George Piskor
I would agree it is necessary for some accurate data for once. However I would be circumspect regards data for family violence or abuse.

There appears to be minimal secondary data to support the concept that there is widespread family violence.

For example the "Snapshots of family relationships" produced by the AIFS shows most couples are highly satisfied with their relationship.

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/factssheets/ssreport08/ssreport08.html#keytrends

Interesting that in this HILDA survey, the lowest levels of satisfaction occur in step families.

I would think that there needs to be extensive education of men regards having children.

Men have to be informed that if they have children in our current society, it is likely that their children will be raised by another man who has no biological connection with those children, and only about 30% of children will be satisfied with this.

OR, their children are likely to be raised on welfare, with the children likely to fall into the category of disadvantaged children.

While at the same time, biological fathers are likely to be demonised and vilified by certain people, most of whom are taxpayer funded and many harboured within universities.

That is the current situation in our society.

Just quietly, this is comedy gold.
I'll always be back for more of this.

You chicks crack me up when you take vanna on. Is masochism the new black?

Hey vanna, I'm part of a de-facto couple. I would actually have gotten married, but at university I went to a gender studies lecture. It turned me against marriage forever. The feminists there told me not to, and they were particularly persuasive.

PS: Vanna. My de-facto family and I are available for study if you're up for it.

pelcian,

So you're arguing that the demonisation must be successful for it to exist.

Maybe it's more focussed on NRL and AFL rather than men in general, but with this latest military thing I reckon it's any male dominated group. If a non NRL playing non military guy behaves unethically there isn't such a big fuss, and his employer is irrelevant. But if he is employed by any male dominated employer, it's all about the danger of men in large groups. ie all that testosterone is dangerous, and men are actually innately dangerous without the civilising effect of women.

I reckon the constant repetition is working, just look at all the programs being put in place for PR purposes. The NRL and other organisations are buying feminists off by giving them cushy jobs 'educating' their players. They have raised the white flag. The propaganda has worked, society expects these measures to be taken. The link has successfully been propagandised between individual player and 'men's culture'. Men in large groups are a missed feminist lecture away from being a pack of rapists.

Houlley
"You chicks crack me up when you take vanna on. Is masochism the new black?"

Don't spoil our fun.

"So you're arguing that the demonisation must be successful for it to exist."

If a tree falls in the forest and you are not there to hear it, did it really happen?

Yes it did but how did it affect you?

This article is about some anti-male conspiracy. If there is no impact clearly it is a failed 'campaign'. Most of the protests of demonisation are in the mind, fuelled by the media. People only see demonisation if it affects them or is perceived to affect their gender, but most people wear self-protective blinkers.

Take the St Kilda photo scandal - who was demonisded most in that media debacle. I would say the girl has copped the most flak in the media spotlight, certainly as much as the football fraternity. But I am a girl so maybe I have my blinkers on too.

The opinion sheets could change any day when the media takes another tack and the lemmings might all follow in the other direction.

Clearly if there is a claim of mean-spiritedness or mass-scale demonisation there should be some impact. Demonisation of male footballers is probably fairly successful but footballers do insist on helping the media so much in their endeavours.

But one stupid act by a male defence cadet won't demonise all men. Be comforted Houlley that if the comments on OLO are anything to go by, much of the venom will be reserved for the 'sluttish' behaviour of the woman.

Didn't those feminist lecturers teach you anything?

pelican,

I may agree. This reminds me of the feminist social commentators predicting Joooolia would have her appearance and clothes commented on *because* she is a woman.

It was like...

any day now...
any day now...
just you watch...

Nothing happened, then something really random on twitter about her ears (By a woman I think from memory)

Seee! I told you! That Tony Abbott budgie smuggler big ears is so sexist!

In the end, the people making most comment on Julia's appearance were actually the feminists.

'I would say the girl has copped the most flak in the media spotlight, certainly as much as the football fraternity. But I am a girl so maybe I have my blinkers on too.'

Just a bit. She didn't cop half the flak she deserved! She was defended by the very feminists who were all up in arms about the guy who posted Lara Bingle topless. The double standards were legendary.

The lasting characterisation was of the 'poor troubled girl', and the nasty corrupt football club. I'm still waiting to have it spelled out what happened to make everyone decide she was the victim. I saw lots of innocent victims, not her though.

'Demonisation of male footballers is probably fairly successful but footballers do insist on helping the media so much in their endeavours. '

Obviously you don't link that to the alpha male thing. That's why it's successful IMO. You could say tall poppy or class, I say it's testosterone. Lock up your daughters sums it up. The converse is fear of sexually assertive women and the slut thing though. People have trouble with the groupy concept and all groupies are considered star struck young powerless victim girls looking for 'love' not assertive chicks looking to brag about sex with a famous athlete.

I like sluts, always have. My partner is one. It has no negative connotations to us. Actually I like the word slapper even better.

BTW: I'd love the same scrutiny applied to footballers applied to the legal profession and journalists. Lots of coke and hookers and wild stuff there!

No argument that the girl was very foolish, but people aren't going around now supposing all girls are foolish just by the actions of one girl. Footballers probably get off less easily, they are in the media spotlight and while some footballers are nongs that does not imply all footballers are nongs or betray their wives/partners.

Too right about the journos and politicians (and their staffers) if the walls could talk.

Sometimes I reckon the world would be better off if we all were sluts and then there would be nothing to be outraged about, in fact the word 'slut' wouldn't even be coined.

An old male friend of mine used to say he liked a 'lady in public and a whore in bed'. Trouble is most women don't really know what men want, there are so many mixed messages.

Hey Pelly,

"Trouble is most women don't know what men want..."

Sounds like a good topic for a new thread (what do men want?).....could prove enlightening....