Benk

Thank you for your thoughtful and considered post. I agree that it is to the benefit of both sexes to be freed from gender stereotyping; there are aggressive women, passive men. I imagine always having to be competitive and 'tough' is onerous for many men.

Anti

Drop the 'hate' speech and maybe you would be taken more seriously. How many years since your separated from your partner?

Pynchme, i just read your link. i think this quote sums up the author's position:"I cannot resist masculinity alone; "

Here's a tip for you and your friend: masculinity doesn't need "resisting", no matter how much he'd rather not be a man. It needs to be embraced as different to femininity. I do not wish to be a part of a society in which the only acceptable way for me to express myself is as a somewhat hairy woman.

That's true for most normal men, just as most normal women would rather not be somewhat flabby-chested men.

For "generation Y" women will be the dominant gender in politics, academia, bureaucracies, business and possibly religion. Why is that? For two reasons: firstly because they have received better opportunities throughout their schooling and secondly, because women are consummate "networkers", while men are driven to be individualistic and competitive. Men have had to work to create clubs with a narrow focus of interest to get together, often specifically making rules about doing business and other competitive activities. Even excluding women has evolved as a means of damping down inevitable competitive impulses that may arise if they are present.

Women, on the other hand, are wont to be overtly supportive of each other (at least face-to-face)and to want to find commonality as a means of ensuring mutuality of support. That has lead to the enormous proliferation of women's groups focussed on "all men are bastards" since it's an easy thing for a woman to agree with (doesn't offend any of the other women). It's also meant that once women have achieved power they tend to offer patronage to other women.

The competitive nature of men remains for women in power, a threat to that power, so it's hardly surprising they do their best to demonise it and diminish it.

Pynchme

I read the article, thank-you for valuing my opinion enough to ask me for an opinion.

I agree that the content and popularity of these movies says something troubling. I cannot succinctly explain why many men might enjoy them, but I do have a few thoughts.

The degradation of the woman was sick, but the choice of a cheerleader character was at least understandable. They epitomise the sort of woman who might be seen as arrogant and needing to be brought back to earth. This type of woman has never appeared concerned by the feelings of those men who she sees as "beneath" her.

His thoughts about men who are involved in domestic or sexual violence are unhelpful. The current language of shaming these men, even being violent towards them is a step in the wrong direction. I have never denied that some men are violent towards women or claimed that everything is her fault. I would like to see some empathy for them. Most DV is reciprocal, meaning the men are both villans and victims. How can anyone expect these blokes to be less violent without modeling some empathy?

Language is important. Feminists alienated others with their smug use of jargon and self-rightous tone. This bloke could be more down to earth himself.

Benk

<<< How can anyone expect these blokes to be less violent without modeling some empathy? >>>

I do believe it has to start WITH men - clearly there is an instant raising of hackles whenever a women tries to speak out against male violence - look at Antiseptic.

There is no denying female violence from any of the female posters here, however, this is being treated in the many support services that women have established for themselves. The overwhelming bulk of violence is committed by men to men, women and children, maybe it is an anachronistic leftover from primitive times, but intellectually most humans have moved on. Remember, most violence is committed by a minority.

What I, and I suspect other women, find dismaying is the lack of men speaking out against violence, rape and humiliation of others. Men such as Michael Flood are vilified by some men. Should CJ Morgan be subjected to abuse because he disagrees with some men here? Should I?

BTW the use of a "cheerleader" in that porn video - it could be ANY stereotype; salesgirl, model, actress, prostitute, it is YOUR interpretation, YOUR reaction that the "cheerleader" is snooty and your response is quite disturbing, please think about it.

Severin "There is no denying female violence from any of the female posters here"

Limited outright denial in recent years but there has been a long history of comments which do minimise it or try and make it the males fault. One post I recall by Pynchme set's the tone.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=3252#77365

I don't recall any of the male posters denying that male violence occurs, what has been objected to is the double standards many choose to apply, the blaming of men for violence by women, the misuse of perceptions about male violence to support gender bias in family law and other issues which fall out of that.

It's not women talking about male violence which raises the hackles, it's people using the issue to attack men whilst applying a double standard when it comes to women. I detest Flood because he attacks the men's groups quite ruthlessly whilst staying very mute about the way mothers groups have used similar tactics to support their own agendas.

My impression is that most of those who find themselves on the pointed end of Antiseptics nastier comments are those who have partaken in attacks on him. I could be wrong, if anyone cares to point out that they have never got personal about Antiseptic but cop abuse from him I'll willingly reconsider. I don't like Antiseptic's approach but I also don't like the way he is portrayed by people who seem to use similar tactics themselves.

R0bert

Severin:"What I, and I suspect other women, find dismaying is the lack of men speaking out against violence, rape and humiliation of others"

What a lot of complete bollocks. I see your stay in hospital hasn't affected your ability to speak shite.

What you find dismaying is the fact that some men are seing through the feminist smokescreen put up around the issue of gender relations.

Interpersonal relationships have always been conflictual. Women tend to be far more "controlling" than men in their relationships, often taking possession of the family finances, deciding what social activities will be participated in, choosing their husbands clothes, making all the decisions around the kids, etc, etc, etc. if a man does any of those things he is being "violent", while if a woman does, she is being "responsible". If a man objects to any of those things, he is being "abusive", which gives her carte blanche to abuse him, since "he started it". If he then responds angrily, he is immediately labelled "violent" and told he has "an anger management problem". He can't come out even, let alone win.

What you don't seem to grasp is that if you want people to be nice to each other, there has to be both give and take. Playing the "men are bastards, aren't women wonderful" game is simply stupid. I suspect a great deal of violence in our current society (most of which is perpetrated against men, not against women) is down to a sense of "damned if I do, damned if I don't"or "just as well hung for a sheep as a lamb".

Fair dinkum, you're thick.

Severin:"Men such as Michael Flood are vilified by some men."

Michel Flood is an opportunist who saw the vast opportunities the feminist gravy train offered and climbed aboard. Academically he's on a slightly lower level than David Irving and his writing is about on a par with the stirring polemic offered by Mein Kampf, although his research isn't as good.

No wonder the weaker-minded members of the feminist community like him.