James H
What I meant was that there is very little reliable or scientifically conducted research.

The author says that men fear and hate women, based on what Germaine Greer says, but where does she get her evidence from.

What surveys did she use, and were these surveys representative and reliable?

The situation is becoming a farce.

This article here tries to imply that a human male is the same as a male zebra finch.

http://theconversation.edu.au/one-flew-over-the-cuckolds-nest-a-birds-eye-view-of-female-infidelity-1909

Meanwhile, this article here tries to imply that the human male is the same as a male desert gobi fish.

http://www.monash.edu.au/news/show/to-flirt-or-not-to-flirt-thats-really-the-question

No one has asked human males of course.

So anyone can now say anything they like about males inside a university, college or school, and like Greer, some may even profit from it.

I understand she now owns 3 houses (but of course lives alone in her 3 houses)

[Deleted for abuse.]

JamesH: The research is conducted by asking women to interpret male behaviour, beliefs etc.

This is one step better than quoting the single example, which is Greer's stock-in-trade.

But it's not a huge step. Asking people what they feel, believe or think is an open invitation to being lied to, scammed and manipulated. Thus asking people whether they believe Global Warming is a serious issue is a lousy way of gauging how much they are willing to spend fixing it. Asking a Christian Fundamentalist what they think of homosexuality is a lousy way of finding out how well they tolerate people who are clearly homosexual but are prepared to lie about it in church, particularly if the next question asks them for their views about lying in church. Asking women whether they believe porn is harmful is is about as likely to yield any real information on whether porn does harm as asking an anti-abortionist whether abortion is a safe procedure for the mother.

It's an amazing, but when you come across a social scientist commenting taking a stand on a moral justice issue if they are relying on any data at all to prove their case, it is this sort of rubbish. To be fair, not social science is like this. I guess HILDA demonstrates some social scientists like their data hard. But is depressingly uncommon to see their work reported in the popular press, and I can't recall such a piece here on OLO.

Unfortunately the feminists tract record on this is even worse than the social scientists. Thus seeing Ian Robertson take the "no data at all, lets just rely on single examples and anecdotes" approach here is hardly surprising, since he is essentially writing as a feminist. I am still struggling with the fact that he apparently sees no conflict between this and his President Emeritus position at the Rationalist Society of Australia.

Jordan Kosberg,

<Social work literature has mainly focused upon females and gay males. A search was undertaken of general references to heterosexual males in published social-work authored articles and appearing in book reviews and publishers' ads in two prominent social work journals during the last decade. The conclusion reached was that heterosexual males are seldom discussed and when they are discussed they are portrayed in a very biased manner. It is believed that social workers do not receive necessary preparation for understanding and working with heterosexual males, especially from minority and immigrant groups, who are facing emotional, physical, interpersonal, and family problems. A stereotypic view of heterosexual males is both unfair and untrue, and precludes necessary attention in the classroom and in practice to their normative needs and special problems.>

But then how can attention be paid to a gender who is often demonised by feminists.

ammonite,

'As for men in positions of power behaving like "managers" WTF is that about?'

Sorry. I realise 'manager' is a difficult concept for some people. Managers are people responsible for producing, distributing and selling a product or service in the most efficient way. Their bottom line is that products or services must be profitible. they do not worry about whether they are acting in a 'male' or 'female' way (unless they are public servants spending tax payers money). For alternate economic models please refer to North Korea. I hear things are going just swimmingly there.

vanna,
I couldn't agree more. Greer is the crabbiest old windbag I've ever come across. Thank god she is in the UK. They can have her.

rsstuart,
Exactly. Which is why my basic philosophy is that women get it very good and no matter how good they get it they still complain so men should stop trying to please them.

I agree with you about academics too. They have long given up academic credibility for advocacy and now they wonder why Australians have become so anti-intellectual. Teachers are the same. They gave up educating our youth for advocacy a long time ago.

As an aside. I notice there are no articles on feminism in today's OLO. When Strauss-Kahn's life was destroyed soley on the word of a woman we had about a dozen or so in two weeks. But now that it seems our poor, immigrant, black, female, gang rape victim, asylum seeker (gee: was she disabled too?) was actually just making it up and in fact was a drug-gang associated, criminal ex-prostitute, OLO has fallen silent. Who would have guessed.

I note that this thread has lately been colonised by the "Whinging, Whining, Moaning Men's Club".

Talk about crabby old windbags....
Since both genders are in the game of life together, I'm wondering if any of you disaffected men have anything even remotely constructive to offer....even just one point?