Now I understand.

Anything good is female, and anything bad is male.

I think that is what the author is implying.

The question is, should the author (after a career in education) ever be allowed near a student?

Vanna I agree this peice says far more about the author then it does about Australia. A clasic case of projection I think.

"...we got out with our balls intact" After reading your article, I doubt that very much. It's just sad you never realised it.

What can anyone say about these sort of articles? How long can people continue to 'milk' this old 1970's issue? Society has moved on, but old 70's rights campaigners and University Sociology Departments haven't. They continue to stoke the fire in a vain attempt to give themselves some much needed 21st century relevance.

Why write an article just saying the same ol'? The issue has never been resolved to the satisfaction of Feminists and their supporters and never will be because they 'see' gender bias everywhere, and always will. Its really a big time waster.

Does the "Rationalist Society of Australia" know you write stuff like this Ian? I can't find too much rational in the way of rational debate in it, so I am wondering. I see the Wikipedia equates the Rationalist Society with Atheism, and as an atheist I find I am most uncomfortable with the idea of someone claiming to represent my school of thought writing something so, err, irrational.

Just to be clear, I was expecting to read something like women being underpaid, or maybe the hitting glass ceiling, or domestic violence, perhaps lack of assistance by society in general in house hold running or raising the kids. Something, indeed anything concrete on women not getting their fair share of the cake.

But an argument based on the idea that women are being persecuted because they find the thought of what men might be thinking or doing in their own private space abhorrent? This something I expect from the Australian Christian Lobby. They justify their homophobic stance in exactly the same way. Seeing it come from an arch enemy of the ACL, the "Rationalist Society of Australia", is a bit of a shock.

Dear Vanna, Kenny and Interested (if I can call you by your first name)

I'm disappointed that you all seem more focussed on making psychological judgements about me (on very limited evidence, I might add) and are thereby avoiding coming to terms with the main points I am making.

Vanna does attempt an outrageous and tendentious precis of my reflections "Anything good is female and anything bad is male" which is so far from what I said that it's laughable.

Please at least think about the issues and if you have any compelling evidence to bear on them I'm more than happy to hear it and respond.

Meanwhile, for your and everybody else's information, I have been actively involved in the Men's Movement for a quarter of a century, and as far as my balls are concerned, I've probably had more roots than than most people on this forum. But that's not really the point is it?

This is supposed to be about opinions, ie ideas and arguments, and not personal analysis.

So please lift your collective games.

Ian Robinson