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.