>>> Indeed, even if we accept that marital disharmony resulting from mismatched desires for sex is a problem in need of address, is a pill really the answer? And if it is, why medicate women? Why not give men a drug to settle them down? <<<

Leslie, in the battleground of sexual politics, that's treason talk girl.

Male sexuality is the sun to female's dim little Pluto, besides there is a dollar to be made here. Not only are women not pretty enough, our libido is all wrong too.

Can't wait to read what the B&T brigade make of this - the ones who, apparently were dumped for a new interesting male partner >>> Indeed, while men tend to find their partners more desirable over time, women often need a new partner to rekindle desire. <<< They do? We do? No wonder the little dears are so traumatised.

Strap yourselves in, people, this is gonna be a bumpy ride. Whooooo hoooooo.

Severin, "Can't wait to read what the B&T brigade make of this - the ones who, apparently were dumped for a new interesting male partner"

You wish, hence the usual severe blast on that dog whistle of yours.

General comment
Women are not alone in this as this article would suggest. Male sexual dysfunction has been a complaint and a joke since the dawn of time. How many women pay out on men for being 'limp dicks' and worse just to antagonise them?

There are so many graphic bill boards confronting men with their alleged sexual inadequacies in satisfying women that 'concerned mothers' are phoning shock jocks to complain, lest their children see them.

However entrepreneurs are also turning turning to women as a possible new client group - just as cosmetic industry is trying to turn more men into metrosexuals who cannot face the day without special 'recgenerating' cream for their faces, eyes and bods.

However through the success of Sex in the City and series like it, there is a very large rump of middle class, bored thirties something women out there who seem to believe that life has passed them by and desire some sexual action. Or maybe the market is there and these are just fodder for an existing appetite.

How many articles on cougars have there been in women's mags for instance? What about daytime on the Box? There are cougar comps where women boast of their conquests of young men. Germaine Greer saw the trend developing and was hot off the mark with her photo perve devoted to boys whose semen "runs like tap water" and "A woman of taste is a pederast — boys rather than men".

So it is not simply being driven by entrepreneurs in the medical and the pharmaceutical industries, the market is there and demanding magic pills and therapies. However in some quarters it is obviously not politically correct to say that of course.

While the notion of a magic pill to increase women's libido is certainly worthy of discussion, I don't think that this is one of Leslie Cannold's better articles. There are too many questionable assumptions.

Firstly, as I understand it viagra produces erections, rather than libido. Men I know who use it don't do so to create desire - rather, they use it so they can satisfy desire they already have, which is not quite the same thing.

<< Men want sex often and intensely >>

This seems to me to be an unfounded generalisation, if not a classic stereotype. Is this true of all men at all ages? It's certainly true of many young men, fuelled as they are by an excess of testosterone, but most of us tend to settle down as we mature. I'm in my 50s, and a couple of times a week generally satisfies my libido - and I don't require viagra yet...

<< Indeed, while men tend to find their partners more desirable over time, women often need a new partner to rekindle desire. >>

This is the first time I've heard this. Since Cannold provides absolutely no evidence to support this rather counterintuitive claim, I'll have to conclude that she's generalising from personal and vicarious anecdotal experience, rather than from rigorous research.

If I was marking this as a student essay it'd be lucky to get a bare pass, I'm afraid.

Cornflower

The contraceptive pill for women, created years ago..... still waiting for male contraceptive pill.

Sexual enhancement pill (AKA Viagara) created years ago, working one for women..... but still waiting on male contraceptive pill.

Think about it.

Now, both men and women are pilloried for not fitting a narrow sexual framework; women for being 'frigid' and men for being (as you described it) 'limp dicks'.

Leslie's article is about the creation of a drug by pharmaceuticals to increase the sex drive of women. The question she is raising is whether such a drug is really necessary or just another money making racket?

Cornflower, do you think a drug to enhance or increase the sex drive of women is necessary?

If you do, please explain why.

Thank you.

And, unless you are lobotomised, you cannot have failed to notice that there is a persistent contingent of male posters who NEVER, EVER have anything complimentary or even positive to say about women in general. In fact, you rarely have anything positive to say about your own sex either - rather strange. However, I and many other female posters have often talked about our love, respect and admiration for the men in our lives and frequently acknowledge the many intelligent and reasonable male posters to OLO. We don't always have to agree, but we do manage to have a civilised discussion.

The author asks the question (I doubt really wanting the answer).

'Why can't a woman's s*xuality be more like a man's?' Simply you were designed differently. Acceptance of the way you were made will lead to a lot more fulfilling life than trying to be something you are not.

Why can't a woman's sexuality be more
like a man's?

What on earth does that mean exactly?

Everyone is built differently, with a
combination of libido level, sexual style
and emotional capacity and it's up to
each individual to decide for themselves
what sort of sex life they want.
Everyone's physical, emotional, spiritual
and relationship needs are different, so
it follows that this will be reflected in
the way an individual expresses their
sexuality. One size does not fit all.
(pardon the cliche).

Some people like frequent sex while others
have a lower libido. Some people are happy
to "bonk" while others like to "make love."
It's just that people with higher libidos
who are happy simply to have physical sex
fit the current culturally accepted sexual
stereotype. People then think it's OK to
try to convince others into thinking
there's something wrong with them if they
don't want the same type of sex.

In this day and age - sexual behaviour
should be a choice left up to each
individual to make (so long as
it doesn't harm anybody else). As for
pills? Again - up to each individual
to decide what works for them.

Sex has a great menu to choose from...
(playful, raunchy, experimental, loving).
The list goes on.
And the choice should be up to each
individual to decide.

'Why can't a woman's sexuality be more like a man?'

I thought it was.

Lots of myths and generalisations here. Sex is often the first casualty when there are deeper problems in the marriage.

When a woman (as I see it - can't speak for all women of course) feels loved, respected and appreciated the sex will follow. It would be impossible to have sex with someone you despise, distrust or resent.

I suspect it is no different for men. We really aren't that different in essentials.

Men often experience a loss of libido in middle age - they are only human.

pelican

Nicely put.

A glass of wine or a brew of aromatic tea at sunset seems to iron out most lumps and bumps in life's highway. Go to bed friends.

If adults can't do that they are missing the point.

Why can't a woman's s*xuality be more like a man's?

I’m with Pelican (well, figuratively speaking, of course!) who says it can’t ?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3C6Utr027QY

Well,it's men v's women again.Perhaps we should be looking at a relationship that connects with what makes us human.Self gratification does not make us aspire to a higher plane.

Women ARE like men. It's the females & males who aren't. What a pointless subject anyway.

Cornflower
Yes I agree, we humans tend to complicate things that are often quite simple.

Horus
heh heh...love Harry Met Sally. Wonder how many takes it took to get that scene down pat. :)

Arjay
Well said.

After some reflection, I too am wondering at the point of this article. If it is not a critique of Big Pharma, I'm not sure what it is all about. I agree with CJ's more succinctly expressed point regarding Cannold's claim that men become more satisfied with their partner over time while women search for new experiences. I referred to this claim in my first post and I agree with CJ that there is no evidence of such. I believe that men and women are equally likely to stray - after all to sexually roam one needs a person to roam with. Or a few men are getting a lot of action.

;)

Oh dear, I was hoping so much for a thoughtful and challenging article from Cannold, after the preachy wowserism from MTR and friend and this is what we get.

Of course, the final arbiter of what is published on OLO remains with the editors, so one must respect their decision on which articles are published.

Why can't a woman's s*xuality be more like a man's?

Maybe that should be the other way around:

Why can't a man's s*xuality be more like a woman's?

What is needed is not a pill to increase the level of women's libido, but one that will decrease the males' libido. If the feminist movement is anything to go by then when this pill / implant / injection is finally made available it should be compulsory for all males between the age of 11 and death to take it.

Everyone knows, or so I have seen on this grate site™, that when men's libido is reined in then everything from footballers behaving badly to most serious crime will cease and we will have a peaceful society.

What we need is a society of 'Stepford Husbands', as all woman are just perfect and it is men who are the problem.

>>> ... that will decrease the males' libido .... If the feminist movement is anything to go by then when this pill / implant / injection is finally made available it should be compulsory for all males between the age of 11 and death to take it. <<<

How completely absurd.

Not while I have a breath left in my body. What an appalling thought.

Leslie Cannold: >>All this raises the obvious question about whether low libido in women is pathological or just evidence that female sexuality is different to men's? <<

Leslie, the reproductive drive is in all creatures, and there is one aspect that is predominantly apparent in all species. When the female is in heat she is placated after a single mating, but the male goes on and on until the season is over. An absolutely basic observation, but it seems to be apparent. Given that, I would run with the female libido is programmed to satiate quickly while the man’s is 24/7.

Dougthebear: >>What is needed is not a pill to increase the level of women's libido, but one that will decrease the males' libido. If the feminist movement is anything to go by then when this pill / implant / injection is finally made available it should be compulsory for all males between the age of 11 and death to take it. <<

I am appalled Dougthebear, what type of sick Frankenstein would tamper with what nature has endowed us with. To take away or suppress a gift from himself who created us is a blasphemy.
This discussion is about giving, not taking. We are giving our females a chance to feel like kings, we are adding to their horizon of opportunity in relation to the role that they were created to fulfill. This is the sort of ground breaking research that sets us apart from the rabbits.

Posted by sonofgloin: "I am appalled Dougthebear, what type of sick Frankenstein would tamper with what nature has endowed us with."

So you are against contraception? The "gift" of a woman having the opportunity of conceiving with any and every act of coitus? What about pain relief during childbirth. There are those in the community still who interpret Genesis to say that women must experience pain in childbirth (I am not one of those)

Please also remember other differences between men and women. In this context they can be considered applicable. Men have a long refractory period. Women, however, do not have such. So that it could be considered that women already have a greater capacity for intercourse than men, why would you want to increase female libido so that they would be running around seeking male partners the way that men wish they could seek female ones?

There are evolutionary differences between men and women that, due to civilisation, have to be tamed and dealt with in a manner best for both genders in the interest of our society.

Men are already part tamed by the law and by custom. Marriage is no longer deemed to be an excuse for rape in marriage, and it is women who are the gatekeepers for coitus.

All I am suggesting is that men need chemical assistance to tame them. Or do you wish to remain an animal?

Dougthebear, calm down, I was giving a slanted view for the irony factor of men once again directing women to do what suits men best.....I thought the tone was obvious, with the he created women and all that...sorry.

Dougthebear, I don't think anyone has asked for a 'calm sexually down' pill for the average man!

The only time I have ever known of Doctors giving men hormone pills to decrease their sexual drive is when they are convicted rapists or paedophiles.
These pills are thus already available for oversexed men if need be.

Women are not programmed like men because their pregnancies take up to nine months to produce babies.
Once they reach menopause, they also naturally reduce their need for sex. Older men slow down too, but can still impregnate women.

Nature does not need women to be constantly sexually available because of these facts.

Men, on the other hand, needed to be ready for all prospects because back in the cave man days, many women died in childbirth, so it was up to the men to keep as many women of the tribe pregnant as possible, to ensure the survival of that tribe.

These basic sexual feelings remain in both men and women, but our brains have evolved since then (supposedly!).
So men are supposed to be more choosy now, and have no need to impregnate multiple women to ensure the survival of their tribe.

So all those men who are out there having unprotected sex with any willing women are basically still chest-beating cave-men :)

Yeah alright, you guys can start screaming at me now...

Suzeonline:

>> So all those men who are out there having unprotected sex with any willing women are basically still chest-beating cave-men :) <<

ROFL

And then they complain about having to pay child support.

Apologies, couldn't resist.

Severin, suzeonline, there has been a major shift in the aggressive sexuality of the modern woman. Traditionally I have had to be aware of chicks wanting their evil way with me, and I have been careful not to send the wrong messages. Now I find along with the chicks, I have the cougars to contend with, womanhood has become a menacing menagerie. Personally the last thing I need is a souped up hormone to make the fems even more aggressive than they are now.
Just for the record, could you women please stop considering my worth in terms of the pleasure I can bring to you physically, I have a mind and feelings just like you, if you cut me do I not bleed, I am not a play thing put on this earth to satisfy you’re out of control hormones.

Please do not consider this a rebuke, I want the attention you chicks and cougars continually shower me with, but remember I could be your son, brother, or father, so let me wear a condom and be gentle with us guys.

sonofgloin

Tee hee

Maybe you should just keep your legs crossed, you sweet thing.

What an amazing tribute to feminism this article is.

Leslie Cannold is a spokesfeminist for one of the most disgusting medical procedures currently being carried out, which is IVF, or the artificial propagation of human life.

This procedure extensively uses drugs on women, and the majority of IVF procedures are now being carried out on single women, who so often complain that they can’t find a man who will “commit”. This basically hides the fact that they can’t find a man who actually likes them.

Then this feminist writes “Being desired exclusively seems to be key to female libido, which may explain why relationships initially arouse women but cease to do so as time goes on. Indeed, while men tend to find their partners more desirable over time, women often need a new partner to rekindle desire.“

This feminist inadvertently uncovers or exposes what is the main principle of feminism, which is to use men for their money and their sperm.

Well done feminist, but the sad part is, this principle is being taught in universities as a subject.

If someone wants their children to go to a university, but also wants them to develop any type of morality, heavily investigate what they are about to study and be taught in that university.

vanna: << this principle is being taught in universities as a subject >>

Really? What subject is that, at which universities?

Also, you seem to be under the misapprehension that university students are children. The vast majority of uni students are adults, who take responsibility for their subject choices. Indeed, if they had to consult their parents about their subject choices, it would probably mean that they aren't mature enough for university study.

C. J Morgan,

Nominate the university academic in Australia or elsewhere who has had one good word to say about the male gender.

You made the ridiculous assertions, vanna. I assume from your response to my question that you just made them up, rather than basing them on any evidence. Otherwise you would have provided some.

Severin, I am pleased to have made you laugh!

Sonofgloin, I like your style. A man with a sense of humour is a man to be truly desired!

Vanna, I assume you want all Uni students to study at Catholic run Universities?

I doubt many Uni students study what their parents want them to do....weren't you ever a teenager?

C. J Morgan,

Well of course you can't nominate the university academic who has said one good thing about the male gender, because there hasn't been one.

Far from being a place to expand the mind, universities are now the center of bigotry, prejudice and narrow mindedness, where even though males have built every university I am aware of, and have written the vast majority of the textbooks, not one university academic will say one good thing about men.

Suzanonline,

Something the author overlooked in her feminist ardor to condem men, is that there would hardly be one love song or love poem or love story without men, because men have written and sung nearly every love song, written nearly every love poem, written nearly every love story, and made nearly every love movie (even the girlie teenage ones).

A bleak place indeed without males and their sex drives, but overlooked by the narrow-mindedness of a feminist.

C. J Morgan,

Well of course you can't nominate the university academic who has said one good thing about the male gender, because there has hardly been one.

Far from being a place to expand the mind, universities are now the center of bigotry, prejudice and narrow mindedness, where even though males have built every university I am aware of, and have written the vast majority of the textbooks, not one university academic will say one good thing about men.

Suzanonline,

Something the author overlooked in her feminist ardor to condem men, is that there would hardly be one love song or love poem or love story without men, because men have written and sung nearly every love song, written nearly every love poem, written nearly every love story, and made nearly every love movie (even the girlie teenage ones).

A bleak place indeed without males and their sex drives, but overlooked by the narrow-mindedness of a feminist.

From my studies at UNSW 1999 to 2002 I could name a good number of female academics in the history and political science schools, as well as science, medicine and law, who have good things to say about the 'male gender' but I could not be bothered listing them, and invading their privacy.

Anyway, what is the male gender? It cannot be simply defined, in this context by the chromosomes carried in the genes.

Strike...I must be a minority and have a problem that requires addressing if studies are indicators of your viewpoint Leslie. Thank you for your article, it is an interesting subject and I will enjoy reading other people's contributions. Daily for me [factually speaking] for most of my life. Now in my forties and my libido has not decreased, if anything it has increased.

I'm sorry Vanna, you've lost me.
When has anyone here said we didn't want males and their sex drives?

You seem to be tarring all women as feminists and man-haters Vanna?

Are you trying to start an argument with the female posters for some reason?

Well, you will just have to be patient and join the queue!

Suze

>> Well, you will just have to be patient and join the queue! <<

Where is Anti anyway?

Vanna. Again you are your own worst enemy - painting women as the enemy of men - we're still overpopulating the earth so there is clearly a lot of fraternisation going on between 'enemies'. Besides there is no evidence for any of your claims. Granted some women loath some men and vice versa. For example, I find you absolutely reprehensible and an embarrassment to the male sex, however you have plenty of company in the form of posters like Antiseptic and Formersnag who share your hatred of women. Which is very telling. But not all males hate as much as you do.

People who generalise about entire groups of people be they religions, genders or race in continually hostile and insulting terms are bigots. There is good and bad in all of us, Vanna, but you cannot see. I loath and pity you in equal amounts.

Keep trying to saw through those brick walls with these few guys exhibiting mysoginistic traits Severin [married to one for 25 yrs]; its a sickness from childhood or one major incident with a female in their lives who they perceive as doing them wrong, therafter tainting all women with the same brush wrongfully. Many of these men refuse to admit or address their illness, prefering instead to continue on their path of manipulation, lying, destructive behaviour. It is an act. They do know right from wrong. Every time they degrade a female, it is a boost for their self esteem. In the process, sadly, they alienate most human beings from themselves, to learn, grow and beat the hideous disease.

Nonsense, it has descended as usual into a slanging, name-calling contest between androcentric and gynocentric respondents hasn't it? Both sides regularly protest their affection and respect for the opposite gender, while decrying the extreme views they themselves read into what the other side is saying.

The gender war is so yesterday as to be last century, but unfortunately there are those who obviously derive secondary gain (including their daily bread maybe) from its continuance and in some cases have probably done so for decades.

This article was flagged early on by a number of respondents as fluff. Unreasoning, one-eyed gynocentrism is completely foolish and thirty plus years past its use-by date. The androcentric responses to it and the predictable gynocentric returns of serve demonstrate the silliness and possible mischief-making of both positions. It is all sooo old and miserable to the other gender.

Cue the Beatles droning on with Yesterday, while the whingeing continues unabated.

Severin, I think poor Antiseptic has gone off somewhere to lick his wounds after self-destructing on the CSA thread last week (I do hope he is ok though).

Cornflower, you are possibly right about the continuing gender wars on these pages. However, it is so NOT yesterday. Gender wars have been, and will always be with us Cornflower, as long as one person is wronged by another person of the opposite gender.

It is an impossible war to win of course, but us women have had to fight for every 'right' we have now, so I will continue to argue for our right to have an opinion about any subject we choose.

suzeonline, yes you have the right to state and argue any opinion or point of view that you wish.

I will not argue against that.

I have a problem with the idea of the 'gender wars' however, in that in many ways it isn't genders that are at war with each other, b, but in the way that the initiating article pointed out what 'Enry 'Iggins' asked in Pygmalion - aka My Fair Lady.

'Why can't a woman be more like a man?'. That is, their views of what should be the 'norm'.

Well, I accept that men and women ARE different. Equal, but different. Neither 'side' is correct, and both sides lose when one or the other claims that they are right.

The classic example is in regard to libido and relationships. Both 'sides' have their own wired in libido, as determined by evolutionary processes. We humans really have to get used to that.

Also it seems over the last 30 years that how relationships 'should be' is now defined by the female paradigm. Men doen't see things the same way, and hence once again both sides lose. Both men and women have to be able to accept compromise, neither side can have it all, but the number of divorces initiated unhappy by women seems to indicate that women want all their own way. As I said, both sides lose.

Men and women communicate differently. The classic being that men communicate shoulder to shoulder, whilst doing things together, women communicate face to face. When women expect men to be like them it doesn't work. Both sides lose.

Suzie this is off topic but those gender wars will stay with us while point scoring against "the other side" remains a priority.

It may not matter much but I was very disappointed in your choice to commend benq about his or her posting on that CSA thread. http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/images/icon_link_grey.gif
It looked to me like cheering on someone for scoring point's against the other side rather than any legitimate support for a case well argued. Maybe you had good reason's for that view but based on benq's contribution to that thread I find that difficult to see.

You are welcome to express your opinion however cheering on benq on that thread showed little regard for the rights of others to express an opinion.

R0bert

Dougthebear,
You don’t want to name academic feminist “who have good things to say about the 'male gender'”, but you COULD point to an article published by a feminist from any Australian university that has said one good thing about the male gender.

That you haven’t done, so perhaps you could point to such an article (and best of luck in finding it).

The author frequently mentions “men” in her articles, but I don’t think the author has ever published an article with one good thing to say about men, and now the author seems to think that “men” are over-sexed and should be medicated.

This certainly doesn’t say much for universities such as the Monash University and the University of Melbourne that employ the author as a medical ethicists.

It must mean that no background checks of any worth are being undertaken by these universities before employing anyone.

Severin,
No thanks for your abuse, and if you make such abuse in the future, then I will be nominating your posts for deletion. You can ask C J Morgan about that.

Cornflower,
I would agree that most articles written by academic feminists are written to a formula, and that formula does not include making any positive comments about the male gender.

I would also agree that this article is feminist fluff.

However the author is employed by (not just one) but TWO Australian universities, and part of that employment would be at the taxpayer’s expense.

What does the author do – write feminist fluff.

The article is a tribute to feminism, and also a tribute to the completely pathetic and dismal nature of our university system.

vannakins, what was that university subject teaching the principle of "using men for their money and sperm" again? Which university?

Oh that's right - you made it up.

RObert, I am sorry if I disappointed you about my 'cheering' on of Benq's views on the CSA thread.( Suzeonline< " Benq, I like your no nonsense style, and the way you have the anti-feminine males of this site on the run! LOL.")

To be fair however, she/he was getting a hammering from you and Antiseptic for many posts before I joined in. That's ok is it?
Female posters have often been known to stand up for the underdog in some forum disputes, and I am no different.

Vanna, you really have a thing about the author of this article don't you?

Dougthebear doesn't need to find out whether the author sang the praises of men in any of her articles or lectures at the University she works at, because it is irrelevant to this article.

Whether the author is a feminist or not does not make her worse at her job than any other lecturer/writer.
I am certain there are plenty of male chauvinist lecturers at all universities as well that are good at their jobs, despite their personal views.

Suzanonline
It is a tribute to feminism and the university system that a person can be employed in TWO universities, and can wander through those universities and not notice that they have been built by men, and then wander through the libraries and not notice that the vast majority of textbooks have been written by men, and then form the conclusion that men are over-sexed and in need of medication.

I have offered this exercise to over a dozen different people on OLO over time and not one has ever been able to complete the exercise.

Can you find an article published by an academic feminist in an Australian university that says one good thing about the male gender (best of luck in finding it).

I also think it is important to note some of the drugs that are being prescribed for women

For example: -

SYNAREL / LUCRIN / ORGALUTRAN / CETROTIDE: -Suppresses the ovaries and controls ovulation and therefore enables the doctor to time the intervention into the cycle more precisely and thus collect better quality eggs for fertilisation.

Side effects: -You may experience hot flushes, dizziness, bone pain, headaches, redness and itching around the injection site, nausea, breast tenderness and swelling.

http://wesley.monashivf.edu.au/infertility-drugs.htm

The author very much supports IVF that uses these drugs, and while the author seems to oppose drugs to increase a woman’s sexual libido, the author shows no opposition to the drugs that are being used during IVF to conceive without sexual intercourse with a man.

I doubt that this was just an oversight by the author.

Vanna, how on earth do you know what the author did or did not think about while wandering the corridors of universities?

Can you find 'proof' that she didn't think about the men who built that building? No of course not.

I imagine that as an academic she would be impressed by the architecture of the the universities, regardless of who built them!

I don't agree at all with the author re dulling men's sexual urges, unless they are dangerous urges- such as those men who rape women or children.

As for IVF, what on earth is your problem there?
I suppose it is a religious objection you have? Many religious men don't like losing control of women's fertility.
Is that your opinion?

Women attending IVF clinics are often there because their men want to have children with them. Quite often it is the male sperm that is the problem with them getting pregnant.
Does this make it any easier for you to accept?

It almost always has NOTHING to do with the woman not wanting to have sex with a man. Most of the women I know like to have sex with their partners.

Suzie have a better look at the nature of those posts from benq and how unfair they were. benq had set out to try and portray all of us who consider the CSA to act with bias to only do so because we are unwilling to support our children and because decisions went the other against us. Is that really fair?

I'd been attacked for not being able to present clear evidence of bias to support my opinion but the reality is that bias is often very hard to prove externally. Benq had behaved in a way clearly targetted to shut down our opinions about CSA by fathers who feel that it acts with gender bias. We are not one size fit's all, not all of us have tried to avoid legitimate responsibilities for children and some of us are capable of trying to look at things with some objectivity.

Would you have me pop into a thread and tell vanna or formersnag how wonderful they are because they are getting a hammering from other posters regardless of the role they had played in the debate?

R0bert

suzeonline: << Vanna, how on earth do you know what the author did or did not think about while wandering the corridors of universities? >>

I've noticed that vanna imagines all sorts of dire things about what happens in universities, but shows little evidence of ever having set foot in one.

R0bert - benq hasn't participated in this thread. What does your beef with their comments in another discussion entirely have to do with Cannold's rather ordinary article?

C J Morgan,
I have often thought that the most pitiful display of a male (and perhaps of a human-being) would be the weak-kneed, limp-wristed, jelly-bellied wonders who call themselves male, and are employed in a university, but do not object to the continuous denigration of the male gender by feminists at the university.

It has now reached the situation where a feminist is employed by TWO universities as a medical ethicist, and suggests that males should be medicated because they are over-sexed, but the weak kneed, limp-wristed, jelly-bellied wonders who call themselves male still raise no objection.

Next these weak kneed, limp-wristed, jelly-bellied wonders who call themselves male will line up and volunteer to take medication to reduce their sex drive, so as to please the feminist.

Also note that Suzanonline is now the last person in a growing list that could not find any literature from an academic feminist at an Australian university that says one good thing about the male gender.

Far from being a means to expand the mind, universities are actually one of the main centers for discrimination inside the country, if denigration of the male gender is regarded as discrimination.

vannakins, when were you last at a university? You really don't seem to have a clue how they work. Lots of people have appointments at several universities these days. Besides which, universities are places where diversity of opinion is encouraged.

What was that university subject about relieving men of their money and semen that you claimed existed? Don't tell me, it's taught at those universities where you've never been, which is why you can't provide any details about it.

CJ it's off topic but I'd been frustrated by Suzie's (who's views I generally respect) choice to support benq on that thread and found the comment on this thread "It is an impossible war to win of course, but us women have had to fight for every 'right' we have now, so I will continue to argue for our right to have an opinion about any subject we choose." at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10536#173570 more fuel for the fire.

I may be unduly bothered by it but I'm utterly fed up with the needless point scoring against opponents that seems to all to often to characterize OLO debate's.

If my choice to highlight my concerns over that on this thread (in my view in response to Suzie's comment about the right to have an opinion) was the wrong place I can accept that. I had planned to just avoid the original thread because it had degenerated into an ugly slanging match between DD and benq.

R0bert

Suzanonline,
I do apologize, I missed your last post.

So “Most of the women I know like to have sex with their partner”

The word “partner” is a feminist term that can mean anything or anyone. Why not use the word “man” instead, as in ” Most of the women I know like to have sex with their man”.

About the only time I have heard a feminist use the words “men” or “man” is when they are carrying out denigration of males. Apart from that they use words such as partner, to avoid referring to men.

BTW I’m not Catholic, but do feminists discriminate against Catholics. I thought feminists were pure and good and non-discriminating.

C. J Morgan

I’m not sure what feminist courses you have undertaken, but I normally refer to people by the name they give (eg. Vanna and not Vanikins etc). Calling someone by other than the name they give must be some bad habit you have learnt somewhere.

I have undertaken many courses, some of which have been through universities, and after that experience I do not automatically believe very much at all from a university academic.

The fiasco of global warming and foreign students would be two recent examples of why someone should not believe too much from university academics.

But if, as you say, universities encourage a “diversity of opinion” (cough/splutter) and are not heavily left-wing biased or feminist corrupted, then how come it is so difficult to find an academic feminist that has published something that says even one good thing about the male gender.

Lets see.

Doughbear, yourself and also the sweet and innocent feminist Suzanomline cannot find such as feminist employed in an Australian university.

Such academic feminists employed in Australian universities must be rarer than hen’s teeth (and hens do not have any teeth).

But back to the topic.

I wonder why the author opposes drugs to increase a woman’s sexual libido, but does not oppose the drugs given to women in IVF clinics so they can become pregnant without having sexual intercourse with a man?

vannakins, I refer to you as that because it's quicker to type than vanna/HRS/Timkins et al. If it offends you, perhaps you could stop changing your pseudonym?

So it seems that you haven't actually been to a university. Why do you then feel qualified to comment negatively about the way they are run, indeed to the extent of inventing subjects that you falsely claim they teach?

I've stated that I don't think is a very good article, and I've said why. If you want any credibility at all, perhaps you could address the substance of the article, rather than focusing on one line from it and attacking the author for who she is and what she's said elsewhere.

C. J Morgan,
I thought that your insistence on flaming and name calling of other posters was because of your university education.

I also thought that it was decided that the article was little more than feminist fluff, or a disguised attempt by a feminist to denigrate men by inferring that they were over-sexed and in need of medication.

An important issue would be the continuous calls by university academics for more and more public funding, when people such as the author are being employed by universities to write their fluff.

If the author is anything to go by, less and less public money should be spent on universities, and more spent elsewhere.

Perhaps sending our students to other countries for their tertiary education may now be the best option.

Vanna <" About the only time I have heard a feminist use the words “men” or “man” is when they are carrying out denigration of males. Apart from that they use words such as partner, to avoid referring to men."

Vanna, you don't really know much about feminists at all do you?
When I spoke of partners, I was covering all the different sorts of sexual partners that women have these days- Husbands, de-factos, male lovers, female partners, female lovers etc.

I have no problem using the word MEN at all Vanna. I have a much loved Husband, brothers, father and nephews in my life.

I don't dislike most males at all, just those males who dislike females.

Fair enough R0bert, and thanks for the explanation. As someone who's fairly neutral about the CSA I notice that discussions about it tend to polarise, with the usual suspects generally monstering anybody who dares to say that the agency isn't necessarily the ATO's Dementor squad. I understand that you're a bit sensitive about it though.

vanna - if anybody's "flaming" on this thread it's you. I'm content to have shown you up as fabricating factoids to further your silly attempt to sling mud at a university system about which you obviously know next to nothing.

vanna
What an unhappy experience you must have had to believe that all university academics hate men. I have never met any man-haters in my university days, so you have indeed had a run of bad luck.

I must correct one of your statements about IVF, it is not possible to get pregnant without a man. You cannot fertilise an egg without sperm and as yet I don't think anyone has come up with a synthetic version thank goodness. A woman still needs her husband's sperm (or a donor) to be able to fall pregnant.

That is the biology lesson for today.

As you were....

Pelican, LOL!
Thanks for adding the sperm lesson to the mix (pun intended)!
I had forgotten to add it to my lesson above- which you will notice that our resident 'expert' Vanna, failed to comment on.

RObert, again, I am sorry for upsetting you. I realise you must have had a bad experience with CSA and family courts etc, and you don't usually have a go at all women because of that.
I will try not to lump you in with Antiseptic and formersnag next time.

I think I have said about all I can on this sexuality thread now.
I'm thinking about starting one on 'Feminism - a Lifestyle'.
What do you reckon Pelican?

Suzie thanks.

Pelican it occurred to me that there has been some big progress on same sex conception using material from skin cell's to try and produce female sperm and male egg's. From what I've seen the female sperm line of research has progressed further than male egg's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_technology
http://www.eggandsperm.org/ (a site for those who don't approve)

R0bert

"I'm thinking about starting one on 'Feminism - a Lifestyle'.
What do you reckon Pelican?"

heh heh Suze. You are one brave woman - batten down the hatches.

RObert
That is indeed a scary thought - very brave new world and adds a whole new dimension to GMO. :)

Although I note the article is listed as not citing any reliable references or research sources.

pelican I've not seen any indisputable references but I've not seen anything to leave me particularly suspicious of the claims.

On the face of it I can see a lot more pressing needs in terms of medical and reproductive research but sometimes stuff like that actually has some really valuable spin off's. Researchers trying to work out how to do one thing have a habit of learning a while lot of other things along the way.

R0bert

Pelican,
Thanks for the lecture about my past life that you know nothing about (it must be your amazing university education that enables you to do this).

So could you point to the literature published by an academic feminist in an Australian university that says something good about the male gender.

A lot is written about “males” and “men” by these academics, but no one on this forum at least has found any such documents that say one good thing about males.

I am also quite aware that sperm is used in IVF clinics, and I am also aware that sperm is mixed with animal eggs to test it (but this practice is not classed as a form of bestiality by IVF clinics), am I am aware of the plethora of drugs given to women during IVF, and I am aware that there are a growing number of IVF clinics that now have single women as their main cliental.

Awaiting your list of Australian academic feminists who have published articles that say something good about the male gender (best of luck in finding any).

It seems that the Chemical Companies are once more trying to change 1000's of years of Female Evolution.
Could yet be a dollar in it !
If anything, our society limits women in their access to sex to one partner while ovulating, and a few days later it is limiting their easily excitable male partners to the same restrictions .
After a hot week it's a strange mix of Love and lust that somehow seems to get most of us happily through the rest of the month.

Vanna, could you show me statistics that prove that single women (that is, those with no partner at all) are the main clientèle of any IVF clinic?
I am a midwife and have never heard of this claim before.

As to your bizarre constant demands for a <" ...list of Australian academic feminists who have published articles that say something good about the male gender (best of luck in finding any)."

Why would a lecture or paper from any University academic need to say positive things about males? Under what context or lesson would this sort of comment be appropriate?

Have you any lists of Australian academic chauvinists who have any positive things to say about females at all?

Kartiya Jim

Invent an illness sell more drugs: Drug giant's secret love-in with Aussie sexperts

" About a month ago sex experts across Australia received an email inviting them to a "consulting session" in Sydney, offering to pay $1,000 each, and shout them a feed, flights and free accommodation.

"As a medical professional with a high media profile…you are invited to attend a Media Consulting Session to discuss a common yet relatively unrecognised medical condition affecting women called Hypoactive Sexual Desire Disorder (HSDD)" said the email, which I obtained.

The session's aim was two-fold; first to "share with you an overview of this highly prevalent medical condition (HSDD affects up to one in 10 women) and the science behind it." Certainly, the company knows a thing or two about the science behind HSDD: it is helping to construct it.

One of the key pieces of "scientific" evidence behind the claim that up to 1 in 10 women suffer with HSDD is a Boehringer-funded study run by five scientists with financial ties to it, including a company employee.

The second aim outlined in the email to Aussie sex experts was to "seek your input and advice on how you and others in the media may respond to and report on the issue, how best to communicate about the condition and its management, and the type of information and resources that will assist in accurate and balanced reporting on HSDD." "

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2927592.htm

Will they be able to play the piano no hands after dropping a couple of tabs?

Or offer the sort of rigidity when middle aged that can enable your 'partner' to reach the highest shelf in the cupboard?

Take the money and go see if a woman's sexuality can be more like a man's.

vanna
Academics who have written positive things about males? Well I studied Science and then did politics and much was positive about the research and contributions of various male and female scientists as well as men and women who fought for freedom throughout history. I could list them all here but would quickly meet the world limit.

I always become suspicious when people make blanket statements about any one group whether they be feminists, men, Muslims, Christians or flower arrangers. Most feminists I know believe that gender equity and fairness has be inclusive of men whether it be via more flexible work and family arrangements or more equity in the Courts in relation to marriage breakdown and child custody. We can all cherry pick the worst of feminist literature and equally the worst cases of misogynistic cultures to paint men as all-bad.

You make broad sweeping negative statements about feminists casting all men in an evil light, yet are doing exactly the same vis a vis feminism.

If you want to continue to believe there is a feminist hate conspiracy against men, I suspect there is probably nothing anyone, least of all me, could say or write to convince you differently -so be it.

Pelican,
I would think that you can’t list any academic feminists from Australian universities that have published an article that says even one good thing about the male gender.

Many thousands of words have been written by academic feminists in universities about “men”, with nothing positive said about men.

For example: - “Why not give men a drug to settle them down?”

This is a totally demeaning and denigrating portrayal of men by an academic feminist employed by TWO universities, when every university in this world that I am aware of has been built by men, nearly every textbook has been written by men, and men pay most of the costs of running universities because they pay most of the personal income tax.

I wonder how "men" manage to do all that (and much more) when they are so sexually preoccupied (or portrayed as being sexually preoccupied).

The continuous negativity towards men and the deionization of men is the main characteristic of feminism, with equality being used as the smokescreen.

Still waiting on your list of academic feminists from any Australian university have have published an article with just one good thing said about the male gender (and best of luck in finding those elusive “equality” feminists).

I've been trying to find a couple of references to answer vanna's request and have been surprised how difficult it has been. I've found a few pieces, one which I lost the link to which discussed the problem's faced by men who support feminism (mostly flack from feminists) and two others by Michael Flood who describes himself as pro-feminist which clearly rejected some of theme's which I kept finding in the other material I've looked at (but I strongly disagree with some of Flood's core beliefs).

http://www.europrofem.org/contri/2_04_en/en-gend/03en_gen.htm
http://www.xyonline.net/content/pro-feminist-publishing-delights-and-dilemmas

Masculinity is mentioned a lot in the material I found but from what I've seen it does appear to be almost always in a negative context. I found a lot of that but I did not see any examples where what was defined as masculine (and I question some of those definitions) was cited as a positive characteristic.

Perhaps it's the search terms I'm using or the material I have access to.

I think that any genuine attempt to examine issues of gender would find both negatives and positives in masculinity. Just as there are things men can learn from women there are things women can learn from men. In my search to answer vanna's question I did not see a single example of that (within the criteria of looking for academic works).

One piece (not Australian) had some interesting material around the idea that "the ‘men as problem, women as victim’ discourse continues to hold sway" http://www.siyanda.org/docs/esplen_greig_masculinities.pdf

"The need to move beyond generalised, binary stereotypes of female victims and male perpetrators was a recurring issue in discussions.
Some participants argued that the image of men as perpetrators of wrongs, an image that pervades much of the ‘gender and development’ literature, inhibits men from accessing services and undermines men’s motivation to engage with gender equality initiatives, especially when they may themselves be marginalised and poor"

R0bert

vanna
Just look around you at the women you know. Are they all man-haters? Are all the men you know women-haters?

Bettina Arndt is just one feminist academic who espouses equality for women while at the same time has a genuine and sincere desire and care for men. Most women do.

One can be pro-feminism or more importantly anti-patriarchy without being anti-male.

Pelican

"Just look around you at the women you know. Are they all man-haters? Are all the men you know women-haters?"

It isn't enough to ask whether these people openly hate the other gender. We should also ask whether they support systems and understandings that are unfair on either gender. Do they have an unhelpful interest in arranging things to suit themselves and their gender? I suggest that treating some people's libido as normal and expecting others to take drugs that interfere with their body's natural libido, purely for the benefit of the other gender is an example.

I agree benk. I am not into chemical intrusion on that basis either except in the most extreme of cases such as pedophilia as already mentioned, and that is done on a voluntary basis. I took that libido comment as made in humour.

I wonder if all these men who worry that the world is all being re-designed to advantage women ever stood up for women when it was very much the other way. Were there male academics writing positive things about the role of women? Some men in the 70s even got up in arms about domestic violence shelters purporting that what was between a man and wife was for the home, despite in some cases numerous beatings and little assistance from law enforcement. Rock and a hard place for many women.

I've found the other link I'd misplaced which does have some positive things to say about men (those men identified as pro-feminist). It also provides some interesting discussion about the issues facing them within the feminist movement

http://www.thescavenger.net/feminism-a-pop-culture/feminist-men-friend-or-foe-83456.html

Pelican I'd be surprised if the same level of across the board negativity about feminity existed in academic writing at any point in modern times as I've seen about masculinity in most of the feminist material I've read trying to answer vanna's question. Perhaps that comes from defining masculinity on the basis of what they don't like.

I suspect that it's much more likely that material would reinforce traditional stereotypes (women are good nurturers but not so good at traditionally male roles) rather than a wholesale attack on all things feminine and discource on why feminity needs to be transformed (or ditched) so that women become more masculine.

The women I know are not generally haters of men or all things male but there was clear evidence in the material I found that many of those engaged in academic feminist work lean in that direction.

R0bert

"Pelican I'd be surprised if the same level of across the board negativity about feminity existed in academic writing at any point in modern times as I've seen about masculinity in most of the feminist material I've read trying to answer vanna's question. Perhaps that comes from defining masculinity on the basis of what they don't like. "

RObert
Perhaps not so much in recent times now that women are not considered feeble minded. But there is across the board negativity about feminism as we well experience on OLO. There always seems to be a bit of vitriole in the mix among the well reasoned arguments.

You are probably right about what might be seen as anti-male comments coming from the view of what was perceived as 'wrong' with the status quo. Afterall a movement of any sort usually comes from a sense of injustice or inequality, and in this case the patriarchial nature of society was seen as working against the aspirations of many women in those times.

It is difficult to seek change without criticising what is current. Supporting feminism or the notion of better choices for women (and hopefully for men too) by its nature means criticism. I don't think most rational feminists would paint men as inherently evil.

Ideally there would be opportunities for men and women to undertake roles once considered unsuitable. There are certain things women can do better overall and that men can do, but these should not be the benchmark to exclude on the basis of gender. eg. I am quite small and not terribly strong and would not be suitable for a job where heavy lifting was required, but this does not mean other women will be unsuitable. Male nurses are proving equally as capable as women.

pelican we have drifted off topic again :)

"there is across the board negativity about feminism as we well experience on OLO" which is not the same as across the board negativity about femininity. In some cases there may be little difference but I suspect that most of us are able to see some good in the other gender beyond their willingness to support our cause.

Michael Flood gave a summary in the XY piece which I like
"However, pro-feminist men have not done enough to acknowledge men's pain. We have drawn on feminist analyses of men's behaviour and men's institutions and their impact on women, and these have been and continue to be very important. However, such analyses miss important dimensions of men's experience, dimensions that are important for our ability to support men and to inspire men's commitment to gender justice. On the other hand, while mythopoetic and men's rights men have given more acknowledgment of men's pain, they misdiagnose its source as being women or the loss of masculine rights of passage or the success of the feminist movement (and in doing so, they misprescribe the cure)."

I'd suggest from what I've seen of a lot of that feminist analysis of social ill's

"they misdiagnose its source as being men or an excess of masculine rights or the deliberate resistance of the female equality (and in doing so, they misprescribe the cure)."

There are elements of truth but they miss a lot just as those men so against feminism miss a lot of the picture.
R0bert

Pelican,
Bettina Ardnt isn’t an academic feminist in a university. She is a sexologist that runs a practice and she writes for newspapers.

Interestingly you have not mentioned the author as an academic feminist who has written an article that has said something positive about the male gender.

What a pitiful and wretched state the universities are in.

Their research is so minimal that they import everything they use, from the lawnmower to light fittings (and I once knew a cleaner who spent a number of years cleaning inside a university and never once saw a made in Australia sticker).

They cannot fill math and science places, which means Australia has to import more skilled labor, when so many in Australia are unemployed or under-employed.

And then two universities employ an ethicist who has never said one positive word about the male gender (which constitutes 50% of the Australian population).

What a joke to employ the author, and what a joke Australian universities have become.

vanna I've not determined if the author's of an article I found are feminist, pro-feminist or something else but they are from an Australian university, they do discuss gender issues in a way which is clearly supportive of many feminism values and aspects of women's disadvantage (but also point out some of the inconsistancies) and quote Michael Flood quite regularly and do say positive things about men.

http://www.ncver.edu.au/research/proj/nr5011.pdf

It's a discussion on mens shed's and the role they can play in helping men. I've not read it all yet but what I've read so far is good.

R0bert

RObert

I have mentioned and linked to Mens Sheds before. A great idea I reckon and one that should be well funded.

However what was said some months ago by someone on OLO was that it is most difficult to satisfy the criteria and get approval. Maybe any money is reserved for country areas, which could indicate that support and funding is very limited. Perhaps someone in government might comment.

Today I was shocked to learn that Police-Citizens Youth Welfare Associations (PCYC) are self-funding. These organisations are placed in areas of need and do a lot to support youth, including males of course. I think they also provide some child minding. When one thinks about the number of areas in which government wastes money it is rather poor that organisations like the PCYCs that can reduce the social and financial costs of problem youth, go without funding.

Cornflower I've submitted an opening post for a discussion on initiatives to help men. I don't want to further distract this thread on that.

Trying to answer vanna's question has been interesting and a reminder of the different way's masculinity is viewed and lived.

R0bert

vanna
Arndt is an academic, she lectures on human sexuality.

"Interestingly you have not mentioned the author as an academic feminist who has written an article that has said something positive about the male gender."

Because I am not really interested in trolling the internet or my bookshelf to find a positive comment about men from someone that meets your approval as a leading academic/feminist. I don't need to prove anything as unlike you I don't view feminism as an anti-male philosophy. That is your burden to bear.

Pelican,
"Because I am not really interested in trolling the internet or my bookshelf to find a positive comment about men from someone that meets your approval as a leading academic/feminist"

It is ironic that you mentioned "freedom" in an earlier post, and it certainly does appear that academic feminists in Australian universities have nothing but an interest in condemming the male gender in every possible way.

The academic feminist's perception of "freedom" must mean to denigrate, condem, find fault, and discriminate against 50% of the population, without once mentioning anything positive about that 50%.

The author employed by two universities as an ethicist is an example of your freedom.

I'm curious to know who the drug company intends to market this product to; women, or men? Wives, or husbands?
I have to admit (like CJ) being in my fifties, there has been a certain drop in my libido. I suspect this might be of more concern to my wife, than it is to me.
Personally, I find it something of a relief not having to think of sex every 27 seconds.
Every 32 seconds is more than enough for me...

Heh heh Grim.

Every 32 seconds! You must be exhausted. All you men need a good rest and a lie down. :)

<< All you men need a good rest and a lie down. :) >>

Indeed - I'm a great fan of the afternoon "lie down", as is my partner ;)

32 seconds? I'm shamed... it's only about every minute for me. I must be getting old.

"All you men need a good rest and a lie down."

So Pelican has been well trained to think negatively of men in every way possible.

Must have been the training they received while undergoing their university "education."

Probably the most bigoted of institutions in the country would now be a university.

vanna why so negative? Pelican made a friendly joke in response to an earlier joke by Grim.

Your attitude to women is just as bad as (possibly worse) the attitude towards men shown by a lot of those academic feminists you so despise. If they are so bad why are you so desperate to be just like them?

R0bert

Well said RObert. I think Vanna definitely needs to take a Bex. I sympathise with your pain, Vanna.
Seriously folks, who do you think they will market this product to?
Does the alleged low libido bother the women allegedly affected, or their partners more?
If they target their marketing towards the male partners (I definitely think drink spiking will take a new turn) how do the partners sell it to their women?
"Hey honey, I've got something for all those headaches you keep getting!"
What an interesting world it will be.

So vanna, given that you've never been to a university, where did you learn "to think negatively of (wo)men in every way possible"?

Grim

I am so relieved (mentally) to read your post. My libido has been a major cause of adventures and misadventures (not going into detail), but quite frankly I am glad it has at least settled down. Men aren't the only ones who get lead around by their gonads.

I won't be taking any female viagara - well maybe when I'm like 90 - nah, that's a frightening thought.

I am very happy the way I am and no big pharma can change that.

vanna
My only mistake was in assuming a sense of humour - the other men got it. Really you gotta chill out.

But if thinking I am a man-hater who thinks little of men helps you to maintain your rage nothing I or anyone can offer, it appears will detract from your quest.

Good luck, I hope you can find in your heart some way to think more kindly about women at some point in your life journey.

Grim, "I'm curious to know who the drug company intends to market this product to; women, or men? Wives, or husbands?"

I think I answered that on page 1:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10536&page=1

The market is there and it is being driven by the superficial, easily influenced (and desperate, I reckon) women who are already clients for sex tours, creams potions and plastic surgery to recapture youth.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/article-1234779/Cougar-cruise-sets-sail-older-women-look-attract-younger-men.html

The elephant in the room is the raunch culture of the thirty-something age group and beyond who are upset about growing old. These bored middle class career women have money to spend on frivolous pursuits.

It is foolish to pretend that this phenomenon has anything to do with men's demands. In fact there are many women who boast that it is liberating and gets even with men. They must mean men who are just as superficial, egocentric and bored as they are.

That is equality of the sexes isn't it, that some women are just as stupid as some men? Goodness there are even some old male *arts boasting how ready they are for action. Is that a horse in your pocket or a large economy sized bottle of Viagra?

Robert,

You are quite free to look back through my posts to find a single negative comment made about women.

You found it almost impossible to find a single positive comment made by university academics about the male gender.

However, you will not find a single negative comment made by myself about the female gender.

The denigration of the males is not just a part of universities, and you can also try to find something positive said about the male gender by any teacher in a secondary or primary school.

I have looked for some years and found nothing.

Vanna <"You are quite free to look back through my posts to find a single negative comment made about women."

Vanna, I should think most people would recognize feminists (academic or otherwise) as being predominantly female.
It sounds to me like you feel very, very threatened by bright, well educated females?

Given this fact, I would like to point out just a few of your anti-female comments from this thread alone:

Vanna <:
"...single women, who so often complain that they can’t find a man who will “commit”. This basically hides the fact that they can’t find a man who actually likes them."

"...the main principle of feminism, which is to use men for their money and their sperm."

"...the narrow-mindedness of a feminist."

Oh dear me! That doesn't sound very nice does it?

Oh, and no, I haven't found a mention of a female academic that has had anything good to comment about the male gender.

Neither have I found any positive comment written about the female gender by any male academic chauvinist either.

Have you?

vanna: << You are quite free to look back through my posts to find a single negative comment made about women. >>

Hilarious. Vanna's lately learned to express his misogyny indirectly.

However, in his previous incarnations he wasn't nearly as discreet:

When he was HRS: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=30937

When he was Timkins: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=6333

I guess that's why he changes his ID regularly :)

Suzanonline, CJ Morgan
Find the comments where I have said something negative about the female gender (and those who call themselves feminist do not represent men or women, but represent feminists only).

Also find an article published by an academic feminist employed in an Australian university that says something positive about the male gender.

Best of luck in finding either.

vanna, "You found it almost impossible to find a single positive comment made by university academics about the male gender."

I found it easy to find positive comment's about men written by university academics. It's feminist academics from australian universities which was the group I did not do so well. Then you hit issues around the debate of male pro-feminists, Michael Flood being one who may not meet some peoples definition of feminist (being male) but who is not anti-male (although anti much of the men's rights movement).

The piece on Men's shed's included enough references to feminist writing and values that I suspect that the author's would consider themselves feminist or pro-feminist but because their area of research is not gender studies their personal stance on feminism is not the issue.

I was disgusted by the tone of most of the identified feminist academic work I found and some but it's probably fair to assume that the field of gender studies attracts the more extreme feminists. The stances towards men and masculinity found in that material are not reflective of the views of most of the women I know (feminist or otherwise).

It's also reasonable to point out that google is not the best way to deal with a review of academic writing in a field that I don't know well. It was clear that a lot of published feminist academic work was disturbingly anti-male/anti-masculine but that does not mean that there are not substantial bodies of work which I missed, nor does it mean that most feminists but into that extremity.

R0bert

vanna "You are quite free to look back through my posts to find a single negative comment made about women."

I think I've made the point previously about the difference between attacking feminism and attacking women but you do blur that boundary.

Most of the papers I found were critical of masculinity rather than specifically men, does that make them OK or does it make up for the lack of positives about males or masculinity in most of those papers?

If your concern is just with feminists and not all women what positive things do you have to say about women? I don't recall ever seeing a generally positive comment from you about women as a group.

I attempted to answer you call. I was honest about what I found. I did find some material which I think meets the criteria. Now it's your turn.

Write 5 things about women that you respect and value. They don't have to be uniquely female but trait's that are generally more female than male.

Just to clarify breast's count as one, not two for the purposes of my challenge.

R0bert

Robert,
You have not found any negative comments I have made about women.

You only listed one source of comments made by academic feminists that said something positive about men (a dismal record for universities in general).

Good points about women?

When they show honesty, integrity, honour, and are not narrow-minded or discriminatory in their outlook.

Difficult to find any of the above in an academic feminist, and because so many are welcommed into universities, it is now difficult to find any of the above in universities.

Good points about men?

When they show honesty, integrity, honour, and are not narrow-minded or discriminatory in their outlook.

Indeed, pelican - as if those qualities are gender-specific anyway.

Despite vanna's bleating, in my years of studying and working at universities I found those qualities in abundance in both men and women.

Not that vannakins would know - he's never actually been to a university. I would, however, be quite unsurprised if his ex-wife has a degree, probably in education.

Pelican,
I would think many men are showing honesty, integrity, honour, and are not narrow-minded or discriminatory in their outlook.

As I have posted previously, men write and sing the vast majority of the love songs you hear everyday on the radio, they write most of the love poems and love stories, and yhey make most of the love movies, (even the girlie teenage ones).

They have also built every school and university I am aware of, write most of the text books,and pay most of the costs for running those schools and universities.

Typically, it is almost impossible to find one good thing said about the male gender in any article published by an academic.

And that includes academics in the university, secondary school and primary school systems.

Find that article if you disagree.

C J Morgan,

I have undertaken many courses, two through different universities, and I would rank the university courses as being the most expensive and also the worst courses I have undertaken.

Nothing was learnt from the lecturers, and everything I learnt came from the textbooks I was required to purchase.

Even though the universities referred to themselves as being Australian, all required textbooks were imported.

So much for the so called Australian universities.

"Pelican,
I would think many men are showing honesty, integrity, honour, and are not narrow-minded or discriminatory in their outlook."

vanna
You are the one that wrote the above quote in relation to women. It works both ways. You are hell bent on seeing the worst in women, I only pointed out the same applies for men - we are all responsible for who we are and how we behave. That does not change according to gender.

Men have done many wonderful things as have women. We need to appreciate both.

Pelican,
You can look through all of my posts and point out where I have said something negative about women.

You can also point to the article written by any academic that says something positive about the male gender. The education systems portrays itself as being egalitarian, honest and unbiased, so it shouldn't be too difficult to find an academic from a university, secondary school or primary school who has written an article that says something positive about the male gender (amongst the huge number of articles that portay the male gender negatively, the author's articles included).

So, still waiting for that elusive article written by an Australian academic that says something positive about the male gender.

why am I weighing in here? This has to be the most irritating and half-baked discussion on OLO.

I'm with DougtheBear, just imagine the improvement to our civilisation if men could take pills to 'calm them down'.

Perhaps we wouldn't be in the position we are in currently, where condoms are distributed to 15-year-olds, and girls are encouraged to become 'available' to win over half-hearted pimply boys.

Sex is used as a weapon by BOTH sexes. Unfortunately, it's a war that no-one can win. I wish we could lay our weapons down.

Young people should not be encouraged to drag each other all over town during their 20s... and then be expected to cobble together a functional and happy love/family life in their 30s.

Our society should do so much better with the sex/love equation.

If women do have poor libidos (I've never noticed one) perhaps poor emotional treatment over a lifetime is at the heart of it.

floatinglili,
"half-hearted pimply boys"

It must be these times that nothing is ever positively said about the male gender, men or boys.

I wonder where this type of thinking originated?

vanna
You are being a bit disengenuous. You raised the issue of the value of women in terms of when "They" show respect, integrity etc. When I raised the same importance in men displaying the same qualities in your list you rattled off all the achievements of men (as if that can be generalised) while ignoring the contributions of women.

The implication was clearly a negative about women because you separate the need for respect and integrity in men as somehow different.

I provided Bettina Arndt as an example of one feminist I know who writes about men's needs as well as womens, and you dismissed her because her example does not suit your negativity towards women.

You want to see negative in women/feminism and you will always see it because it is where you want to be.

I am arguing let the shackles of bitterness go, and get out and treat women with equal respect, integrity and care, as you would any man, and you may be surprised at the outcome.

pelican: << You are being a bit disengenuous. >>

Who? Not our vannakins?

Never!

Hey cornflower, did you 'answer' that question (as a marketing guru charged with the task of selling this product) or did you just offer your opinion on the answer?
As for old *arts bragging about being 'ready' I do hope you weren't referring to me. I said (JOKINGLY) that whereas young men (allegedly) think about sex every 27 (or so) seconds, us old guys are (blessedly) less afflicted; we only think about sex every 32 seconds or so.
That's a joke.
In truth, I bet sometimes I can go a whole minute without having a thought about sex intrude on my ruminations.
Legend has it Pythagoras exclaimed "I'm free!" (from such thoughts)... When he was only 82...
Does that sound like I'm bragging about being 'ready'? Every 32 seconds? Talk about premat... oops. premature ejac... oops.
Hey Sev, I still luv ya. Although I may never forgive you for the mental image of runner (who bears a startling resemblance to John Howard, in my mind) in a bikini.
Vanna, I really think you should start your own thread, and tell us what it really is that bothers you. You're clearly carrying around a lot of baggage.

Pelican,

You still haven't found a feminist employed by an Australian university that has published an article that says something positive about the male gender.

I don't think there is such an article.

What a tribe academics must be. They import everything they use with funding from the Australian taxpayer, then they can't write anything positive about 50% of Australia's population. And even some of them think they are ethicists.

Also I don't often read Bettina Arndt, but I believe she has never called herself a feminist.

She seems to like men.

One wonders what happens in a mature Lesbian Relationship - does the amount of sex received and given go up to that higher frequency often desired by males, or is there a "female" and lower level of sexual activity the norm ?

Vanna: Maybe it would help matters if you understood that feminism opposes a system that has always priveleged males over females, not individual men (except the most brutal types). Not all women are feminists and feminism hasn't been fought by women alone; there are insightful men who have helped too because they have shared the interest in social justice. Feminism has fought for the human rights of women (and as a corollory - men); children (both female and male) and has also fought on behalf of people disadvantaged by slavery and poverty as well.

Men who helped structure the very foundations include:

Thomas Wentworth Higginson, who stated:

"I do not see how any woman can avoid a thrill of indignation when she first opens her eyes to the fact that it is really contempt, not reverence, that has so long kept her sex from an equal share of legal, political, and educational rights…[a woman needs equal rights] not because she is man’s better half, but because she is his other half. She needs them, not as an angel, but as a fraction of humanity."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Men_and_feminism

Or you could read John Stuart Mill:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Subjection_of_Women

All of history has been written with men at the centre; their achievements are well documented. What more do you expect feminists to add, when we are still documenting womens participation in historical events.

Your demand is akin to demanding that slaves acknowledge the achievements of slave owners; with the codicil that if they refuse to praise their oppressors they shouldn't be freed from bondage.

You could make the same demand of women in Afghanistan - even there (as here) women have sons and spouses who they love dearly. Why does that love negate their need for the same human rights as those to which male citizens are entitled?

Pychme,
You still haven't found a single document written by a feminist employed in a university in Australia that has said one good thing about the male gender.

I don't believe such a document exists, and the education system is a highly feminist system that would now have to be one of the most bigoted and prejuiced systems operating in Australia.

As far as male oppression of women - highly debateable, when women out-live men in every country.

In general terms, men have provided for women and sacraficed themselves for women right through history.

"Also I don't often read Bettina Arndt, but I believe she has never called herself a feminist.
She seems to like men."
Congratulations Vanna; you've found yourself an unbeatable (and unwinnable) argument. Neither Pynchme or anyone else can find a feminist article which praises men, because according to you, that would prove they weren't really feminists.
I was under the impression feminism was about female equality. Do you find it impossible to like someone that you feel equal to, or do you need to feel superior to them?
As for your statement:
"In general terms, men have provided for women and sacraficed (sic) themselves for women right through history."
Throughout history, the very most dangerous (and most natural) thing anyone could do was have a baby. Death in childbirth was commonplace, without the ongoing commitment required of a mother.In a hunter gatherer society, having to lug a child around would have to lessen your survival chances dramatically. I believe this is where the male role of protector clearly began; and the glamour of a 'noble, brave and selfless' mate prepared to risk his life for his mate.
Childbirth has never been seen as glamorous; or noble or brave, strangely.
To my mind, it seems only fair that if a woman is prepared to risk her life to have a child, a man should be willing to risk his, to keep it.
It seems to me a great shame that so many men today have lost sight of this simple and obvious truth, and wonder at 'what it means to be a Man'.

vanna: "In general terms, men have provided for women and sacraficed themselves for women right through history"

In general terms that is nonsense.

The patriarchal system has made it possible for men to do what they please within the scope of male culture. That includes war as well as dangerous activity, ignoring one's health care; drinking to excess and so on - contributing to earlier mortality.

Women have been mere appendages to that dominant culture.

However, there are female historians and sociologists, scientists and the like who contribute to the recording of events. No doubt some are feminists.

Why do you need an article by a feminist that specifically praises men ?

What would it do for you?

Grim, Pynchme,
Noted that you still haven’t found a single article written by a feminist employed in an Australian university that says something positive about the male gender.

Typically, these universities have policies regards discrimination (good), but then these universities completely ignore these policies (bad), and allow bigotry, prejudice and narrow mindedness to run rife, as long as that bigotry, prejudice and narrow mindedness is applied to the male gender.

As for men being over-sexed, almost everything many women wear is designed to attract male attention, from high heeled shoes (push out the buttocks and the breasts) to red lipstick (and perhaps we best not mention the reasons for that on this forum).

I agree with grim ,but things have changed and our intellects and freedom have allowed our lifestyles and attitudes to sex and domestic life to wander away from our biological roots it seems.

Grim your analysis pretty much sums it up. You won't get a sensible response only the same old mantra about feminist articles as if feminists are all about putting down men - but good effort on your part.

Bettina Arndt has always described herself as a feminist even though she sometimes gets herself into hot water with some feminists in the same way that Helen Garner has which only goes to demonstrate feminism is a broad church.

I like Bettina Arndt because she puts gender and discrimination issues on an equal footing which is afterall what feminism was about - equality means equality for men as well.

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s252949.htm

Vanna of course won't take Arndt's own declaration as evidence of anything, but I thought others might have an interest.

I think you and Grim are about right Pelican.

I don't admire Bettina Arndt because I've found inaccuracies borrowed right off the MRA sites in her articles. She's too conservative by far and IMO panders to male approval while failing to address institutional and systemic issues. However as you say, feminism is a broad church.

Vanna: <"As for men being over-sexed, almost everything many women wear is designed to attract male attention, from high heeled shoes (push out the buttocks and the breasts) to red lipstick...">

So the alternative to dressing attractively would be to be sneered at for being a hairy, legged man-hating frump ? There is nothing wrong with wanting to be attractive to the opposite sex - after all that's the birds and the bees isn't it. I would say that males often take some trouble with their appearance too, though not many yet preen as much as females. In any case it doesn't automatically signal that the groomed up person is up for any one who presents her/himself though. Such is life.

I rather like this transcript of a speech by Andrea Dworkin, which she delivered to an audience of 500 men:

http://www.nostatusquo.com/ACLU/dworkin/WarZoneChaptIIIE.html

In one part she says, "... I don't believe that 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."

Seeing as how you Vanna are determined to portray yourself and the male sex as victims, you might as well have a good look at what she has to say about your injured sensibilities and go to town.

If you still have the courage and patience to read on, this book review is very interesting to read:

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v23/n17/jenny-diski/oh-andrea-dworkin

Pynchme,
Bettina Arndt isn't an academic employed in a university at taxpayer's expense (EG "working for the newspapers and working from home and so on". http://www.abc.net.au/pm/stories/s252949.htm)

This might be the reason why she has sometimes said some positive things about men.

Still nothing positive said about men by an academic employed in a university.

When academics, (and not just feminists) can’t think of anything positive to say about men it looks quite grim for them in terms of bigotry, prejudice and discrimination.

Andrea Dworkin was of course a real honey and everyman’s “dream girl”, but she continuously claimed that she had been drugged, beaten and raped by her heterosexual husband, and she based much of her feminist career on these claims.

It was put to her on many occasions that she should take her claims to the police so that they could investigate the matter, but she never did. Eventually most publishers in the US would not publish her work for fear of libel.

Pynchme
I have to show my ignorance and say I had to google MRA sites and only came up with the Motorcyle Riders Association or Monster Removals and I don't think either is what you meant - what is MRA. :) (*blush*)

I don't get the impression that Bettina Arndt seeks the approval of men, her recent comments about sex were largely misrepresented IMO. Arndt deals in human sexuality which also by nature has to include men, and feminism cannot progress to more equal relationships without including men in the future. I think Bettina gets the balance right if not always perfect.

pelican I assume that MRA refers to Mens Rights Agency a not for profit organisation predominately dealing with the issues men face in family law issues. Like most advocacy groups they tend to focus on the issues and perspectives of those they support.

Whilst they cop a lot of flac from some quarters in my dealings with them (some years ago) I found that the approach was very much about equality, not an attempt to gain an unfair advantage over women.

I suspect that they save quite a few lives and by giving men with no-where else to turn helpful advice and someone who will listen some sense of hope in what can seem to be a hopeless situation.

R0bert

Thanks RObert - that puts it in context.

My personal view is that the feminist ideal (choice and equality) cannot be achieved separate from men. Choice and equality for one cannot come without the same for the other.

Family Law is finally viewing the parenting role as a shared one with better results for men in most cases.

It's a bit like politics. A leader cannot rule at the behest of one sector or class at the expense of the others. Mutual win-win situations where there is no gross unfair advantage always work best. As far as gender goes much of how work/family/leisure/parenting is arranged is up to the people involved.

Men and women should be working together to ensure that choices are supported as best as is practicable.

Sorry Robert - it's not that. If an agency just responded to mens need for support during a crisis I wouldn't write about it so.
Apologies to both of you for not spelling it out: Men's Rights Activist. I haven't yet seen any that aren't anti-feminist groups. They are all linked particularly to groups in the US.

This page gives an outline of faboured MRA topics:

http://www.mensrights.com.au/page24e.htm

Such groups are written about here:

http://www.xyonline.net/category/article-content/mens-fathers-rights

http://www.xyonline.net/content/fact-sheet-3-how-fathers%E2%80%99-rights-movement-undermines-protections-available-victims-violence-

"Men’s rights and fathers’ rights advocates do not accurately
represent the views of the majority of divorced and separated men.
While many men (and women) find the processes of divorce and
separation to be hurtful, only a minority subscribe to the aggressively conservative agendas of anti-feminist men’s groups. In addition, there are other fathers’ organisations which promote positive and collaborative visions of men’s relations with women and children, such as Dads and Daughters in the USA and FathersDirect in the United Kingdom."

http://www.xyonline.net/sites/default/files/Flood,%20Backlash%20-%20Angry%20men.pdf

On Bettina Arndt:

http://www.greenleft.org.au/node/21526

Dishonest (one example):

http://raedical.wordpress.com/2009/03/04/note-to-bettina-arndt/

Ultra conservative:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/shacking-up-is-hard-to-do-why-gillard-may-be-leery-of-the-lodge-20100628-zexr.html

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2940828.htm

http://hoydenabouttown.com/20100629.7746/oh-please-give-us-some-credit/

Pynchme,
"It's the women who end up stranded when they spend years in a succession of de facto relationships waiting for Mr Not Ready or Mr Maybe to make up his mind."

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/shacking-up-is-hard-to-do-why-gillard-may-be-leery-of-the-lodge-20100628-zexr.html

So its the man's fault yet again.

Seems to be the fashion to blame men for anything and everything.

In your furious research, you still haven't found a single academic employed by an Australian university, who has said a single positive word about the male gender.

Seems like bigotry and prejudice to me.

Hi Vanna,

It wasn't "furious research" it was Google and sites with which I am pretty familiar.

Btw the purpose of the post was to show Pelican what I was talking about with the term MRA.

I already told you that expecting feminists to sing praises of men (though as I said, some in the usual course of their academic endeavours would have done and I know plenty of feminists, including myself, who are full of love and praise for the men in their lives and some in their workplaces - depends on the man) both misunderstands what feminism is about (systemic change) and is akin to expecting American negroes to iterate the accomplishments of plantation owners or women from Afghanistan to glorify the Taliban.

You haven't said btw why it's important to you.

Pynchme I'd be more inclined to agree if I saw the same sorts's of criticism of the mothers groups (or some of the feminist groups) coming from Flood and others.

The mothers groups have run a very nasty long term campaign to try and stop shared care and get a return to maternal bias using the worst examples they can find of behavior by a small number of men yet either ignore or excuse abuse when it's the mother doing so.

After my attempt to answer Vanna's question I'm a bit to familiar with the term "validating women's subjective experience" when it comes to feminist research and the sheer volume of the nastyness about men and masculinity in a lot of feminist material, even you posted a quote "It is because we believe in your humanity, against all the evidence" holding it up as a good thing. The sheer dishonesty and blinkered thinking in the "against all the evidence" part of that is staggering.

I'd prefer the approach which Pelican suggests where we work together to better outcomes for all but I don't accept that it's valid to thrash the men's group's and especially MRA for their failings while ignoring the efforts of their counterparts.

R0bert

Pynchme,
Why is it important?

A quick review of the articles written by the author shows that they have never said a single positive word about the male gender.

Their articles are filled with qualitative research, and contain generalised, denigrating comments about men, and the latest picture that the author tries to paint of men is that they are pre-occupied with sex.

While not having anything positive to say about the male gender, the author is used as a medical ethicist by TWO universities, namely the Monash University and the University of Melbourne.

These universities have policies regards discrimination, and also policies regards research.

In terms of following these policies, the author receives 0 out of 10.

In terms of the importance that these universities must place upon their own policies, then these universities must place no importance upon them at all, and their policies are there to “look good”, while not actually being followed.

I wouldn’t place any trust or value on any article from the author, or anyone else from Monash University or the University of Melbourne.

Thanks Pynchme for the links. I had a quick read-through yesterday as well of some of the MRA stuff.

Arndt has an eccentric way of putting her views at times which makes it easy for her to be misinterpreted. The sex controversy was a good example. She wasn't telling women to lie back and think of England as some critics have written or just put up with sex, her premise was clearly if the woman was receptive to working through the sex issues.

The Green Left article derides Arndt for her stance on child custody issues. I cannot see a problem with shared parenting arrangements or taking the view that the mother is not always the best parent. I would rather Judges take an individual approach to each case rather than a strict gender line one way or the other.

Arndt may have some old fashioned ideas about some issues like child care but many women feel uncomfortable with the institutionalisation of childcare, the lack of choice for women or men to stay at home due to economic pressures and one-sided policy geared to working families. This does not mean one is anti-feminist, I kind of feel an empathy with Arndt on that issue

Pynchme, "I already told you that expecting feminists to sing praises of men (though as I said, some in the usual course of their academic endeavours would have done and I know plenty of feminists, including myself, who are full of love and praise for the men in their lives and some in their workplaces - depends on the man) both misunderstands what feminism is about (systemic change) and is akin to expecting American negroes (sic) to iterate the accomplishments of plantation owners or women from Afghanistan to glorify the Taliban."

Conceding that a few Australian men might pass muster - no doubt through their exposure and re-training by their feminist 'partners' - while insinuating that Australian men as a gender are no better than slavers or the Taliban is the sort of statement one might expect from an Eighties radical feminist. However very few Australian women would agree with that jaundiced opinion of the men in their lives or men as a gender.

Your unnecessary, objectionable statement is characteristic of the extreme, men-hating 'feminism' I abhor and the sort that most Australians, women and men, would avoid like the Plague.

Cornflower,
I once heard it from someone very high up in the university system.

Saying any positive words about the male gender would be “approving men’s violence against women”.

So now there is no academic employed in an Australian university who has written an article that says one good thing about the male gender (or no one can seem to find such as article), and no academic can give any words of praise to men, only words of condemnation and denigration.

That is the type of thinking that fills our inglorious, bigoted, sexist, prejuiced and feminist education system.

vanna, "So now there is no academic employed in an Australian university who has written an article that says one good thing about the male gender"

That's not what the challenge was. You specifically asked for articles by academic feminists from Australian Universities, I found material published by staff of universities which had good things to say about men, what I did not find was material where the author was clearly feminist and did so. Don't misrepresent that. Michael Flood clearly identifies his support of feminism and is only not specifically a feminist because the dispute over a male being feminist and he has some good things to say about men (but by his own admission has not said so often enough). The shed piece was written by Australian University academics.

My recollection is that Dorothy Scott who was involved in an important DV study (http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/dom/heady99.htm) had a history in feminist work and that work while not making value judgments about either gender certainly was not anti-male.

R0bert

Cornflower,

Agreed.

When pynchme praises men it usually has the distinct smell of statements like "I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black."

"and is akin to expecting American negroes to iterate the accomplishments of plantation owners or women from Afghanistan to glorify the Taliban."

I'd missed that earlier. Again the extremely low view some hold of men is neatly summarised. Add that one to the earlier quote

The vast majority of men who treat women well are condemned as no better than slave owners or deadly religious extremists. The plight of the modern woman is portrayed as being as bad as a slave in the south many years ago or of a woman who could be stoned to death for not complying with accepted "moral" behaviors.

Keep in mind the writers this is about are by and large on the public payroll supposedly engaged in legitimate research which potentially influences public policy and is often portrayed as fact.

Any genuine body of academic research on gender issues would find some good things to say about males and masculinity just as the writers manage to find good things to say about females and femininity.

Instead what we find is clear statements of research goals to "validate women subjective experience's" and the doctoring of results by the application of "feminist analysis" when the results don't fit the message.

Pynchme step back for a bit and think about what you have posted say's about what you have come to accept. You find things to criticise on the men's sites but I'll be very surprised if you can find anything nearly as nasty about the bulk of women on the MRA site attributable to the site owners as you have posted here about men.

R0bert

Robert,
I believe Michael Flood once received a "Toad Award" from an organisation for his negative comments about men.

As regards a "shed", every school and university on this planet has been built by men (as far as I am aware), but the number of academics employed in those schools and universities who have ever published an article that says even one positive word about the male gender is almost 0.

If no academic ever said a positive word about negroes, or Jews or Asians etc then they would be classed as bigots.

They are also to be classed as bigots for never saying one positive word about the male gender.

"As regards a "shed", every school and university on this planet has been built by men (as far as I am aware)"

The majority of buildings have been built mainly by men mostly nurtured and raised by women.

Those gender roles made a lot of sense before the advent of modern technology, power tool's, lifting equipment etc, not so much now.

The times are a changing vanna, building sites are still not flooded with women but they are there and increasing in numbers. Child care is still mostly done by women but more men are doing it now.

So what do you hope to achieve by your posts?

R0bert

>> So what do you hope to achieve by your posts? <<

That's what I have been wondering. Women are now in many trade professions and men in what was traditionally considered the feminine sphere of work in nursing and other caring professions.

There has been a 50/50 ratio of Architects, Landscape Architects, Town planners since the 80's and to an increasing extent, engineers. The buildings to which Vanna is referencing are often designed by women and, as R0bert has stated, new modes of building means there are women working alongside men in the more outdoor trades. The heavy lifting required of nurses has always been there, although now the nursing profession has machinery as well as the welcome presence of male nurses.

It is about working together, no more male/female apartheid, Vanna. Go outside, drive along a road, notice that many of the road workers wearing hardhats and fluoro vests are female.

Just in case you have failed to notice, even our Prime Minister is a woman and she's not even a lesbian!

To reiterate, what is the point you are trying to make?

The argument doesn't make sense to me - you think women have contributed nothing to society but then you are critical of feminists who want women to contribute on a more equal playing field.

I really don't get it.

Robert,
I’ve worked in a number of different industries, and few women apply for trade jobs, or if they do, very few continue at those trade jobs.

Some of my training has been in productivity, and I would think there are severe productivity issues in universities and in education in general.

Maths and science have declined to critical levels, and even English is in major decline.

If a school or a university was a company, then the people denigrating males would be sacked. Few companies would tolerate it, as it would be reducing workforce moral reducing productivity.

Lucky for many teachers and university lecturers they are not getting performance pay.

"Denigrating" males now, Vanna? You appear to have shifted the goal posts again.
You must have made the claim that 'academic feminists' have nothing good to say about men (and if they do, they're not really academic feminists) about 50 times, it feels. Now it's 'denigrating' males.
For literally thousands of years, women have been actively discouraged from higher education, trade schools and engineering pursuits, and you complain that women have made few if any contributions in these areas.
Well, duh.
As I understand it, the most recent statistics show that girls are outperforming boys in schools.
Feeling threatened, Vanna?

Cornflower: <"Conceding that a few Australian men might pass muster - no doubt through their exposure and re-training by their feminist 'partners'">

Now for all you know he might have been the smart one who married a feminist so that he could enjoy all the advantages you blokes say that female homemakers have always reveled in.

Cornflower and Robert:

I have explained that feminism opposes the patriarchy - which is a social and cultural system - a way in which society is organized to privilege masculinity (and it's constraints on men, imposed by more powerful males).

I'm not all that old yet in my lifetime have been denied entry to University despite having higher marks than my male counterparts; unable to have a bank account without my father as signatory; unable to be in a pub unescorted by a male; regularly paid less than males I mentored and supervised; unable to obtain a mortgage without my spouse regardless of my income - but it's not just about my story; it's that the story is historical, constant, repeated in other cultures and continuing. Unless you've lived on my side of the fence, please don't negate my lived experience of disadvantage and knowledge of the disadvantage of others under a patriarchal system by claiming that attempts to enforce dependency are not oppressive.

Feminist enquiry brought to light domestic violence, child abuse and rape. Meanwhile the masculine-culture-in-charge has ignored, further victimized or minimized rape (females, males, children). I can still pick up the paper and read of someone bashed or murdered every day. One third approx of those are women; most often killed by someone they know and in their home, where they should be safest. The remainder are mostly killed by strangers, usually men. Female offenders account for about 1/10 of the violence. Nevertheless in the past few decades we have seen rates of murder, assault and suicide decline and male longevity increase. It is very heartening to see that most of the backlash is comandeered by a declining number of old blokes while young fellows wonder what you're all sooking about.

By the way, what you will find on feminist sites are sections such as "Bonza Blokes"; male posters discussing issues with feminist bloggers and so on. In contrast, what you'll find on MRA sites is an endless litany of 'the bitch dun took the kids and all my money'. You'll also find comments that will curl most decent people's hair - absolute hate in the coarsest language about women as individuals, as well as feminism - never reflecting on WHY feminism came into being.

You'll also find advocates of having the age of consent lowered - and blaming women for "putting thousands of men in gaol" for exercising their 'natural attraction to nubile young bodies'. (see Bob and also, link below):

http://www.the-spearhead.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1173&start=100

I have seen site comments celebrating the death of baby girls; one vented rage and hatred at little Jon Benet Ramsey. If you can find a single female site or commentator who celebrates the death or rape of boys and men - please direct me to it and I will lobby vigorously against it.

pelican: Re Arndt.

We didn't want our children cared for day to day by anyone but ourselves, so childcare wasn't something we wanted; but I understand it's vital for some other people.

Bettina Arndt is linked very strongly to the MRA groups - those groups (please read the information provided previously) are linked around the world - UK, USA, Canada and Australia. They link to each other to form a network. Actually the network is large but the membership is pretty small all things considered - seems like mostly older men.

A network is good - if they talked about legal issues; mens hurt; how to cope in positive ways; good parenting etc. However they rarely do that - individual posters sometimes offer good advice to others, but mostly they make false claims such as that DV is 50/50; they want age of consent lowered; no-fault divorce changed; low and no child support; women who report crimes gaoled if the claim is not proven (not false; just not proven - and only 1-4 % ever reach a conviction at court. Most never get reported and fewer make it as far as court). They give advice on how to harass women through the legal system.

They also spend a lot of time raging about feminism of course. There is no commitment to building anything better or doing anything different, only agitation for a return - enforced if necessary - to some 1950s ideal that didn't exist anyway.

I am all for working cooperatively; but we are never going to get that unless there is fair acknowledgment of - for example, rape and violence. Just pretending it doesn't happen and lying about it doesn't work for me. In a cooperative relationship working for a better society, there is no room for sweeping hurts under the rug and ignoring suffering.

Some people will feel uncomfortable about that; one of them is probably Bettina. Unfortunately for people who feel irked, I am more concerned about victims of crime and what they are experiencing.

Houellebecq: Trying to be relevant by making a foolish comment, as usual.

Pynchme,

I don't know what is meant by a MRA. Could you point to one of these groups in Australia.

You seem to know a lot about MRA's (whatever they are), but still haven't pointed to a single article published by anyone employed in a school or university in Australia that has said something good about the male gender.

To put the matter into perspective, imagine a male who often wrote about gender, but never had anything positive to say about the female gender, and then was employed by TWO universities as an ethicist.

Now take a look at the author's many articles on gender.

I can't find any article written by the author that says anything positive about the male gender, but the author is employed by two universities (Monash University and the University of Melbourne) as an ethicist.

Maybe you can see the full picture now, and not a half-view.

Pynchme how about some specific comment on your own recent negative comments about males and also on the campaign by some in the mothers groups to oppose shared care by playing on fears of child abuse perpetrated by males while ignoring child abuse perpetrated by women.

"Unless you've lived on my side of the fence, please don't negate my lived experience" - that cut's both ways.

So much of what you appear to believe is based around applying feminist analysis to the lived experience of men, eg negating their lived experience.

What's questioned is not generally the lived experience but rather the interpretation that's brought to the discussion.

When it comes to negating lived experience "is an endless litany of 'the bitch dun took the kids and all my money'." hit's the mark pretty well.

I agree that there are some very bitter men around, many with good cause (although that does not excuse the types of thinking or comment you mention) and if feminists had the gut's to stand up more often to those wanting a return to maternal bias and gendered outcomes in family law it would help a lot. Instead what is seen varies from active support to silence but rarely criticism of those tactics.

Most of us are not taliban or slave owners, our humanity is plainly on show for those willing to see it. Some men and some women plumb some vile depths but that does not make it so for most men.

R0bert

Pynchme
Agreed, child care is important but very little is put into policy that makes it easier for SAH parents and child care workers continue to be one of the lowest paid.

Much political energy is directed to working families and economic growth, with sadly some comments from leading feminists like "who would want to stay at home anyway" as if this option not worthy of consideration in policy reform.

While it may not appear so, I do agree with much of your comments. I would hate to be a fly on the wall of some MRA meetings - people's past hurtful experiences shape 'hatreds' as much as anything often at the expense of rational thinking.

Women have been guilty of the same after relationship breakdown, especially if they are the wronged party.

Some level of anger is natural, the danger is if the anger is used to shape policy that works against an equitable and fair outcome for women, men and children.

It is counterproductive if support for men through MRA is provided in an atmosphere of anti-women invective. Human nature sometimes works against the greater good when ego is invovled.

Part of the social evolutionary process has to include honest dialogue (as you rightly point out) but it has be a mutual honesty in ways that highlight disadvantage for men and women in relation to a whole range of areas such as Family Law, DV, Child Custody, child-care and workplace.

Matters of equity should not impact on justic for victims of DV or child abuse. This has to be first priority. Feminism has done much for men as well including moving to a more equal footing in Family Law and shared parenting.

It will be interesting to see in 30 years what form gender discussions take when the old stalwarts are no longer around, including probably most of us on OLO. From my experience as a parent, young girls and boys (Gen Y) are less concerned with equality as it is already assumed.

Pelican,
"equality as it is already assumed."

If this is the case, then there will have to be many more negative comments made about women by academics in universities, to at least equal the number of negative comments being made about men.

That would be equitable.

BTW. Feminism has done as much for Family Law, as it has done for education, and I haven't seen anything in education that shows any signs of improvement.

vanna
"If this is the case, then there will have to be many more negative comments made about women by academics in universities, to at least equal the number of negative comments being made about men. That would be equitable."

Well then keep up the good work vanna, your contributions will no doubt add to your self imposed equity equation

Pelican,
You can find a post where I have said something negative about women.

You can start your search here.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/user.asp?id=54436

You can also find an article written by the feminist employed by two universities that has said something positive about the male gender.

You can start your search here.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/author.asp?id=2093

Ironic in all the articles written by university academics about racism and prejudice and discrimination, some of the most discriminatory and bigoted of individuals in this country are being employed in universities.

Vanna, you're conveniently ingnoring the fact that women have had to endure negative comments for about 2 thousand years; that's why feminism has come to be.
For at least 2 thousand years women have been told:
engineering is a man's job,
'doctoring' is a man's job (but not nursing)
politics is a man's job
building is a man's job
teaching may be a woman's job, but university professor is definitely a man's job (why? Because women had no place a students at a university, much less as lecturers).
And getting back to Bettina, talking about sex was definitely a man's job; a woman's job was to point her toes to the ceiling, and think of England.
You want to talk about equitable, Vanna? The ladies have about 2 thousand years of catching up to do.

Grim,
Who told women that?

Could you find an article written by a university academic that says something positive about the male gender, and not the usual discriminatory, prejudiced and bigoted comments about men that are usually served up by academics, (while some are paid very high salaries I might add).

Grim it depends on what you want to believe.
It can become a pointless round of point scoring but try a rephrase of your points

For at least 2 thousand years men have been told:
engineering is a man's job,
'doctoring' is a man's job (but not nursing)
politics is a man's job
building is a man's job

You might consider who did most of the raising of children. Who instilled values into children at an impressionable age which set the tone for later expectations.

The failing of so much of feminist analysis is that it assumes that women have had no role in society and societies values up until recently, that's not fair to either gender.

Trying to make it about men oppressing women whilst ignoring all the bit's that don't suit is not helping anything, it's not reality and it hinders people learning from the past.

It's a lot like complaining about how the Menz sites are negative about feminists (and in some cases women in general) while being Ok with how overwhelmingly negative much feminist material is about men and masculinity.

Try vanna's challenge and see how much positive material you can find about men (not just men behaving in a feminine manner) from Australian feminist academics. I doubt that there is none but it is disturbing how overwhelmingly negative about men the bulk of the material is.

R0bert

Vanna: I've already posted a link to a resource page that will enable you to find an MRA, or Menz site - but I think you already know where to find them.

The link you posted to the female writer - Did you approve of her essay on Steve Irwin?

Robert: - your recent response demonstrates the reason why honest dialogue is impossible at this stage.

<"You might consider who did most of the raising of children. Who instilled values into children at an impressionable age which set the tone for later expectations.">

That would be something like the women in Afghanistan or elsewhere who raise boys to be proud suicide bombers or who assist in honour killings of their daughters? You've have heard the term, "party to their own oppression." Well there is Western society and a current example in progress.

I expect that in about 30 years we'll have a Taliban/Ivanna equivalent, demanding that feminists from Afghanistan get busy praising Taliban men.

Feminist analysis HAS pointed out exactly how men (everyday men like yourself and Ivanna) ARE exploited in a patriarchy. It's fascinating how you all could direct rage towards and advocate to change the circumstances of - male rape; gaol rape; the way in which boys are socialized into war and violence, but how blokes rarely examine how the system promotes their misuse and destruction. There are at last some great millennium blokes who actually understand how men have been used and abused by the patriarchy.

You ignore how men, in service of the patriarchy, have actively excluded women from jobs: with laws against them obtaining education so that they could be doctors and the like; laws against them patenting their inventions and the social devaluation of homemaking and child rearing. Even now, care functions are regarded as second rate. That's why feminism advocated/advocates for education and skilling of women beyond caring roles - so that they can participate in the economy. Unless they have financial independence, they need to rely on the whimsical benevolence of people who do have an economic share.

"That would be something like the women in Afghanistan or elsewhere who raise boys to be proud suicide bombers or who assist in honour killings of their daughters"

And you have not seen evidence of that or similar I suppose?

"You've have heard the term, "party to their own oppression.", I've heard it but there is a point where decisions about who's doing the oppression become somewhat moot.

It's a self serving farce to decide to blame men while ignoring so much else that is part of history including the significant socialisation that men have been subjected to regarding their role being the provider and protector for wife and children.

"I expect that in about 30 years we'll have a Taliban/Ivanna equivalent, demanding that feminists from Afghanistan get busy praising Taliban men. "

I've not seen vanna demanding that feminists praise murderous bullies, I have seen him point out how overwhelmingly negative feminist comment about men is and make the valid point that if the analyis was in any way fair there would be plenty of good things to say about men.

In your world we may mostly be the equivalent of slave owners or taliban but that does not make it so.

"Feminist analysis HAS pointed out exactly how men (everyday men like yourself and Ivanna) ARE exploited in a patriarchy." - and of course we can expect it to be so much better in a matriarchy.

R0bert

Robert: <"It's a lot like complaining about how the Menz sites are negative about feminists (and in some cases women in general) while being Ok with how overwhelmingly negative much feminist material is about men and masculinity.">

No, not at all comparable Robert.

In MOST cases the menz sites are negative about women in general and feminism specifically. Some Menz sites express glee or determined indifference to female children being raped and killed, along with comments that women should be married to older men and breeding in early teenage years; that rape is a non event ... and there are few or no dissenting voices. Sounds pretty taliban-ish to me.

There is no equivalent whatsoever on any femmo sites.

Feminist material is not negative, much less "overwhelmingly" about men and masculinity. It analyzes the impact of a patriarchal system (which exploits you, but you all are so apparently rewarded in it that you just can't get your brain outside it enough to see what the negative costs are <- and that's where some individuals are likely to attract criticism). There is more than one type of masculinity - but it's up to you blokes to choose how you are going to express your it.

Some men have been hurt in divorce. It's horrible and there are horrible women about. I get that; I agree. However, that is not oppression that affects the majority of men. No men are systematically excluded by law or otherwise from education, earning, from moving freely about, from getting finance; buying a house or car; from applying for any job for which they feel reasonably capable and skilled.

Until recently, women who did not conform to expectations were put into mental institutions. There are still middle aged women walking about who were put into institutions like Rozelle and Chelmsford; women who spoke out about their sexual or other abuse designated as mad. These events are not long ago. Males who were similarly abused typically either sat silently with their pain - turning to drugs and alcohol or killed themselves. That's systematic oppression. That's what feminism opposes.

Robert: <"... and of course we can expect it to be so much better in a matriarchy.">

Except that power according to sex is not the goal is it; so we are unlikely to find out. Holding back half a population (either sex) is not going to take any society very far.

We need a different criterion for according power to people and abiding by their decisions. Currently it's people with massive economic power who seem to exert most influence.

Do you think we could select some issue that we can approach neutrally and that we can work on (like gaol rape, for example) to see what ideas we might have in common as solutions?

Pick an issue if you like.

RObert, I believe the feminist (and certainly Pynchme's) points have been that all society, not just women, have suffered through sexual inequality.
I'd like to issue a counter challenge to you and Vanna, since you put so much stock in the utterings of (paid) university academics; find out who -and when- the first female academic was, then find how many male academics before that time had anything good to say about women -aside from their beauty, grace and desirability.
I would suggest yours would be the larger task, although you should have more luck; in that you'll have many centuries more to cherrypick from.
Addressing the the question of what women teach little boys, it would be impossible in thoroughness to exclude religion at this point. Christianity is every bit as much a patriarchal religion as Islam in foundation, and mothers, I would suggest, have taught their children according to the precepts of their -invariably male- ministers.
Who told women this? According to the 'good books', God did, apparently.
You know, the old man with a beard.

Pynche, "Feminist material is not negative, much less "overwhelmingly" about men and masculinity."

Have you considered what quoting a suggestion that all the evidence is against men's humanity as though it was a good thing or comparing the bulk of men to slave owners or taliban say's about your own views on men.

You've previously referenced material claiming that men lie more than women and assorted other negative views on men. I get the impression that you are so immersed in that stuff that you have become somewhat blinded to just how bad it is.

I searched hard to find some material to shut vanna up on his no positive things to say campaign, I'd not expected it to be a difficult task. Admittedly without a good base knowledge of feminist academic writings, access to academic journal's etc but I'm generally fairly good at tracking down stuff. The nature of what I found shocked me, more subtle than what you claim to have seen on some Menz sites but the closest I could come to meeting vanna's challenge was in regard to men who actively support feminism or who act in a "feminine" manner and some of those pieces (by feminists) then went on to discuss the trouble those men had received from women - http://www.thescavenger.net/feminism-a-pop-culture/feminist-men-friend-or-foe-83456.html was an interesting piece.

Right now I'm much more interested in how you can claim that feminist material is not negative about men while seeming to have no problem with our humanity being questioned or comparing us with slave owners or the taliban than I am in diverting the discussion to gaol rape.

R0bert

Pynchme,
Yoy haven't listed any of the so called MRA sites, and you haven't listed any academic who has ever written an article that says something positive about the male gender.

Almost 100% of what academics write about the male gender is negative of the male gender.

The author refers to a drug she doesn't like, and then tries to infer that men are pre-occupied with sex. She doesn't mention the huge number of drugs and chemicals that have been developed by men that a usefull for women, from fertilisers to antibacterial compounds.

That is now the bigoted, discriminatory nature of so many of these academics employed in universities at the expense of the taxpayer.

Grim

Have been following this thread - to my utter mortification. You have given a fair challenge to R0bert and Vanna - neither of whom have taken the slightest bit of notice.

Pynchme quite sensibly has noted that:

>> Holding back half a population (either sex) is not going to take any society very far. <<

While I am familiar with Vanna/Timkins/HRS determination to cast all feminists in the same light. I am disappointed that R0bert cannot see that feminists are just as diverse in their opinions as in any other human ideology. How he can blame women for all the results of child rearing, particularly in a culture like Afghanistan is astounding. From personal experience I can state that my very distant father had a very negative effect on me and combined with an overprotective mother.... I am still trying to repair the damage.

Pynchme, myself and many others have detailed many times on OLO the negative effects of a patriarchy on men in general. Nor do we want to replace a patriarchy with a matriarchy - that is not at all progressive. What the majority of people want is simple equity of opportunity. What is preventing us from achieving this is the continuation of the "blame game". Now I expect Vanna will never understand that his demands, for which he is always changing the goal posts, will never be met to his satisfaction - or perhaps he does, knowing full well he will never accept anything that is offered. For example Bettina Arndt didn't meet his requirements. Maybe Maggie Thatcher is his ideal - she did not promote a single female politician during all her years of governance.

But R0bert? You are better than this.

Severin ". I am disappointed that R0bert cannot see that feminists are just as diverse in their opinions as in any other human ideology."

I do get that, my post was in response to continual blaming of men for all the ill's of society by a portion of feminists and an attempt to put Grim's comment about what women have been told into a different light. At what arbitrary point do you make the cutoff for blame?

I don't think that either gender can be blamed for the shape of society, I hope my comment makes more sense if put into context with the comments by Pynchme and Grim. Men and women have largely filled the roles that society dictates, both genders have tended to reinforce those roles which for much of history have been shaped by practicalities (and sometimes taken to extreme's by the influence of religion). Biology and technology have shaped the roles far more than anything else.

To identify the cause as oppression of women by men while ignoring so much else is dishonest and harmful to moving forward.

Pynchme might talk about equality etc but at the same time casually equates the majority of men to slave owners or the taliban makes a lie of that.
I'd like an end to the particular strain of feminism that Pynchme and from what I can see a large majority of academic feminists seem to subscribe to while supporting those who genuinely seek equality of opportunity for both men and women.

I'd agree with the assertion that feminism has brought a lot of good changes and highlighted some issues which needed highlighting but some appear to have lost their way. They have become so focused on their hatred of men that any sense of fairness has gone.

It seems to me that those who "cannot see that feminists are just as diverse in their opinions as in any other human ideology" aare not those of us who cab see much good in feminism but also see that some feminists have it horribly wrong.

R0bert

Severin,
A lot of words, but would you like to list any academics from an Australian university who have ever written an article that says something positive about the male gender.

No one can seem to find such an article yet, except something from a rather obscure university campus in Bathurst.

This does put university academics in a rather dim light.

I would think that this article by the author is simply following a tradition (ie. it portarays men negatively, without mentioning any positives).

Severin, "R0bert cannot see that feminists are just as diverse in their opinions as in any other human ideology."

That leaves room for the observation that you might not be at all representative of feminism either, let alone representative of many women. When challenged you reduce your feminism to 'equality' but your rants, for example your present overreaction to RObert, take you a long way from that ideal. Maybe you are rationalising your own 'take' on life through appeals to 'feminism'. Bear in mind that your experience of life is singular, for better or worse and you could be set in your ways.

Regardless of any of that, women are more diverse and have more diverse needs than the sort of 'feminism' you espouse could ever contemplate. Dr Catherine Hakim's preference theory is relevant:

http://personal.lse.ac.uk/hakimc/

Here is the description of what constitutes discrimination from Monash university (that uses the author as an ethicist)

"6.1.1 In general terms, discrimination is any practice which makes distinctions between individuals or groups so as to disadvantage some and to advantage others, on the basis of their status (for example sex or race) or private life (for example, religious or political conviction), or the characteristics generally attributed to persons of that status or private life."

http://adm.monash.edu.au/sss/equity-diversity/equal-opportunity/discrim-procedures.html#BM6_3

The author's numerous maligning, denigrating comments about "men" would definitely be within the area of discrimination, but I doubt very much that Monash university cares in the least.

Cornflower thanks.

Grim, I'd not actually noticed your challenge but having read it I don't consider it valid. A couple of points, it would have to be a academic discipline that had spent a lot of effort in attacking women for the similarity to be relevant and I'm kind of hoping that we can do better than people did in the past. Your posts on this thread seem to be all along the lines of we think that men did this to women in the past so it's ok for women to do it to men now. Most feminists claim to be working towards a better society not a repeat of the mistakes of the past.

I don't care that much about academic feminists other than where their views impact on public policy (or are taken seriously by students). I've highlighted the term academic feminist repeatedly to try and provide a point of distinction, the hatred of men expressed in much of their writings and Pynchme's comments is not in my view normal for a lot of feminists.

Eg whilst Severin and I clash from time to time my overall impression is that she quite likes men.

I don't like the extreme's on either side, the men who blame women for all their woes are no better than the women who blame men for all their woes.

I do find it interesting that I can cause upset by suggesting that women have had a role in shaping society (and unless you consider nurture and early childhood learning to be completely irrelevant women clearly have had a role) yet Pynchme's comments don't seem to warrant comment other than by Cornflower and myself.

R0bert

Vanna: <"The author's numerous maligning, denigrating comments about "men" would definitely be within the area of discrimination, but I doubt very much that Monash university cares in the least">

Sorry but you'd need to point them out. I only saw an article where she felt sad about Steve Irwin's untimely death.

Robert: What are women doing to men that men did to women? Raping them on a regular basis then punishing the victim or ignoring their plight? Lobbying hard to get age of consent lowered so that even youngsters are prey to a system that priveleges rapists over their victims and helps protect men who sexually abuse kids? Are women wahoooing over the deaths of male children or talking about them denigratingly ? Are women lobbying for laws, or making laws or policy, that would systematically prevent men from entering any avenue of education or profession? Have any women done street protests to keep men out of any field of endeavour?

The answers are repeatedly no. Quite the opposite; women (and many feminists) continue to work hard to obtain justice for boys as well as girls.

But what - SOME relatively FEW men have had to adjust to having their automatic ownership of children and assumed 'right' to harass their wives thwarted. Gee how mean.

I don't hate men Robert. Quite the opposite. But I cannot sit quietly and not correct the ideas set down (which if repeated, unchallenged, long enough, become further internalized) that display ignorance and lack of empathy. THAT's the lack of humanity to which I refer - the denial of what women have experienced and the lack of acknowledgment, if not outright resistance, that it's reasonable to object.

cont/d:

If feminists or even a lot of women hated men, don't you think we might see reports by the hour and by the day of men turning up showing gross physical abuse or murdered ? - and wouldn't a lot of women be not only be indifferent about it, but sneer at how stupid/evil those men were to put themselves in that position? Some of us might even get orgasms out of it (as per porn).

Oh, that's right - that's women and girls and boys that are turning up dead and injured every day. No prob. Not your problem anyway is it.

Pyncheme,
I don't rape or pillage. In fact, I often work in a port area and have a security clearance. When I was a cleaner, I also had a high security clearance because I cleaned in a number of high security government offices.

"Quite the opposite; women (and many feminists) continue to work hard to obtain justice for boys as well as girls."

This is rather amusing.

I once had a series of meetings with some teachers of a school where the boys were getting very low marks, (below state average in a state that is beleived to be below world average in a number of areas of education).

At the start of these meetings, all the teachers assured me that they were not feminist and "liked males".

Then they never once said a single positive word about the boy students. The boys were "lazy" or "misbehaved" or were "disruptive" etc.

It appears that the boys were responding to the teachers, and the teachers did not know how to motivate the boys.

The same appears to be occuring in universities, where so many feminist denigrate 50% of Australians, and then wonder why so many people in Australia don't like a feminist.

'Oh, that's right - that's women and girls and boys that are turning up dead and injured every day. '

I always wonder at what point in pynch's head the nice little 'boys' (The innocent) turn into those evil men (The guilty by virtue of their gender). Men often turn up injured and dead too, and as pynch says commonly, more often at the hands of men. But the way she talks, not just here but often I get the same impression from other threads, all men should bare the guilt for the sins of the few.

She is often wanting the male posters to show enough empathy for her victims, the boys, girls, and women. I believe no amount of empathy would suffice, because as men, well, we're guilty anyway. As men (the abusive gender), we doubly have to 'prove' our innocence. Shout it louder boys.

I think it's wasted breath. In pynchme's eyes, we are all taliban, we are all slave drivers. Except for the few loverly men in her life that is, the exceptions to the rule. I'm not racist, some of my best friends are black!

I think I've said my piece regarding Pynchme's comments about men, almost ready to move on. I would like to know what other feminist posters think of those comments, none so far have commented on them.

A/ Share the sentiments expressed (most men are the equivalent of slave owners or the Taliban)
B/ Don't think that way yourself but consider it acceptable for other feminists to talk about men that way
C/ Consider it Ok to talk about members of any group defined by biology in that manner
D/ Don't like it but don't like to publicly disagree with other feminists on OLO - got to stick together
E/ Treat the comments the way some of the men treat many of Formersnag's comments, so extreme that they are not worth bothering with
F/ Other?

Now onto another diversion.
Gaol rape - if it's of real interest we should start a new topic but I'll float a few comments here to gauge interest.

I think before we can address that issue we need to decide as a society what incarceration is trying to achieve.

Punishment, rehabilitation, deterrent, protection for the rest of us.

Probably a mix of all of the above.
Some risk reduction strategies (eg providing access to consensual sexual activity or even privacy and some porn) would not sit well with those wanting punishment or those with strong moralistic views.

Other alternatives such as removal of the offending anatomical components would cause some concern on other fronts.

On a broader social front getting rid of a lot of the prudery around sex might help encourage better attitudes to sex and reduce some of the issues which contribute to sex offenders choices (a personal view).

R0bert

hey RObert; that's okay, I don't think your arguments are valid either.
Your suggestion that there is any symmetry in encouraging (not forcing) boys to study whatever they dam' well please, and actively discouraging (or simply disallowing) girls to study anything other than 'home economics' is downright fatuous.
As to history, a couple of decades ago I had the crap kicked out of me in a pub one night. About a week later -after I got out of hospital- my assailant and his father came to see me. Although they didn't actually apologise, they were keen to point out the beauty of forgiveness, the need to forgive and forget, and not indulge in vindictive acts of vengeance or retribution.
Why is it bullies always expect their victims to be better people than they themselves are?
The pendulum swings.
Today's ratbags will be yesterday's heroes. Remember those outrageous greenies, protesting the damming of the Franklin? Seem pretty ordinary by today's standards.
BTW, I agree with the last para of your last post. It's high time we outgrew a lot of irrational cultural taboos.

"Your suggestion that there is any symmetry in encouraging (not forcing) boys to study whatever they dam' well please, and actively discouraging (or simply disallowing) girls to study anything other than 'home economics' is downright fatuous."

When and where did I make that suggestion?

That's not something I can recall ever thinking or believing and I certainly don't recall ever posting something like that.

Just in case there is any confusion I did not kick the crap out of you or anyone else so I'd rather not be blamed for their behavior.

The problem I have is with the view that seems to be expressed in your thinking that by analogy you seem to think that it's legitimate for your daughter to go round and kick the crap out of that fellows kid.

R0bert

Most feminists do not liken men to slave owners or the Taliban which I think is pretty self evident given most posters concur that any future as regards gender, has to be one that is inclusive and fair for men and women (and most importantly - kids).

The majority of male posters also concur that women have equally contributed to society albeit in different and changing ways throughout history.

My guess is what Pynchme was trying to express was in relation to vanna's continunual drone about "feminist academics at university writing positive statements about men" is a nonsense considering that feminist studies critically examine the characteristics of patriarchial society as being potentially damaging to men as well as to women such as her statement here:

"Feminist analysis HAS pointed out exactly how men (everyday men like yourself and Ivanna) ARE exploited in a patriarchy."

I will be accused of being overly-generous I am sure, but I believe it was the "system" of patriarchy being compared with slave owners and the Taliban not men as indvividuals in a society as clearly a matriarchy would equally lead to undesirable outcomes for the most part.

For example in a strong patriarchial system building a structure or travel to the moon is considered a contribution but nuturing children and ensuring social and famililial connections are maintained is not perceived as important.

In a more equal society what is 'the feminine' and 'the masculine' would equally be valued (sounds very Da Vinci Code I know).

pelican thanks for your comments.
It's appreciated. It's not an interpretation I'd choose to put on the comments but I've been accused of being overly-generous at times in regard to Antiseptic and Severin where others have taken a different meaning to their words so I get what you are saying

R0bert

Hey RObert,
I guess you must have forgotten you posted this:
"It can become a pointless round of point scoring but try a rephrase of your points"

"For at least 2 thousand years men have been told:
engineering is a man's job,"(because women aren't allowed)
"'doctoring' is a man's job (but not nursing)" (because women aren't allowed)
"politics is a man's job" (because women aren't allowed)
"building is a man's job" (because women aren't allowed)
This to me at least this infers there is some symmetry between being 'expected' (allowed, encouraged) and simply denied any right to, regardless of desire or aptitude.
And no, I don't encourage my daughters to take the law into their own hands, but I did charge the SOB, and he did stop king hitting people.
Crimes need to be addressed, and injustice righted; ie I believe it is better to 'take up arms against a sea of troubles, and by fighting, end them'; keeping always in mind the danger of becoming that which you despise; clearly the jeopardy Vanna is striving mightily against (on behalf of academic feminists).

Pelican and Grim - thanks for understanding what I am trying to convey. (way back; way back - thanks too to Severin) Sorry I have been a bit preoccupied elsewhere so can only zoom by here occasionally.

I wouldn't doubt that Robert would "choose" another interpretation; nevermind.

Robert, there is no likeness between MRA sites and opinions and any feminist site or opinion. For example, almost all MRA sites link together and many of the things that various male posters write here reflect (mis)information gleaned from those sites. Some of those sites relish harm done to women (especially feminists) and girls. To be equivalent, a radical man hater would be celebrating or even just indifferent to deaths, murders, sexual abuse etc of men and boys, and physically retaliating against men in revenge. If a woman is doing any of those things she isn't a feminist because it's antithetical to any version of feminism.

There is something I've always been curious about. If some men can rally so energetically against what they perceive as injustices arising from feminist activity; why can't they rally as strongly against murder and rape amongst men and boys ? Leaving women out of it for now; how come there isn't a mens movement against murder or rape amongst men?

Houellebecq: <"I always wonder at what point in pynch's head the nice little 'boys' (The innocent) turn into those evil men (The guilty by virtue of their gender).">

Boys don't necessarily turn into evil men. I don't even think the majority of "evil men" are "evil". I think they are self absorbed and that most of them suffer. They suffer because they have a sense of entitlement that leads them to think they are deprived when everything and everyone (including females around them) fail to meet their demands. Some will hit out brutally in their frustration. I note too that this phenomenon is less apparent in younger blokes. The younger generation is so much better at gender relations than ours has been so far.

To Vanna:

V: <"At the start of these meetings, all the teachers assured me that they were not feminist and "liked males".">

Well the premise was mistaken at the start - that you sought such assurances and that they gave them, indicates to me ignorance about feminism amongst all of you.

V: <"Then they never once said a single positive word about the boy students. The boys were "lazy" or "misbehaved" or were "disruptive" etc.">

I can believe that. It annoys me too when I hear this sort of rubbish where children are expected to sit still for too long and treated like little robots. I prefer the Violet Oaklander approach to classroom discipline myself - it celebrates and uses childhood energy to the child's (and class's) benefit.

V:<" It appears that the boys were responding to the teachers, and the teachers did not know how to motivate the boys.">

Absolutely correct I am sure. Studies bear out exactly what you describe - except that the phenomenon isn't restricted to teachers or children of either sex or to opposite sex interactions. A teacher (or any adult - parents too) of either sex can bring about the same result if they have a preconditioned notion of what they expect from the child. That's one reason I dislike the practice of forwarding a child's records from one school to another.

For Robert:

R: "... what incarceration is trying to achieve. Punishment, rehabilitation, deterrent, protection for the rest of us."

I would say: all of the above but rape isn't an acceptable form of punishment. Every human being is entitled to retain dominion over their own body and soul.

R: <"...risk reduction strategies... access to consensual sexual activity or even privacy and some porn) ...">

If there is enough 'privacy' for rape to happen, I'd have thought there would be enough privacy for consensual sexual activity. If there isn't, then I agree that there should be. Condoms should be available anyway.

I don't agree with the provision of porn. I think it is counter intuitive to the idea of rehabilitation for someone who is in gaol for beating people up or for rape or CSA.

Someone working in a gaol once told me that some of the men under their supervision formed very strong emotional bonds - like, a love relationship. I don't know what happens for them when one is released. I'd be interested to know what happens for men in that situation (like, inside them - their emotions and worldview).

R: <"Other alternatives such as removal of the offending anatomical components would cause some concern on other fronts.">

I don't agree with any sort of torture or mutilation.

How about Bromide? How about individual cells?

R: <"On a broader social front getting rid of a lot of the prudery around sex might help encourage better attitudes to sex and reduce some of the issues which contribute to sex offenders choices (a personal view).">

Are you talking about out in the wider community? You mean - to prevent sex offences ?

I would say that all depends on the crime. We already have a society where people can access pornography; visit sex workers; have casual sex. What exactly is there that needs to be available that would reduce child sexual abuse or rape?

On the other hand, there is a stifling intolerance of homosexuality and of many paraphilias (which IMO shouldn't even be classified as any form of pathology).

Pynchme,
It does seem that feminists in education have gotten themselves into a rather difficult bind.

They can't say anything positive about the male gender, because that would be supporting "men's violence against women"

But now they can't motivate boy students, and academic standards continue to decline, while more and more money is handed over to education.

It also means that fewer are willing to get tertiary education in universities that harbour so many feminists, or get any type of tertiary education, and now we have to import more and more skilled labor through immigration, which indirectly increases house prices, and places more strain on the environment, and generally makes everything more expensive and more difficult in time.

Thank goodness we have so much feminism in education.

PS. After the principal of the fore mentioned school let it slip that she didn't wan't boys to go to university because male graduates could earn more money than female graduates (by her account), there was so much complaint from parents that she was forced to retire early. One less feminist in the education system.

Pynchme, "but rape isn't an acceptable form of punishment" - agreed, my point was that before we can work out how to reduce the incidence of rape in prison we need to know why we lock people up. That alters the options.

Personally I'd prefer to see prison only used to protect society from individuals who have demonstrated themselves to be a danger to others and who have shown an unwillingness or inability to work with other alternatives. Those individual should stay there until they can be credibly believed to be rehabilitated.

"I don't agree with the provision of porn." - a private space without visual aids (eg porn) is unlikely to reduce any physical pressures. There may be exceptions but I think most men do far better when flying solo with appropriate visual aids. I gather that's different for most women.

I'm not up with the state of chemical temporary castration, if there are effective chemical means to reduce the risk to others from someone who can't or won't modify their own choices then they should be used.

"Are you talking about out in the wider community? You mean - to prevent sex offences ?"

I think that there are still a lot of sexual hangup's in society and very mixed messages. There are still significant problems with peoples self image, body taboo's that contribute to unhealthy attitudes to sex etc.

I think that discussion of rape has been overly dominated by a feminist insistence that it's mostly about power which looks to me to be based more on an agenda than honest research. By making it about just power we may be missing some simple measures which could reduce contributing factors.

I don't know what those measures might be but I'd like to see research and debate less dominated by that one issue.

R0bert

Robert: <"I think that discussion of rape has been overly dominated by a feminist insistence that it's mostly about power which looks to me to be based more on an agenda than honest research.">

You see Robert, this is why you and I are a long, long way from getting along. That sneaky inference that happens by lumping "feminist insistence" with a call (from you) for "honest research". You speak with forked tongue Robert; and that doesn't bode well for mutual respect.

- especially since you have no problem whatsoever sitting on your hands and uncritically accepting (ie: secretly applauding) the atrocious nonsense that some pro MRA posters put up as 'research'.

Re: rape - it seems to me that you have an extraordinary vanilla image of rape - as if it's just sex that includes a li'l bit of insistence by one ardent individual against another. It can be that; but that isn't descriptive of all or even most rape.

Does normal sex generally include punching the other person in the nose or holding a pillow over their face or yanking their hair painfully or defecating on their chest or making them perform multiple vile acts or leaving them beaten or pushing them out of a car or leaving them drugged and sick in a strange street somewhere, or... well sorry to be (a little bit) graphic but I wonder if you get my point.

Having made that point and taking a functionalist perspective, it may be that rape behaviour and rape motives change over time (like historically rape ( such of the lead warriors of opposing armies) was a way to subdue an enemy; rape of women was to obtain tribal dominance and even served as a marriage rite at times - think of the Sabines).

Anyway, to the prison rape issue - next post.

Robert: <"...a private space without visual aids (eg porn) is unlikely to reduce any physical pressures. There may be exceptions but I think most men do far better when flying solo with appropriate visual aids. I gather that's different for most women.">

What women prefer seems irrelevant to a discussion about whether use of porn can help reduce prison rape - unless we're including discussion of female prison populations (are we?).

Just a passing thought - how did blokes (who need "visual aids") manage before Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt and for that matter, the printing press ?

Anyway - if we follow the thesis that rape occurs because of unsatisfied sexual lust for the other person and pornography use can contribute to lowering prison rape, then the appropriate pornography to dispense to incarcerated people would be homosexual pornography wouldn't it ?

It is no secret that women are also consumers of pornography - although women (and many men) might say that their interest is more in the erotic rather than pornographic.

This was unfortunate, but it is an example:
"A seemingly healthy young UK woman died of a heart attack triggered by heightened sexual arousal while she was watching a pornographic movie.

Nicola Paginton, 30, was found dead in her bed in October last year with a vibrator beside her and a pornographic movie playing on her laptop, The Sun reported."

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/7926285/healthy-woman-dies-watching-pornography

Women are a growing market for 'pornographic' (that umbrella term needs definition!) products and it is possible that their undeveloped market results from previous hesitance to buy such products for fear of being judged by society and especially by other women.

R0bert

You have me very worried with your (as Pynchme describes) "vanilla" idea of rape. Apart from the obvious raped grannies and other not normally considered 'desirable', er, recipients of such 'ardour', how is rape not about power?

If as you claim, rape is the result of an unsatisfied sex life, please explain my ex-husband's attempt to rape me after I had left him. He was living with a girlfriend and therefore, one assumes having his 'manly' needs satisfied. At least that was what I thought when I agreed to let him visit me. Now the primary reasons I left him was due to his controlling dominating nature and the occasional physical bullying when he failed to yell me into compliance. I managed to escape him by running to my next door neighbour. It is not an experience I can readily forget and I am sure had everything to do with the fact that he no longer held the same power over me that he used to.

I agree with Pynchme there is a massive gulf of communication between us, when rather than decry the crime of rape you would rather request more "research". How much "research" is required before men will take a stand against the crime of rape, speak out against it to their friends who may have raped or attempted to trivialise a vile act of one human to another?

Severin, I was saddened to read of your terrible experience.
How anyone can think that rape is not a power experience for the rapist is beyond me.

We don't need any more research into that matter, because it is already a well established fact.

Unfortunately, many men still believe the women who are raped 'ask for it', by where they are, what they wear, how they act, or what they say. Rape still happens in countries where women are covered from head to foot, never go out of the home, and are not allowed to speak to unrelated males.

Clearly, rape encompasses many situations that are not affected by the above accusations. No one ever 'asks' to be violently raped.
What of the elderly women in their own homes who are raped?

We need understanding, intelligent men to stand up for women and take a stand against the crime of rape.

Thanks Suze

I didn't want to bring the memory back, but find attitudes like R0bert's difficult to understand.

People who cannot distinguish between rape and the act of pleasurable sex are worrisome. How can forcing oneself on a resistant person can be anything other than using a person like an object, mystifies me. If it was always just about sexual relief there are always prostitutes or one's own hand.

Frankly I don't see why RObert should be required to continually re-affirm his revulsion to rape and other crimes. That presupposes that men like RObert are unusual, not representative of men in general and that they are somehow accountable for crimes committed by others.

Statistics prove that loving, caring, responsible and law-abiding men like RObert are very far from unusual. In fact men like RObert are common and representative of almost all men and people generally. People who commit crimes are the odd men (and women) out. Some feminists do not appear to agree with this and probably there is some secondary gain in their intransigence, but as time passes they themselves have become the odd ones out in the sea of fair-minded and usually happy and co-operative humanity.

In terms of motivation there is no reason if ideology is set aside, to assume that sexual crimes, in particular rape, are always motivated by the offender's need for control and power over the opposite sex. There has never been any proof to that effect either and probably it is a case of a belief seeking proof. There is no science in that.

Possibly power is involved in some crimes, but sexual relief cannot be dismissed as a likely motivation. It would be more worthwhile to look at the particular offender and crime to arrive at some motivation. No normal man is motivated to harm any person and as is the case with women who commit antisocial crimes, their deviancy is usually not attributable to something as simple and direct as a consuming hatred for the opposite gender and a mission to dominate.

Maybe the bar could be raised at bit so that this discussion doesn't disappear up the usual dry gully where it is headed ATM. What was the subject again?

Pynchme

The dominant influence on the way that rape is discussed in our society is the taboo about blaming the victim. People discover that it is safest to discuss rape in a way that makes the victim look innocent enough, makes him look evil enough and displays an appropriate level of rightous indignation. You insisted on describing rape in a particularly dramatic way. This all means that many people have a mental image of rape where she is screaming dramatically and he is a nutjob who ignores this.

The problem is that people assume that any sex that doesn't resemble this isn't rape, but they are often wrong. A more common scenario is that she is happy enough to be alone with him, have a pash and do a few things that possibly look like foreplay. She either doesn't want to have sex or is indecisive. He thinks "I don't know what this girl is thinking" but doesn't bother to check carefully enough. He fails to consider that it might be rape, because it doesn't look like what he thinks rape looks like.

If we want blokes to be more careful, we need to be careful about how we discuss rape. Lets focus on fixing this problem.

Cornflower, I fully agree ,just where has the subject gone??

Rape, power and academic "feminism" are worthy subjects but surely not in this article of discussion of pure sexuality ?

Cornflower and Co:

We're talking about prison rape and how that can be prevented.

I think both Robert and I acknowledged that the topic could warrant a thread dedicated to it. We're just sizing up the topic I think.

benk: That's right, which is why the terminology in many states was varied to refer to degrees of sexual assault. Those are not unproblematic and vary widely from country to country and state to state. There is still plenty of disagreement on the ways that sex crimes are classified and the terminology that's employed. Many feminists argue that the crime of rape is trivialized by current classifications. I referred to a wide scope of acts to query Robert's idea that rape is more about lust than about power and control.

Cornflower well summed up thanks.

Severin that's twice in this thread that you have attacked me based on Pynchme's unsubtle misrepresentations (or reversals) of what I've said. I'm sorry to hear about your experience but because it appears to have been about power in your situation does not make it so in all cases.

I struggle to believe that you are stupid enough to not be able to tell the difference between suggesting that rape is not always about power and a claim that it's never about power nor do I think that you are stupid enough to not be able to tell the difference between disagreeing with the position some feminists take and thinking that all feminists think the same. I have to assume that it's deliberate on your part and that saddens me.

Pynchme from your choice to attack me personally for suggesting that the over representation of the power issue distorts our understanding of the issue it's clear that you don't want an honest discussion on the topic. I've contributed openly and honestly in my comments.

Benk whilst I have the impression that some rape cases may be based on a lack of clarity at the time, a change of mind later etc I've not seen any evidence that those cases form a big percentage of rape cases brought before the courts.

R0bert

Robert: <" ... based on Pynchme's unsubtle misrepresentations (or reversals) of what I've said.">

What reversals and misrepresentations?

In case you choose to respond btw, my last post in response to yours was:

<"Just a passing thought - how did blokes (who need "visual aids") manage before Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt and for that matter, the printing press ?

Anyway - if we follow the thesis that rape occurs because of unsatisfied sexual lust for the other person and pornography use can contribute to lowering prison rape, then the appropriate pornography to dispense to incarcerated people would be homosexual pornography wouldn't it ?">

As always I'm interested in your opinion.

R0bert

I do have a mind of my own. I was responding to what you wrote in your post, which frankly is a worse indictment on men as unable to control their emotions, than being about power:

>>>> I think that discussion of rape has been overly dominated by a feminist insistence that it's mostly about power which looks to me to be based more on an agenda than honest research. By making it about just power we may be missing some simple measures which could reduce contributing factors. <<<<

While your comment was not on topic, it required response. Apologies to CF and Kartiya Jim.

Most men do not rape. I am sure R0bert, that you have never ever forced yourself on anyone. However, your statement above sounds very like the type of propaganda spewed out by pro-male groups. It is not helpful to blame women for male sexual urges. How we dress, what we wear, do, who we go out and where and so on.

I feel lust, I do not blame the person who evokes that response in me. Nor do I expect a man to blame me for his fantasies - even though he may have pictured me. I really don't want to know and wish I didn't in some cases.

Think about forcing yourself on someone against their consent, whether or not your reach orgasm, it is not about lust. Often rapists do not orgasm. It is the possession of that body whether it is a boy or girl, man or woman it is not about sex.

Sex is something that is shared. Not taken. Taking is about power.

Severin, you are reading things into my posts that are just not there.

"It is not helpful to blame women for male sexual urges. How we dress, what we wear, do, who we go out and where and so on."

I did not suggest that in any way shape or form. Read what I said again and tell me where you think I've said that (or where in my posting history I've shown an inclination to that belief). It's never Ok to take by force or deceit, it's not the fault of the victim.

My comments re the overstatement of the power issue are in a different direction.

People take other things because they want them and they have little or no regard for the rights of the person they take them from. It might be argued that power is a factor but if someone steals your purse is it all about power or is it because they want the contents and don't care that it's not theirs to take?

I'd agree that rape is sometimes, possibly often driven by power but the way I've seen the issue canvassed by some makes it seem as though power is the only factor. I think that the contributing factors are more varied.

Pynche, http://www.flipkart.com/stacked-decks-rotenberg-collection-art-book-1594741549 ( safe to open)

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/vintage-nude-women-erotica.htm (may excite some, bother others)

I don't think gay porn would help most (but could be relevant to those who identify as homosexual). I get the impression that a lot of prison rape is not homosexual in preference but convenience (in the same way that a lot of child abuse is not necessarily homosexual eg male predators get easier access to boys).

I'm not sure how credible it is but the write up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prison_sexuality has some interesting points (and I know it emphasises the power issue). I've seen similar elsewhere and the general view seems to be that a lot of those will revert to hetrosexual orientation away from prison.

When you say "What women prefer seems irrelevant to a discussion" just which women are you referring to?

R0bert

R0bert

I am aware that you did not state that "It is not helpful to blame women for male sexual urges. How we dress, what we wear, do, who we go out and where and so on." I was extrapolating from your position that rape is less often about power and control and more about lust. Please follow a train of reasoning - I am as far from "stupid" are you are from being a female.

I have never used personal invective like that on you, no matter how much I have ever disagreed with you. Nor do I follow whatever Pynchme claim's - I make my own mind up about that as well. I have had near rape experiences and I have been raped - I speak from experience as well as I speak from my intellectual abilities.

And I do disagree with you.

Greed and stealing from others for personal gain are always about power, who has and who wants it. Disregard for the rights of others be it their possessions or their bodies is about power. We can all lust, the majority of us know that mugging someone for their money is wrong just as violating the body of another person is objectionable. A poor person may steal out of desperation - I can understand that. However there is no equivalent lack to justify rape. There is always masturbation or accessing prostitutes - there has to be a deeper motivating factor for rape to occur that goes far beyond lust.

You are pursuing a troubling path by claiming that rape is about desire without its catalyst: control/power and to that I add hate.

Robert: <"When you say "What women prefer seems irrelevant to a discussion" just which women are you referring to?">

Your comment to which I replied was that men need visual aids but that it's probably different for women. I replied that it doesn't matter what women prefer because we're talking about gaol rape, unless you want to include discussion of incarcerated females in the discussion about prison rape.

I thought we were talking about gaol rape for males; just say if you want to cover the whole shebang.

Robert re: erotic cards and such pre Hefner and Flynt.

Of course I knew about those sorts of pics. How could anyone who saw Calamity Jane not recall, "... your old cigareet pitcha." "... looks like a fat, frilled up side of beef." (or words to that effect).

- but apart from those having limited distribution compared to Hefner and Flynt; seriously - is the 'need' for "visual aids" a modern cultural phenomenon? - Is it really a 'need' or have users merely succumbed to intense marketing?

- Fair dinkum - pre-printing press, and even earlier - what did blokes use?

Does all art down through time, from cave paintings to Boticelli, have some more nefarious and less elegant purpose than historians, anthropologists and the like have accorded it?