I’m not advocating the use of policy to force one sex to satisfy the other’s interests in the other, as the feminists are.

But my wife’s recent immortal quote is true: “There’s nothing like money to lubricate a woman’s vagina.”

There’s no reason why male and female should not negotiate and harmonise their complementary and conflicting interests in this way, rather than through government’s current meat-axe approach.

4. Work-life balance
Abolishing the sole parents pension would promote work-life balance. How much better would your work-life balance be if, when you came home from work, the shopping was done and put away, the house was cleaned, the dinner cooked and the lawn mown?
It would also be better for the work-life balance of the current pensioners themselves. They could earn the amount of the pension in less than a week. Work is good for your health, well-being and connectedness.

But this would require a little less governmental strangulation of small business.

Thus the primary function of the child support laws is not child support at all. It is to promote a dysfunctional ‘romance victim’ *sexuality* that:
• is anti-marriage
• neglects commitment
• promotes careless reproduction
• promotes welfare dependency and poverty
• is indifferent and hostile to men’s legitimate interests in female company, consensual sex and fatherhood
• promotes an exploitative unfair unequal double standard
• promotes “child as asset” unreasonableness in child custody or contact
• privileges women to treat both men and children as chattels

Pelican

You cannot crap on on any OLO thread about how men who sleep around are studs/ she is a slut without Benk adding his two cents. It has been a long time since sleazy men have been called studs and we have all seen alot of men given both barrels for "breaking her heart" in that time. These days, women who sleep around are "liberated" and men who do the same "need to treat women with more respect".

Jefferson

He may not have wanted a baby, but it is here anyway. He owes it to the baby to help, including financially. The only question is; how much money is reasonable? As well, as Pelican mentioned, bring on the male pill.

Whistler

Give up on the female legislature!

I would like to thank the member for his hook.
Wimps give up Benk, not to mention those who counsel the strategy.
Male genius has transformed the governance of family groups to that of the entire world,
but there's unfinished business.
A women's legislature is a vote next Saturday away.

Cornflower:"Surely it should be possible to craft an article about men, boys and masculinity without anchoring it in feminism. "

Yes, it should be, but feminism has become such a dominant ideology that to do so requires the invention of a new paradigm, as all previous examples of masculinity will be immediately attacked as misogynist, rightly or wrongly.

This is hardly surprising - there are a lot of people who gain an advantage by proclaiming a commitment to feminism and so they do so at every opportunity. It's the new State religion and it has no place for men and boys, although some of the "good" ones are allowed to serve as apologists in exchange for a small slice of the pie. It's funny that one of the more vocal of those apologists,Michael Flood, has been very quiet on the subject since the birth of his son a couple of years ago...

Pelican:"Ten to one it will be a bloke that will throw up the feminist conspiracy theories."

And why do you think that might be? Could it just be that men really are noticing the anti-male agenda that is being pursued in our social policies? Nah, it must just be a misogynist thing, no need for any thinking about the subject at all. It's just like those hairy'legged, bra-burning women in the 60s: nothing but whingers, always blaming men. Lesbians the lot of 'em...

There's been a lot of self-satisfied smugness lately from some of the women. Foxy, Suzie and even Pelican have all made some comment like "the law's on our side, so you'd better get used to it", as though the existence of a law makes the discussion unnecessary.

I'd like to remind those people that the reason for feminism evolving was that there existed laws and social structures which were discriminatory. I'm sure many of them heard "it's the law dear, best get used to it".

Funny how the pigs always end up in charge of the trough...

Have you considered that the world switches off when feminism is mentioned and your message is lost? If what you want cannot be described other than in terms of someone else's product (which you say is defective and probably is in some respects), you waste most of your time 'selling' your opposition's product. This article needed redirecting towards a vision for men and boys and the first contributor Perkinsky gave a lead.

Where is the vision for men and boys? Is there one or are we wasting our time reading articles such as this one? Do the Floods et al re-engineer themselves a bit to manage a paradigm shift through a few grudging degrees or is there a fresh paradigm expressing a new future, new hopes and aspirations, for men and boys?

Wimp philosophy 101: a condition of equality with women is that men must be praised, lauded, placed on a pedestal and worshipped ... LOL!