common in Australia, and underlies the idea of a 'national men's health policy'."

I'm glad you think you can read that much about me through my posts. You couldn't be further from the truth Peter. What on earth does any of what has been said got to do with a national men's health policy? As it happens I am heavily involved in men's health issues in my line of work.

What do you do for men's health Peter? All this moaning and groaning about all the poor men in this 'feminazi' world does nothing at all to change anything.

I am full of praise for men who are proactive and seek regular tests for prostate and bowel cancers. Many men are simply 'too manly' to allow doctors to check out their bowels or prostate glands in the surgery.
I also care for those men that didn't have it checked early enough. It's not a good way to die.

I don't have any praise for men who blame women for all their problems, and every problem in our society. You are in good company on this thread, with all the other 'chauvinazi's'(Warwick's groupies).
Posted by suzeonline, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 10:29:05 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 think that all this whining from most of the men in this thread is decidedly unmanly.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 10:48:52 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
Antiseptic: <"There is a huge group of men in this country who are feeling very much second-class citizens and as I've said many times, there will be a backlash that will not be pretty if that resentment is not well managed.">

Oh gee )))tremble((( what on earth could you be meaning?

Bit of a bash up? Rape? Murder? - already happening around the clock day after day and long precedes but explains the rise of the modern feminist movement.

A page in praise of men and you use it this way. What a waste.
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 24 November 2009 10:55:44 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
Pynchme:"what on earth could you be meaning?"

I could be meaning that there is a very strong sense of disenfranchisement among the men of this country and in a social democracy, when a large group feels that way there is inevitable upheaval. If that group reprecents 50% of the community the upheaval is great.

When women began to feel that way the result was feminism and all the misandry that has brought with it. The most agressively angry women guided its course.

Do you really want the most agressively angry men to set the post-feminist agenda?

suzeonline:"I don't have any praise for men who blame women for all their problems,"

It is this conflation of "feminist" with "woman" that you and a few others try constantly that is at the heart of much of the problem we have in discussing this topic here. All women are not feminists and all feminists are not women. To criticise feminism is not to "blame women" any more than criticising socialism or capitalism or any of the other "isms".

To support feminism as it is constituted in the west is very much to criticise all men. That's because it has been set up as a "zero sum game", in which gains made by feminism must come at the expense of men. Initially the vilification was a "shock tactic" designed to make people think, but it has become entrenched as the people who grew used to using it in the 70s have moved up within the bureaucracies and now it is part of the landscape. There is not a single significant aspect of modern life in which it is better to be male than female, yet we still hear the manbashing.

Dr Elizabeth Celi, on Cornflower's link, made the same point. Does she "hate women" as well?
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 6:32:30 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
Antiwomen: << there is a very strong sense of disenfranchisement among the men of this country >>

Rubbish - but there does appear to be a noisy minority of male losers who whinge endlessly in online forums about advances in women's relative status. Absolutely none of the blokes I know bleat on about women the way you guys do at the pub, on fishing trips, playing golf or in any other situation where we hang out together.

I think that the aggrieved types we see here all too often are simply projecting their own inadequacies on to women in general, and feminism in particular. There's nothing praiseworthy in that.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 7:40:47 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
CJ,

'I think that all this whining from most of the men in this thread is decidedly unmanly.'

What so whining isn't manly? Men whine just as much as women. The patriarchy assigned these things as un-manly to project the female as bad anyway. Chauvinist pig!

But I agree. You lot are the biggest sad sacks I've ever seen. I give you all permission to enjoy your life, and I think you all need to go home, pull your pants down, and look at your penis and be thankful.

It's all just so childish. 'Look at her she get's special treatment'. As anyone would tell a whining child, 'You just look at yourself. Don't you worry about her.'

You're all a bunch of feminists. Look what you're doing! Really! Wanting special days and pouring over every aspect and every detail where men may be being treated differently to women. Let it go. Rise above it. Leave that kind of action to the feminists
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 10:22:40 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 would agree that we have a society that does sneer at men, and it is quite widespread. Earlier this year the Cancer Council in NSW ran a series of ads concerning cancer in women. The ads featured a male gagged around the mouth, tied by the hands and feet and left in a cupboard. The ads tried to depict men as being cancer, to rid women of cancer, then women would have to get rid of men.

The most important area to put a stop to this systematic and widespread discrimination and denigration of men is the education system. It is a giant bureaucratic system that has a unwritten principle of never saying one positive word about men, boys or about the male gender. If someone in the education system did say a positive word about the male gender, they would instantly come under suspicion of being a woman hater.

Schools have been built by men, but after they have been built, men are not welcome. So men have been used by the feminist education system to build the schools, and then they are dispensed with.

What can you do about it?

Write to your local school, stating the hypocrisy of having celebrating International Women’s Day but not International Men’s Day, and ask them to start celebrating International Men’s Day. You can also volunteer to talk to the boys, and to tell them the truth. Tell them what you have achieved, and why you are proud to be male.

Also consider reporting of a feminist or a discriminatory teacher, not to the school principal, but to the regional inspector of education. Reporting anything to a school principal is normally a waste of time.

Also litigation of a school or university can be considered if it is found to be carrying out bigotry, discrimination, distortion of truth, discrimination and misandry. There are plenty of schools and universities to choose from, and I have found that about the only time a teacher pays any attention to anything is when it could affect their hip pocket.
Posted by vanna, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 11:11:10 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
Antiseptic, (and to some extent assorted others) - I seriously doubt that you've ever met a feminist, of any type, much less read anything about feminism.

Re: Dr. Celi. I have no idea why you think feminists would be opposed to men achieving better health; working to stop any form of violence - whether it's male or female perpetrated; or exploring masculinity.

Robert Jensen wrote (2002):

Andrea Dworkin, a radical feminist writer and activist who has spent her life working against sexual violence, is often portrayed as the most man-hating of feminists. But listen to what she said to, and about, men when she addressed a men's conference and asked them to work for 24 hours without rape. In her book LETTERS FROM A WAR ZONE, she writes:

"I don't believe rape is inevitable or natural. If I did, I would have no reason to be here. If I did, my political practice would be different than it is. Have you ever wondered why we are not just in armed combat against you? It's not because there's a shortage of kitchen knives in this country. It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence."

http://uts.cc.utexas.edu/~rjensen/freelance/resistingmasculinity.htm

Is this the ad that's troublesome:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SgV9Oa6z5wY&feature=related

Here's a parody of it anyway:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u2UJ4bZxIMM

I am not sure what I think of those; but if men are offended, I'd like to understand it. If they are a problem then they should go, of course.

We've discussed shows like Raymond and so on before and I posted the names of the writers (predominantly male) producers (mainly male) and those who profit from such shows (overwhelmingly male); not to mention the cast and crew. I don't watch those sorts of shows because I believe that they reinforce traditional cop outs: "I dunno how to vaccum; I dunno how to iron... that's woman's work... where're my socks?". If men are troubled with portrayals of ineptitude well many feminists would agree. Again, men need to look at who is exploitative; the culture of it and who profits from it. It isn't feminists that's for certain.
Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 4:48:18 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
CJMorgan <"I think that the aggrieved types we see here all too often are simply projecting their own inadequacies on to women in general, and feminism in particular. There's nothing praiseworthy in that."

Well said CJ. I think that statement pretty much sums it all up really. I know there are plenty of men out there that don't feel this terrible animosity against females and/or feminists.
These men give me the reason to fight against men that have chips on their shoulders re women.

I don't have to dislike men to be pro-women.

On a lighter note in which to end my humble contributions to this thread, I wish to repeat this little gem from Houellebecq.
It really made me giggle!

"You lot are the biggest sad sacks I've ever seen. I give you all permission to enjoy your life, and I think you all need to go home, pull your pants down, and look at your penis and be thankful."
Posted by suzeonline, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 9:33:25 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
Since this article appeared on OLO approximately 36 males in Australia have committed suicide. In comparison, approximately 6 females have committed suicide in Australia.

Of course men don't commit suicide due to feminism. But they do commit suicide when they cannot see a future, when they cannot see they have a place in the world, when they are collectively blamed for the sins of a few men.

When they are not valued.
Posted by Dougthebear, Wednesday, 25 November 2009 10:52:39 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
Dougthebear:

Any suicide is a tragedy. However, it is misrepresentative of the issue; unhelpful in terms of assisting people who might be contemplating suicide (and their families); unfair to women; unjust to feminists; untruthful about feminism generally and exploitative of the issue for your particular agenda, to try to draw some sort of association between women, feminism and male suicide.

The fact is that current rates of suicide are no greater than the rates earlier this century. Although there have been fluctuations during the century, upsurges have been closely associated with economic conditions; unemployment; socio-economic status and the like.

Other factors include relationships; mental illness; drug/alcohol dependency; personality and impulsivity; use of very effective means.
In contrast, women attempt more often but succeed less because they more usually use passive means. I think males self harm more than is shown in stats; but women have more presentations at hospital for injuries such as laceration from self harm.

Recognition of and resources, national and state policy dedicated to male suicide mid 1990s:

http://www.publications.health.sa.gov.au/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1069&context=pop

Major trends:

http://www.nisu.flinders.edu.au/pubs/bulletin15/bulletin15sup.html

Complexity:

http://www.aic.gov.au/documents/4/9/0/%7B490EDFD9-212E-414F-B4E5-F3DA8A6D0413%7Dti52.pdf

P. 13 re: Australian rates from 1920:
http://eprints.utas.edu.au/287/36/Chapter__31__Suicide.pdf

Also please see Beyond Blue for information on depression and suicide.
Self help for various mental health issues is also available at Mood Gym.
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 26 November 2009 2:18:28 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
pynchme:"association between women, feminism and male suicide"

A great deal of males suicide in the context of family breakdown, following years of struggling with a system that is inherently hostile with no support, often very soon after having had the CSA take the last few dollars from their bank account, leaving them destitute. Try going to the supermarket on a Saturday, filling your trolley with food and then being told "sorry, that account is empty" when you have the kids coming to spend their one day of the week with you.

That situation is a creation of feminism.

The other large group represented in the male suicide stats is young men who feel as though they have no prospects. The chance of an Australian male going to uni is about half that of Australian females, thanks to feminist ideology ruining the education system and if he can't get an apprenticeship (only about 20% manage that) his only prospect is some sort of menial work. Very often his response is to take his car out and drive into a tree, usually after getting drunk and leaving his seatbely off. Qld is reviewing records of single vehicle accidents in the belief that up to half are unrecorded suicides. Nearly all the victims are males.

Your response is typical: minimise, disparage, pretebd it doesn't exist, after all it's just men, they must have been defective, eh?

In the meantime, Beyond Blue has been hijacked by the feminist lobby, with massive amounts of funding going to whinging women with PND and almost nothing being spent to stop men topping themselves, despite the fact, as Dougthebear points out, they do it at 4-5 times the rate that women do.

Suzeonline, nice of you to give the Pomeranian a pat. If only he'd get over that annoying habit of wetting himself whenever a man enters the room...
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 26 November 2009 6:12:49 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
pynchme,

'I am not sure what I think of those; but if men are offended, I'd like to understand it. If they are a problem then they should go, of course.'

How could you not understand? Seriously. I think you're proving how clueless you really are about equality. Raving about women being reduced to sex objects, ever protective of young women's body image, then not understanding what could possibly be offensive about the adverts.

What those ads do is encourage the notion that a man's worth should be determined by the size of his penis. It's also saying, 'we don't hate you because of your behaviour, we think your genitals are actually sexually inadequate, and that's a much more shameful thing than endangering the lives of others. I suppose belittling men is fair game for your average feminist.

Man you can spot misogyny at 200 paces but cant spot misandry even when it's shoved in your face.

I think when it comes to suicide, men do the job right, because they're more serious about it. Many a teenage girl wants help and attention, but doesn't really want to die.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 26 November 2009 8:25:23 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
pynchme, a quote from your first link:
"Anomic suicide is most likely to be the more prevalent form of suicide in an Australian setting. It refers to the deterioration or disjunction of a person's integration of their social values with their social environment. Therefore, unemployment, economic depression or significant
life changes can promote a sense of anomie - a feling of isolation, confusion or disorientation with their current place in society and what their future holds for them."

As I said...

And:
"Since the 1960s particularly, suicide rates among young men under 25 have increased significantly. This is associated with issues of unemployment, changes in the Australian family, substance abuse and increasing interpersonal violence."

Yet no one ever mentions male-directed violence...

And:
"For men the principal factors affecting suicide in South Australia were (Hassan
1995):
a sense of failure in life
e family problems
physical illness
mental illness
loneliness
financial/unemployment problems"

Advertisements such as the one you like so much go directly to self-esteem, especially in young men and are no doubt contributing to the steady rise in male suicide. Feminists everywhere should be proud...
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 26 November 2009 9:10:12 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
One of the difficulties has little to do with feminism: that is really just a distraction in this debate. No thinking person could argue that there had to be action taken to bring a greater equality between the sexes in this society.

Feminism cannot be blamed for the difficulties that some men have with the Child Support Agency either. That has more to do with relationship breakdown and the role of the family, rather than feminism.

The difficulty I see is that of the changing of the points of reference for what is 'normal' in gender relationships. In previous times neither sex actually had aspirations of fulfilment. They just accepted who they were and where they were. Now people (usually women) seek 'individual fulfilment' and if their partner doesn't meet those requirements then the partner is disposable so that someone else may be sought.

Usually (but not always) the person being disposed of in a marriage is the male - the vast majority of separations being initiated by the female in her search for personal fulfilment. Often that fulfilment involves seeking a ‘soul mate’ or someone who is closer to having feminine emotional characteristics and communication styles.

In the meantime women who decide to get involved with men who do not fit this paradigm are ridiculed. We have all heard the term WAG used for wives and girlfriends of footballers, for instance. WAG being a negative term. Woman who like men who act like men used to act are seen as inferior than their new age counterparts.

The new paradigm for relationships is that the definition of a ‘good’ relationship is that which women prefer, and has little to do with how men want to be in relationship. Masculinity has no place in these new relationships, and where there is no masculinity the males are simply expected to be poor imitations of females.

I repeat that this has little to do with feminism: there are many feminists who value their male partners and their sons: who do not want to see men put down whilst women advance.
Posted by Dougthebear, Thursday, 26 November 2009 9:24:15 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 get what you're saying bear but it's a bit more complex. I think it goes deeper into the general attempt by feminists to re-define masculinity. Part of the feminists beef with patriachy was that men defined what was feminine to some degree, limiting women. Women now behave like a reformed smoker, deciding men now should re-define their gender. But that's for men to do, IF THEY SO WISH. Nobody likes being told what to do or how to be. Women didn't like it, and now men don't like it.

Obviously feminism is valid in saying men shouldn't hit women, rape etc, where it affects women. But it attempts to go further, and proposes traits such as aggressiveness, competitiveness, ambition and dominance (which quite often flow with testosterone), to be undesirable. As a lot of particularly older men have been brought up identifying these traits with being masculine, the thrust of feminism is to eradicate these traits, or people who hold or value these traits. Easily misconstrued as man-hating.

Just like you say, all types of relationships between men and women these days seem to be defined in female terms of reference. In school, the workplace, in romantic relationships, young boys are encouraged to communicate in a feminine style, and to meet the female's needs. There is no corresponding attempt to bridge the gap by teaching young women to appreciate men's needs in a relationship, and accept the way men may choose to define themselves and how they are comfortable in communicating. A male is assertive, a woman FEELS threatened, ergo the male IS being aggressive. The frame of reference is the woman. Her needs.

Sure in many ways it is good for men to be taught to better relate to women and take into account how women communicate and their different needs. But if you have a boy in school, and the messages he gets boil down to 'be more like the girls, they're good and you're bad', or he is constantly taught that the girls needs are more important than his it's not healthy.
Posted by Houellebecq, Thursday, 26 November 2009 11:03:11 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
"in romantic relationships, young boys are encouraged to communicate in a feminine style, and to meet the female's needs"

Further to that, males are very protective of talking about their real feelings. When I hear a man talking about his feelings, I assume that he is lying. Girls need to be told about this as most of the young women that I know are amazingly naive about this.

Men who are reluctant to talk about their feelings should be respected for their honesty. Those that talk about their feelings tend to be better liars than the rest of us. Young women need to accept that some issues are personal and private. Questions about feelings should-not be asked.
Posted by benk, Thursday, 26 November 2009 3:38:21 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
Antiseptic:

<"... Beyond Blue has been hijacked by the feminist lobby, with massive amounts of funding going to whinging women with PND and almost nothing being spent to stop men topping themselves">

Please show proof of your statement. Govt MH services are provided to everyone as needed. Non-acute MH care is provided (Medicare subsidized) by private practitioners and NGOs on referral from a GP.

<"A great deal of males suicide in the context of family breakdown, following years of struggling with a system that is inherently hostile with no support, often very soon after having had the CSA... and ...">

A great deal of male suicide also occurs as a result of child sexual abuse; rape and assault. Please don't discount that or sweep them out of sight.

Houellebecq: <" How could you not understand? Seriously. I think you're proving how clueless you really are about equality. Raving about women being reduced to sex objects, ever protective of young women's body image...>

You have previously harped that sexualization of children and women is a non-issue; suggested that you'd like to be a sex object and advised fellas to do something like go home look at their genitals and be grateful, thereby minimizing or denying the effect of cultural images on individuals and the larger society.

While I believe that it's appropriate for me to describe how various portrayals of women effect me and how other women might consider ads pertaining to females; I don't think it is my place to assume authority over how men feel about or are affected (or not) by ads about them or how they want to exhibit masculinity.

Rather than assume such a role I'm saying that I want to hear and understand what you think ads like that say about men; I am supporting you (or other men) in whatever action you all consider appropriate.

Background to the pinky ad:

http://www.thinktv.com.au/media/Case_Studies/RTA_Case%20Study_Jun08_2.pdf

News story and comments - award and mixed reaction re pinky.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23267238-2,00.html?from=public_rss

The RTA which sponsored the ad held it back for two years worrying about appropriateness:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/rta-gave-the-finger-to-acclaimed-pinkie-ad-20090830-f3zu.html?comments=47
Posted by Pynchme, Thursday, 26 November 2009 11:21:06 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
pynchme,

'While I believe that it's appropriate for me to describe how various portrayals of women effect me and how other women might consider ads pertaining to females; I don't think it is my place to assume authority over how men feel about or are affected (or not) by ads about them or how they want to exhibit masculinity.'

Oh come off it, that's a cop out. So you apply one standard to women and go, awe, maybe men wouldn't mind. Do you wonder weather maybe men don't mind when they're raped; because you're not a man, you wouldn't know? So you are somehow unaware of any societal attitudes to the relationship between sexual adequacy and penis size?

Same as the advert with a woman snapping phallic symbols because her boyfriend isn't romantic enough; Reverse the genders and they would never be acceptable. It seems to me you're really just encouraging one standard for women and another for men. That's not equality.

'I am supporting you (or other men) in whatever action you all consider appropriate'

So you'd be happy with the adverts if no men said they found it offensive? (Which you know isn't true because it was controversial when it came out). That means you don't generally think it's offensive to belittle or ridcule people's sexual adequacy.

BTW: The ad is nothing to do with 'sexualising' men. When women are 'sexualised' it's in the positive light of desire. This advert is to do with belittling men, not sexualising them. The advert portrays more a hatred of men than a hatred of speeding. I'd be happy with an advert that reduced men to the size of their penis as an object of desire.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 27 November 2009 8:52:19 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
Houellebecq, surely you don't need a feminist to tell you how to express your masculinity. As long as defining your masculinity doesn't involve misusung other people I don't care how you decide to be.

You just saying, "Ahh sexualization is different coz that is about DESIRE ..." shows that you and I would disagree on what's important. Being always held as an object of PHYSICAL desire while all of one's other human attributes are devalued is something that hurts women and kids and you don't seem to understand that at all. You think it's a compliment dontya.

As to the ads, as important and interesting as those things are, I just haven't kept up with TV. so I don't know anything about the snapping thing (got a link? ).

For many years I've been opposed to any emails, jokes etc that denigrate men. I know many women do it and in my experience they do not identify themselves as feminists. That's within my private domain - where I decide where to exert my opinion and little bit of influence on matters that effect men. However, how can I be an authority on how you define yourselves as a whole? Nobody will know better than you guys what sort of impact you're experiencing and I am ready to follow your lead on that.

A male coworker showed me the pinky parody and he thinks both ads are funny. He is concerned about road safety though.

Also, the ad company for pinky is male run and owned I think isn't it? At least a bloke stood up for the award. They did some sort of consultation with young men to obtain their views and gotta thumbs up (apparently). The RTA paused for about 2 years to consider the impact on men - which seems pretty courteous. Are men really preoccupied with the size of their penis or is that a myth? Is it right to exploit their sensitivity about penis size (if such sensitivity exists) to save their lives ?

It's up to you to define yourself.
Posted by Pynchme, Friday, 27 November 2009 9:58:55 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 quite like the 'pinky' ad, and I loved the spoof of it.

The ad doesn't denigrate men, rather it ridicules young hoons who behave in a manner that endangers everybody else. By implying that these idiots are pencil dicks who compensate for their physical inadequacy by driving dangerously in order to impress their mates and women, the ad conveys the message that real men don't behave that way.

I had occasion recently to deploy the pinky at a young fool who came roaring down a suburban Brisbane street recently, to great effect. He deployed another finger in response, but he obviously got the message. My kids thought it was really funny.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Friday, 27 November 2009 10:29:15 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
CJ,

'By implying that these idiots are pencil dicks who compensate for their physical inadequacy by driving dangerously in by driving dangerously in order to impress their mates and women, the ad conveys the message that real men don't behave that way.'

Yes, and at the same time implies 'real men' have a big todger. Which is true I suppose. 'Real women' have large breasts don't they CJ? That's a message feminists would abhor, but pynchme doesn't think that message is a problem when men are involved.

Pynchme,

I'm coming round to your way of thinking. Just read an article about men's height, and how it's socially acceptable for a woman to say she'll only date tall men. But not so socially acceptable for a man to say he'll only date thin women; If a man says that, he's 'shallow', and responsible for women's body issues.
But a man cant change his height, and a woman can change her weight.

'both attributes (male height and women's fat) are used to control, value and class members of the opposite sex and the ridicule of both leads to similar self-esteem issues in their respective genders.'

I have a friend who is quite short, and he's the angriest man in the world, and I'm not the only one in the group who puts a lot of his emotional problems down to 'little man syndrome'.

Perhaps you are not an 'equity' feminist, but a lot of the feminist commentary I hear speaks of equality as women to be treated the same as men. Men and women are different of course. But if you're happy for inconsistencies like this, a lot of the bleating feminists do about having every little thing exactly the same for men and women is invalid.

BTW: How many men are going to complain about the advert, as by saying so they open themselves up to the accusation that they have a small todger.
Posted by Houellebecq, Friday, 27 November 2009 11:26:10 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
pynchme:"A great deal of male suicide also occurs as a result of child sexual abuse; rape and assault. Please don't discount that or sweep them out of sight."

Rubbish, a very small part of male suicide may be related to these issues. None of the data supports your claim, as usual. what sort of "professional" did you claim to be again?

Nice of you to give the little fella his pat, I was afraid he was going to start weeing himself again, what with all the men around. Sad that his hatred for his Dad has left him with such a fear of men. I wish him well in getting over his issues.

Dougthebear, the CS and Family Law Acts were written as a direct response to feminist ideology as enshrined in the UN's various instruments regarding women and "their" children. So were the various States DV protection laws and response policies.

They encourage women who may be minimally dissatisfied to seek a divorce, safe in the knowledge that they will be well compensated. If she wishes to make a clean break, with the police keeping him away from her and the kids, all she has to do is claim he shouted at her and she "feels scared".

OTOH, they also act to keep men who may be quite dissatisfied in relationships simply because they have seen what happened to friends who didn't. Those men sometimes suffer long-term on-going violence and abuse daily. If ever they retaliate, DV policies mean they'll be the one carted away and given a DVO, while she gets to stay in the house - great outcome for her and purest Feminist doctrine.

Yes, the best outcome is when the partners just get on with it and love each other and all that, but in the real world, if one partner is given disproportionate power, then there will be some who will abuse it. At present, women have disproportionate power and many are abusing it, just as men did in days gone by when the situations were reversed.
Posted by Antiseptic, Friday, 27 November 2009 12:42:46 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
Houellebecq: It's nice that you're able to bend a bit on this. I really don't think, though, that you know much about feminism. Sorry - I don't mean to be insulting but uh - for example, "equity feminism" is in my opinion a cop out label favoured by very conservative people who don't really aim to change anything - the sort of conservative think tank groupies who seek (and profit well from) a pat on the head from those who benefit most from the exploitative status quo. It's a Claytons sort of feminism that seeks approval. If you'd like to see some other feminist writing and ideas let me know.

However, 'feminism' encompasses a very, very broad range of thought and action. I'm of a Christian-existentialist-core variety myself; make of it what you will. I accept (but don't agree with) that some women modify their bodies to exert sexual influence ie: your comment about big breasts. I think it's about as stoopid as equity feminism but whatever. On the other hand re: differences between male and female and any other classification by sex or sexual orientation - viva la diversite.

For myself I don't have a problem with inconsistencies. I think that a sign of maturity is being able to live with ambiguity. At least, I hold many opinions as provisional and adjust them as new information becomes available.

Btw - as to large penises (or should that be peni ?) - is it truth or myth that men's identity is all tied up with size? What happens when a bloke has lost his. I believe there are prosthetic specialists who assist when people have lost all their gear. What happens to their sense of self? If a bloke doesn't invest some of his sense of self in things other than sexual prowess or genital size; I think that's really sad. Is it? What do you think?

CJ - I loved your anecdote about the pinky encounter. Very funny.
Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 28 November 2009 2:48:03 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
pynchme:""equity feminism" is in my opinion a cop out"

LOL at least you're honest at last. "All animals are equal but some are more equal than others". You're nothing more than a would be hegemonist.

It's typical of so many of the more vocal "feminists" that the last thing they want is equality, what they're after is total dmination with any resistance ground under the heel of the nearest sensible shoe.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 28 November 2009 6:24:04 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
The pinky advert wasn't the problem. The broader pattern of television and advertising that has men as villans, fools and under control is the problem.

Houllie

I see no problem with women having criteria for partners. I do have a problem with the way that women are socialised to have a huge list of criteria. Try asking to teenaged girl about her taste in boys and you will be stuck there for ages. We need to stop over-protecting women's self-esteem and start telling them that they cannot be too fussy. Anything else is paternalistic and setting them up to fail.
Posted by benk, Saturday, 28 November 2009 9:07:04 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
Antiseptic: As usual you have your bloomers in a knot over something you know nothing about. You need to look at something like the 2005 Personal Safety Survey, to which I've referred in the past.

http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/subscriber.nsf/0/056A404DAA576AE6CA2571D00080E985/$File/49060_2005%20%28reissue%29.pdf

There is other research that you can access; but males being sexually assaulted as children - figures range from abour 4% to 29 % (David Finkelhor, "Current Information on the Scope and Nature of Child Sexual Abuse," p. 31 in The Future of Children, Vol. 4 No. 2, The David and Lucille Packard Foundation (1994).)

Also please see:
Hindman, J., & Peters, J. (2001, December). Polygraph Testing Leads to Better Understanding Adult and Juvenile Sex Offenders. Federal Probation, 65(3), N.PAG. Retrieved February 27, 2009, from Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection database.
"... They are at increased risk of depression and suicide... "

Also, sex offenders admitted not only that they understate the number of children they've victimized, but the proportion of victims who are male children as well. On investigation, as many boys as girls had been molested
Posted by Pynchme, Saturday, 28 November 2009 10:33:07 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
Pynchme, if it is indeed the case that many men are suiciding as a direct response to childhood sexual abuse then perhaps you should take it up with the Beyond Blue people, who don't list it as a factor at all AFAIK...

Do let us know how you get on, won't you?
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 30 November 2009 3:33:28 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
pynchme,

'If a bloke doesn't invest some of his sense of self in things other than sexual prowess or genital size; I think that's really sad. Is it? What do you think?'

Now we are getting on. Where were you on the 'objectification' of women again? It is as sad as a girl putting all her sense of self in her appearance, then blaming magazines and models for 'making her feel bad' or 'promoting an unrealistic ideal of beauty'. As I said in the latest MTR proxy rant thread, telling women to not be so vain is more empowering than censoring magazines. You don't see men complaining all the SPAM for penis enlargements and huge dongas in porn are 'promoting an unrealistic ideal of beauty'. Women are taught to be a victim of something other than their own vanity.

Most feminists seem obsessed with the fact that men like to look at women, and ignoring the fact that a lot of women like to be looked at , and ignore that they gain some power from it to boot. To a large degree women objectify themselves to pay for male attention. Men are about as singularly attracted to stick thin models with DD boobs as women are to men with bulgin biceps and a 12 " penis. Both myths are peddled to the vain, but you don't see the government endorsing 'real women have huge tits' like they are this 'real men have a big penis' business.

I think a lot of men WISH women were only interested in a big dick, as it would make life simpler for them.

benk,

'I see no problem with women having criteria for partners.'

Neither do I. I use the example to point out men and women have different measures, and that for men to do the same is considered 'shallow'.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 9:49:38 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
Antiseptic: I don't run errands. If you're interested in the way that institutions mediate to maintain the status quo, then go do your thing re: trauma and mental health. Don't overlook the way in which a traumatic experience manifests in various symptoms of mental disorders and illnesses. See what you think about the discontinuity between a traumatic incident and presenting symptomology. Also, don't overlook the way in which many people who are traumatized soldier on without help from anybody.

Houellebecq: I agree re: vanity. However, I think the issue is how people are valued. A friend of mine once told me how her hub was slumped in front of the TV - bald patch with strands of hair stickin' up; paunch; unshowered or shaven; half his false teeth out - watching some beauty pageant and voicing an endless stream of criticism like, "Aww what a dog... that one needs a boob job... too fat... hanging rear end... ". Now I laughed (... he's actually a really nice bloke btw and very good family man; his wife is a natural beauty btw who doesn't need any primping at all.) but it's a strange thing to me that women are judged on their physical attributes; while men seem to be valued more often for personal qualities other than physical appearance.

I do think it's a sad thing that many women are convinced that their major life achievement is to be wanted by some bloke who is only attracted to physical appearance.

Btw I don't know any women who care about penis size; do you? If it's true and not a myth that men are overly preoccupied with their bits - why is that?
Posted by Pynchme, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 10:29:43 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
'Aww what a dog... that one needs a boob job... too fat... hanging rear end... '

You should see the objections in one dating show I saw where one man had to impress 20 women. It's the inevitable result of putting male or female up for the judgement of others. People get picky.

'but it's a strange thing to me that women are judged on their physical attributes; while men seem to be valued more often for personal qualities other than physical appearance.'

Is money 'personal'? I think it's generally easier to look good than achieve financial success.

I too think it's sad that many men are convinced that their major life achievement is to be wanted by some chick who is only attracted to their money.

'I don't know any women who care about penis size; do you?'

I remember a party where this topic came up, and of about 10 women, all said that they had had one 'too small' (why bother) partner and one 'too large' (ouch) partner. I figure from knowing the chicks and such that they'd each had around 10-20 partners give or take. I think the gist of it all was that extremes either way were unsatisfactory, but generally they were all much of a muchness. Incidently, quite often it was the look of the penis that was more important, ie not bent or with big veins, circumcised or not etc.

'If it's true and not a myth that men are overly preoccupied with their bits - why is that?'

I cant speak for all men. I can only suggest if it's true it has to do with the fact that the penis is exterior, where the vagina is interior, and men can be competitive. And as I said, some men would rather all they needed to do to please/attract women was to have a big dick. Life would be easier. Certainly easier than working 70 hour weeks to buy that Ferrari and the pad overlooking the water and 'romantic' holidays.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 11:14:14 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
<"And as I said, some men would rather all they needed to do to please/attract women was to have a big dick. Life would be easier. Certainly easier than working 70 hour weeks to buy that Ferrari and the pad overlooking the water and 'romantic' holidays.
Posted by Houellebecq, Tuesday, 1 December 2009 11:14:14 AM">

Well there you go. You see why feminism is such a boon. Feminists take pride in being financially independent. At least when a bloke has a feminist partner he can be confident that she is with him because she really values him rather than his wallet.
Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 1:22:41 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
pynchme,

'...she is with him because she really values him rather than his wallet.'

Well, either values him or values his dick.

You seem to have the impression I'm against feminism. I'm all for feminism when it's all about the men getting a chance to stay at home with the kids and the women go out and earn some bloody money. Feminism has been a 'boon' for men in many areas.

The only beef I have with feminists are...

a) The whining about gender pay gap, when women do all the spending. Regardless of who earns the money, it's more important who spends it and on what. Couples decide what role each will do and what the family will spend money on. Who earns the family money is irrelevant. Also many women choose a work life balance that suits them, then it gets used to show women are 'disadvantaged', when they're the envy of their husband. I do accept the super gap cause for the primary carer though. Even then she'll likely inherit his money eventually.

b) The whining about men liking to look at beautiful women in various stages of undress, and the giving men responsibility for women's vanity/body image. The word 'objectify' when talking about images of women. They are objects, they're 2 dimensional pieces of paper. Men don't objectify real women, they objectify objects made from dots on paper or pixels on a screen. Even then there is demand for some personal details about the woman pictured because men want to know her kinky mind.

c) Any cherry picking and misrepresenting of stats, sponsored 'surveys' and 'studies' and general dubious raising awareness tactics that have the effect of demonizing men. Eventually we'll just get to the stage where 'studies show' 200% of women have been bashed, raped and denied curtains by the age of 4.

d) Housework as an equity issue. My solution to that, as always, is don't do it then. But stop bloody complaining about it. Oh, and go out and mow the lawns, put that in your 'study', and smoke it.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 2 December 2009 5:12:53 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
Houellebecq: <"Well, either values him or values his dick."?>

I would say that situation would be in the extreme minority and possibly even non existent.

Dicks are a dime a dozen. Never met a woman yet; any age/any looks; who couldn't get a bonk. Too many men are exceedingly non-discriminating in where they deposit their sperm.

This might be why marriage has little appeal for women anymore. Maybe all the years of 'princes' screwing around has killed any fairytale romantic notions females once had. If they get married; social reality doesn't support the idea of one man staying faithful, with the cover up argument that men are biologically driven to slut themselves out. If women don't get married; they might not like variety perse all that much, but at least they don't have to stay at home becoming increasingly disillusioned, as society would have them do.

Just speculating; what is your view on it? Why don't as many women as in previous generations want to stay or even get married anymore ?
Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 9 December 2009 4:16:55 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
Oh - as for your other points - I wish you knew more about feminism.

Accusations about stats. are not realistic. The stats that inform policy are obtained from the Australian Bureau of Statistics; Australian Institute of Criminology; police and hospital records and the like. Homelessness surveys and such are compiled by DV support services, but also by Mission Australia and welfare organizations like that. Research and reports that result from it don't rely on just one source of information.

In all fields it pays to read; compare - and to question veracity, I agree. I recognize political and social trends in interpretation; any social scientist would - however, there is no "feminist mantra" - because there are many researchers, men and women, feminist and non-feminist; from a wide range of disciplines and institutions and an almost infinite number of sources (like emergency departments and police services) whose results are replicated and a large amount of it dovetails. Not just locally; but globally.

I think trends are changing and this is starting to be reflected in various findings - we can discuss that further some other time.
Posted by Pynchme, Wednesday, 9 December 2009 4:33:15 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
'This might be why marriage has little appeal for women anymore. '

Oh I really think you're wrong. Maybe not marriage perse, but women are definitely the ones who want the commitment. Haven't you heard of all those 30 something women bemoaning the 'man-drought'. Granted the drought is in men who earn more than them and have an acceptable job (Which reinforces provider/nurturer gender roles in the partnership due to economic considerations), but definitely there is a lot more women after a committed relationship.

Regardless, it seems a lot of men perceive the Family Law will be against them if a partnership breaks up and feel they have more to lose than women.

Add in the princess for a day romantic notions and biological clock, and I think it would be hard to argue marriage has little appeal to women. Men have always resisted it, most guys don't want to 'grow up' and see marriage as curtailing their freedom.

'Maybe all the years of 'princes' screwing around has killed any fairytale romantic notions females once had. '

You sound jaded and cynical. Women and men cheat in equal measure. Just when a man cheats he 'couldn't keep his dick in his pants', but when a woman cheats 'her emotional needs were not being met and she was oh so confused' and all sorts of long winded justifications come out.

'Why don't as many women as in previous generations want to stay or even get married anymore ?'

As I said, I think you're wrong. Men are under more pressure to stay married as they will more likely be moving out if there is kids involved. It's no picnic for women either, but they stay in the same house and get every second weekend off from the kids. The guy is in a 1 bed flat trying to pay for two residences only seeing his kids on weekends. I know what sounds more attractive.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 9 December 2009 1:56:11 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 wish you knew more about feminism.'

You define feminism in your terms, then when anybody talks of the opinions of feminist commentators you fall back on Feminism is a broad church. Are you the feminist Pope? Maybe you need more social commentator credentials if you want to define feminism.

With regards to studies, Housework is studied, quoted, agonised over, and really, it's a personal thing how clean one wants their house. It's merely a toilet seat up gripe disguised as an equity issue. Nobody ever studies or reports on yard work, because men have no motivation to claim victim status. Lets face it, women can choose to do zero housework if they so wish.

The WRD 'study' used to promote the day had a lot of findings about female violence that will never be reported on. The stats are always cherry picked to suit the pet cause.

The gender pay gap. Nobody ever mentions who spends the money and on what in a couple, or why couples choose to split the caring and nurturing the way they do.

There are so many 'societal' attitudes which haven't really changed. Women are the problem with their closely guarding their maternal roles, with the breast feeding lobby, their marrying up, the romantic princess notions. It all sets up the provider-nurturer set-up from the start, encourages part time lifestyle jobs for women and wage slave jobs for men etc...

I cant believe you really think attitudes have changed so much in women. They all still fall for the daddys special little girl being protected by the strong and silent provider, the extravagant princess for a day wedding, the trading on their beauty to get free drinks, the crying to avoid speeding fines etc.

I think women reject feminism more than men. But doesn't stop them complaining when the penny drops, when they lose their looks, when they realise they have no super, when they miss their absent wage slave husbands, when they realise because the guy they sought after earns more means it's more sensible for her to stay home with the kids.
Posted by Houellebecq, Wednesday, 9 December 2009 2:27:12 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. 11
  7. 12
  8. 13
  9. All

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