Ha you're right pelican! It was Severin and floatinglili (not yourself) lauding the virtues of the 'real men' who did free manual labour for them. I sincerely apologise.

Your posts did demonstrate a works both ways approach, so much so that you projected this attitude between the lines of Severin's post. Something I argued, and still do, would not be so generously applied (by others, not necessarily yourself) to the posts of the 'Neanderthal' bitter man brigade on OLO.

I'm actually not so defensive about gender as I undoubtedly appear, but have a very keen radar for double standards, and a propensity for siding with the underdog. There are many articles out there about sex and housework, but not so many about yard work and cuddles I think you'd have to agree. Maybe it's because men would rather do the yard work alone for some peace and quiet, and can always find time to cuddle the missus. I know I do.

Oh, how once, in Warwick's time no doubt, we lived in a world where men expected their needs to be met, dinner on the table and a bit of shoosh when the news was on, and women's needs just weren't heard. I think now the opposite is true. The needs of women are constantly promoted in the media and by counsellors et al, and the needs of men trivialised. Just like the frigid woman has disappeared and the longer lasting sex adverts have appeared.

If you read Severin's article, its basically a patronising view of men with the overarching idea that men should do whatever it takes to keep their woman happy. It's apposite (Just for you CJ) to the times we live in.

I can see that my good young mate Howler is continuing to assert his masculinity within the context of his excellent relationship. Which is exactly as it should be.

My reason for referring to billythekid as a "loser" is that he's someone who's apparently failed at a couple of major things in his life (marriage, teaching) but refuses to acknowledge that there's anything at all about him to blame. Indeed, it's all because of the dreadful stuff that women as a gender have to society, apparently.

In my experience, it doesn't work that way. If you fail a couple of times, I've learned that it's time to revisit the plan with the view to making amendments where necessary.

Otherwise, you're doomed to remain a loser.

No problems Houlley. Perhaps the focus on attention to women's needs came about as a result of those male dominated households of the 50s you talk about, where the focus was very much on men's needs and where women were economically dependent so had little choice but to remain in bad relationships.

Life tends to go in peaks and troughs not just regards gender, but on many ideological fronts and like sheep our views are developed by the now without any sense of historical context. Political ideology is the same, once people accepted publicly owned utilities as the norm and a good thing, now any mention of public ownership brings out the fear brigade.

Societies are not static and these tensions are part of the balancing process (or evolutionary process). Both men and women are struggling to some extent with exactly how this equity might be defined or reflected in work and home life. It is harder for those in the older generation naturally because it means change.

Thankfully I don't spend too much time pontificating over it in RL and just get on the business of living. :)

CJ Morgan. I started to write about how wrong you are. I couldn't be bothered. You're not woth it. You are an absolute tool. Hiding behind your computer challenging people who are clearly far more intelligent and masculine than yourself.

pelican, "Perhaps the focus on attention to women's needs came about as a result of those male dominated households of the 50s you talk about, where the focus was very much on men's needs and where women were economically dependent so had little choice but to remain in bad relationships."

Specifically the RSL section of the male population I would say. Given all of the commemoration activities especially of the Howard years it is not politically correct to say it but the drunkenness, violence and dismissive attitudes to women was very strong in the men who believed that Australia owed them everything.

There needs to some honesty about the selfish, regressive, ultra-right wing attitudes of returned servicemen and their organisation and the effect of both on women and on general society for over fifty years. Even nurses and other women who served in war zones were second class citizens as far as the RSL was concerned and on ANZAC Day were not even allowed in member areas of RSL clubs - these and the food and booze that went with it were strictly reserved for male ex-service men.

While it was true that service men suffered greatly during WW2, they have been sacred cows since and many revelled in that. Then there were the dreadful substance abuse, gambling addiction and other problems that cost wives and families dearly. Some problems were of choice (eg smoking, although it was a major cost to the taxpayer through accepted disabilities) and others truly resulting from war.

It would be difficult to find a harder-living, more self-indulgent population than the men who frequented ex-service clubs and they were in the many, many thousands. However men who for whatever reason did not have war service were treated as a lower caste, being held in worse disdain than women and at a similar disadvantage in obtaining work and in promotion. Feminism avoids 'problematic' facts like that. The jealous stranglehold of the WW2 ex-servicemen was blindingly obvious in their non-acceptance of younger veterans from Korea and Vietnam for example.

Bloody 'ell, I go away and Houllie has a meltdown.

R0bert wrote some wonderful advice - no one accuses him of being patronising.

All I did was add something that MOST people in successful relationships already do: care, share, respect and love. It's not rocket science, nor is it telling men what to do, simply because if you (male or female) are not there for your partner then chances are your relationship won't be there either.