"which turned out to be more difficult than I anticipated because I don't usually read this sort of stuff" - I felt pretty much the same.

I tried quite hard to find something which would credibly rebut vanna's claim. I did try to limit my search to academic's identifying as feminists or working in the area of gender studies. The closest I got was some praise of men who behaved in what was considered a feminine manner, limited praise for men who want to be feminists (and some interesting commentary about the difficulties some of them have faced from some feminists) and a piece on men's sheds.

I've attempted to get others to answer the challenge on a number of occasions and been given the brush off - why should feminists spend their time praising men being the main excuse. Given the role in research that gender studies unit's play in researching issues around gender the level of hatred of men expressed in much of their writing is very concerning.

I don't think that praise of gay men would credibly answer the point that vanna is making which I think is centered around the negativity expressed towards hetrosexual males.

R0bert

@vana: I have never seen any positive statements written about the male gender by Catherine Lumby

I went and looked. Your probably right, but only because Ms Lumby doesn't see to make overtly positive statements about either gender. She does make statements like this:

"I’d been pondering the question after watching a decent and intelligent politician, John Della Bosca, being forced to resign because he’d been having an affair. It seemed to me that this was a matter between him and his wife and had nothing to do with his ability to execute his public responsibilities."
http://www.sbs.com.au/blogarticle/113957/Polygamous-Wives-br/blog/Catharine-Lumby-br

That's about as positive as she gets. When she does make value statements, it's about individuals, things and politics, not about gender. Actually the same is true about Alan McKee.

Which is what you would expect. There are some things I like about women and some things that irritate me. Worse it is often the same thing in different situations - like having a spic and span house and being forced to clean up my 1/2 done project when the weekend ends. You are in effect asking women to sum up these same thoughts about men and say whether the ledger is positive or negative. It's not something one normally does. Nonetheless, most of us choose to live with the opposite sex, so I'm guessing that means most of us think the ledger is firmly in the black. That includes Ms Lumby as she is happily married and has a son.

It's sad that despite all this, you demand she proclaim she likes men in public. Even if she did I doubt it would satisfy you, instead you would go searching for other utterances from her to hang your insecurities on.

Finally I should thank you vanna. I enjoyed reading Ms Lumby's musings on life, family and politics:

"The other day I discovered my son and his friend videoing their bums with my mobile phone and trying to work out how to upload the “hilarious” results onto YouTube. They’re seven years old. It’s a great anecdote for his 21st birthday."
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Sex-drugs-and-other-things-you-cant-read-about/

rstuart,
Personally, I haven’t the slightest interest in Catherine Lumby's children’s “bums”, and I don’t think too many other readers would either.

Here is a person employed with taxpayer funding in a university, and what does she write about, her children’s “bums”

Here is a definition of discrimination:-
“unfair treatment of a person, racial group, minority, etc; action based on prejudice”
World English Dictionary

Hitler has a process of discrimination, he never once made a positive comment about Jews or other groups such as the Rom Gypsies.

Anything he said about them was negative.

The continuous negativity of so many academics towards the male gender is nothing different in form or style.

Given all the flasehoods inherent im relationship contract women do not deserve respect. Increasingly they are loathed for their indifference to environmental law whilst waving placards for environmental suffrage.

Now I love lions and tigers. I want to see them thrive, not in zoos but in their own Thermodynamically "ranged" habitats so they never become extinct.

But I would not want to see them take over the planet with the Equal Right to have all the progeny they feel is necessary to give them POWER in planetary socio-economics despite any negative consequences..

Does that mean I'm a MisoTigerist?

No, of course not. It just means I value SUSTAINABILITY more than a pretense of LOVE cum Equal Rights to achieve blunt power over others in society.

When women stop the false advertising of enviro-toxic make-up and provocative dress that has become synonymous with equal rights in the mating game they too will be sustainable. When they can treat marriage and relationship contracts of endless sexuality with the same legality as any other contract or fess up and admit this posture is a ruse to get themselves out of the DESPERATION of being on the "shelf", then they will be treated as equals and with the same respect as my Lions and Tigers.

And the biggest ruse of all is that it takes two to have children in the name of LOVE so two people must pay the price and men take all the environmental blame. When, in reality women KNOW better then men that you don't have to make love to have a baby and you don't have to have a baby to make love. That's the bare reality that Head-counting Politicians refuse to acknowledge. It weakens their cause of population growth and ultimately Armed power.

Continuing,

Continued,

As it stands women dress as a lie to get power, cement that power with 4wd drivin', gigawatt wasting lifetimes of CO2 venting children and blame everyone but themselves for the environmental explosion that is creting around all of us. Any Company director contracting under these rules ( apart from the Reserve Bank of course) would be legislated out of business and probably jailed. Women in contrast are protected by law to do just THAT. Anyone including women who respect that behaviour and illegality are NOT deserving of respect.

This duplicity was necessary in sparser times to ensure survival of the human race, at any cost but now it is a gross redundancy, illegal and a threat to human survival. It is a threat to the very environment we & all creatures depend upon. Global corporations milk women. Women CONSUME more product and create more profits than men, both of themselves and by stirring the testosterone pot for greater competition and consumerism in men. Proof? Women are actively targeted by corporate advertising in a ratio of 4:1 to men.

If we want the human race to prevail past the worst of peak-oil in 2025 then women must be reigned in as far as false sexuality is concerned even if it means remaining on the "shelf" and finding something more productive to do with their BRAINS. And they must be restricted to one child per lifetime.

The alternative is to let injustice rule as it does today and watch as Global WAR ends the wedlock deadlock.

And don't believe that sending men to war will benefit women. In WAR women are always the biggest losers because they don't get the guns!

Just look at the ABC coverage of SriLanka 2008 and see for youself.

Robert

>> "And finally (after how many years?), R0bert:"

Actually it's not a finally after years, it's been done a number of times before. I mostly don't bother because it does not seem to have any impact but when there is a clear opportunity for serious discussion then it's sometimes worth pointing out the missed opportunity. <<

Fortunately women do not take the same attitude as you, otherwise we would still be without the vote, token equal wages, entry into tertiary education and 30% representation in parliament.

NO matter how many times the likes of Vanna and his ilk denigrate women, there will remain people with the courage to speak out.