If I remember rightly Philip Tang is a right-wing propaganda hack for the Sydney Anglicans, who of course are opposed to the ordination of women as priests.

And of course we now all know that the ordination of women is against the "Christ" given order of things (and the church that he supposedly founded). Such is now constituted as a crime by the church fathers -- on a par with child molesters.

Never mind that Saint Jesus of Galilee was not the founder of christian-ism. The entire power seeking women-hating edifice was created by others. NONE of who ever met Jesus up close and personal.

Jesus was a Jew as were all of his disciples (they were certainly not christians--but devotees of their Jewish Spiritual Master).

Therefore to be entirely consistent with the demonstrated life of Jesus, the pope would have to be a Jew. So too would christian ministers. Plus they should not wear dog collars and should all have long hair and long scruffy beards too.

Some 'facts' giving rise to some 'interesting' interpretations here.

I'm a baby boomer. I feel the behaviours of young men and women in todays Australia is less driven by hormones and more by changing societal values and mores.

There have been huge economic and social shifts in my lifetime to date and perhaps I will see many more.

Certainly the boundaries between what is "male" or "female" have become very blurred with so-called "traditional" gender roles now increasingly shared. Outcomes vary - some beneficial, some not.

If I were to severely criticise any aspects of latter day culture it would be rampant materialism and waste and the "Not my fault" attitude towards personal responsibility.

It's not only young men avoiding committment either. Plenty of young women are shunning traditional coupledom (for extended periods at least) in pursuit of educational, financial, career and personal goals. When they do settle it is often in their 30s.

Children - optional! The "material" culture often does not bend readily to the sacrifices required to rear offspring, though sooner or later most settled couples wish to and do procreate. The exceptions - the have-nots of society are much more likely to breed like rabbits despite absence of secure long term relationship prospects. Hence 'families' consisting of Mum and her litter, all who have different fathers and perhaps 'Dad' the loser hanging round for the moment. Too many - to the overall detriment of society and and very much the individual children. Little to do with feminism though I thought.

Now we also see some migrating groups from absolutely contrasting cultures who practice early marriage and unfettered reproduction - a lifestyle that evokes a good deal of suspicion and even some paranoia amongst the natives. What will become of it?

One thing I do know - there's no way back.

Yes indeed, we know that hormones affect human behaviour. Not
just humans, but other species too.

That does not mean that they determine behaviour, the brain is
not that simple, but they do affect it.

Enough experiments have been done on this to show that it is
correct.

Every thought or action is influenced by a number of neurological
processes, concious thought is only a small part of it all.

The veneer of human society is pretty thin. The moment that it
collapses, we are back to laws of the jungle and in the jungle,
hormones matter.

Mr. Holden, I haven't read such a load of rubbish in a long time.
Hormone levels in human beings are no more or less evident now than they were hundreds of years ago , when we had no real feminists as such.

I had to laugh out loud when I read that boys and their mummies had the best relationships. Obviously Mr. Holden had a good relationship with his mother. Good luck to him too. However, I don't believe that is the experience of the majority of men.

The conclusion of this out-of-the-ark subject seems to be that if this world as we know it is destroyed somehow, then these wonderful 'alpha males' will rise to the occasion and save all us 'nurturing' females.

Of course, this will only happen if their nurturing mummies agree with them and condone this action, right Brian?

<"Women now dress-up as soldiers and police officers in boots and with guns. It is claimed that sexual harassment is rife throughout the armed forces. That is due to the males not seeing the females in uniform as the keystone of civilisation - but as desirable sexual objects. So, even the penalty of a ruined career is still not sufficient to keep males in check when females are in the wrong environment.">

I would say that any man who cannot control his penis shouldn't be given a gun.

Since the vast majority of the soldiery can conduct themselves in a professional manner, it's the penis dominated thugs who are "in the wrong environment".

Btw: Males are raped in the military as well as females.

Overall it's sad to see this insult to all the good male soldiers and police officers who are really noble and skilled professionals. It's also an insult to the females who have fought long and hard to share in shouldering the burden of community protection.

I think the author needs to learn more about feminism and especially about why it came into being - a lot of grandpas weren't living up to the ideal and a lot of the rest of the male-centric establishment didn't care. Women had to work out their own solutions. Considering that feminism has never fired a bullet; never beaten or frightened a man or anyone else - I think it's a bloody amazing social revolution that had to occur in an increasingly civilized society.

I disagree. it's all a matter of what kind of personality you have. hormones or other biological variations have nothing to do with managing to function successfully in today's society. well, at least they shouldn't matter.
All these societal labels and dividers just break all of us apart instead of giving us the opportunity to channel our skills and talents to a type of life we want to have, regardless our social/biological background.