@R0bert: overwhelmingly negative ... substantiated for me by my attempts to answer vanna.

I think you've fallen into a logical trap vanna has set up.

Most of the negativity vanna complains about and quotes comes from the feminist academics. That's to be expected. But not because feminism is all about blaming men, but rather because it is the only "discipline" or "ism" a misandrist can fit into. It's one few places you can say "it's all the males fault" and still be on topic. What other discipline could the likes of Greer or Dworkin occupy, and spent their time exclusively writing the crap they do?

The real feminists, the ones that were trying to re-negotiate the home-work bargin they had with us males in the first half of last century, don't like this. Catherine Hakim, the author behind the link JamesH posted on working time certainly doesn't. Lumby doesn't. And quoting Wikipedia on Betty Friedan, my favourite feminist of all time:

"Friedan was critical of polarized and extreme factions of feminism that attacked groups such as men and homemakers"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betty_Friedan

So what are these real feminists going to say about us men? Well the logical fallacy vanna would have you believe is the antithesis of "males are negative" is "males are positive", therefore they should be saying wonderful things about males in response to the crap from the misandrists. But that's wrong. In fact proclaiming "males are wonderful" is just as wrong as "males are horrible". Good academics aren't going to say things that are just wrong. That is why you don't find it.

To put it another way. Lets say a women demands you respond to KAEP's "women are the source of all evil" by saying "women are the source of all good". Could you do that in good conscience? No, of course you couldn't. Yet that is what vanna is demanding of our academics.

The other irony is vanna says, and I heartily agree, that feminism has no place as a academic discipline. So why is he pinning what they say at the feet of academia?

rstuart, I agree with much of what you've said but given the role that those same academics play in the research that's then used by government and others to "support" gender based programs the issue is in my view serious. Also the role that those same gender studies unit's seem to play in training those who work in the humanities area.

I'm not expecting to find "men are the source of all good type statements", what I would expect is some positive comment from time to time (as there are plenty about women and female characteristics).

I do agree that some feminists have been great at speaking out against the extreme's, Patricia Pearson's book "When She Was Bad" was fantastic in it's exploration of why society has a hard time dealing with female violence when it occurs.

Unfortunately far too many are very keen to attack men's groups (or men who speak out) based on some who are overly critical of women (or based on what they want to think the mens groups are like) yet at the same time see no problem with publicly funded academics who do much of the gender research in this country showing massive levels of gender bias in almost everything they say.

R0bert

rstuart,
"Betty Friedan, my favourite feminist of all time:"

This is how Betty Friedman’s husband describes her: -

"the most violent person I have ever known". "Betty. . . tottered on a thin line just this side of insanity." He also claimed that her violent temper was made worse by the use of amphetamines.

Mr Friedan, who has twice remarried, gives details of one incident in which he was forced to pin her against the wall of their New York apartment "like a lion tamer" after she attacked him with kitchen knives. In another explosion of rage, he told the New York Post recently, she used shards of a broken mirror as weapons. "For the first time I seriously believed she could actually kill me," he told the newspaper.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/1348841/Feminist-writer-Betty-Friedan-brought-terror-to-marriage.html

I have also read somewhere that Betty Friedman’s 3 children all had to undergo psychological counselling to overcome the trauma of having her as a mother.

The feminist corruption of education is so great, very few academics are likely to say one good thing about the male gender, or they might be cast out of the education system.

As I mentioned in a previous post, Germaine Greer had no formal qualification to speak about society issues in so many books, and in so many speeches or documentaries (such as formal qualifications in sociology, psychology or medicine), but it seems that not one university she was employed in, ever required her to gain those formal qualifications.

That is the extent of the feminist corruption of the education system.

And if you think there are “equality feminists" as distinct from “radical feminists", then these so-called “equality feminists" have rarely opposed anything said by Greer, and in Australia they never opposed 2 universities giving her honorary doctorates.

@R0bert: given the role that those same academics play in the research that's then used by government and others to "support" gender based programs the issue is in my view serious.

Yeah, well I have to put this all into perspective. Vanna hasn't actually quoted an Australian academic that has pillared men, yet. Robertson hasn't been one for many years. We could not stomach Greer. The closest he's come is quoting a biologist making what I thought would be an obviously valid point: males are motived to produce offspring. The bottom line is not a single current Australian academic has been quoted attacking mens groups, or indeed favouring one gender over the other. Yet here you are accepting vanna's view of things. I don't see why.

@R0bert: I would expect is some positive comment from time to time

Maybe you aren't looking for the right words. Female characteristics are things like nurturing, caring, accommodating, and yes people praise those characteristics. But praise of male characteristics is equally common. Try looking at how our soldiers are described - brave, heroes, well trained. Or husbands - loyal, breadwinner, hard working. And in business we have aggressive, persistent, visionary, tough, smart. Are you saying most academics would not speak highly of these things if the opportunity arose? In fact I quoted a passage from Catherine Lumby where she did just that. Here, I'll quote it again:

"watching a decent and intelligent politician, John Della Bosca"

rstuart,
"Female characteristics are things like nurturing, caring, accommodating"

One of the great myths of all time is that men are not nurturing, caring, accommodating.

As an example: - Men built every school and university, and I personally know of several businessmen who devote time and money to local schools, and also tradesmen who work for the cost of materials only when doing work for the local P&C.

I would also like a dollar for every maligning, denigrating, discriminatory remark I have heard or read by university academics and teachers about both men and boys.

Your ideal feminists such as Friedman and Lumby have been shown to be glossy frauds (with Friedman also being extremely violent), and many academics know it also, but say zilch.

And I have so often heard from students that having feminism taught in universities has only decreased the value of their degree.

Many of the lecturers know this also, but still say zilch.

@vanna: One of the great myths of all time is that men are not nurturing, caring, accommodating.

A quote from the paper I posted above http://www.wwwords.co.uk/pdf/validate.asp?j=ciec&vol=7&issue=2&year=2006&article=5_Ashcraft_CIEC_7_2_web :

"Reformers, educators and public citizens alike suggest that more male teachers, particularly in elementary schools, will help boys envision masculinity differently as they see more men engaged in nurturing, nonaggressive occupations (Holland, 1991; Bushweller, 1994; Brookhart & Loadman, 1996; Allan, 1997; Farquhar, 1997). This will in turn encourage boys to value schooling and develop
an ethic of caring, and allow them to envision careers outside of traditional gender boundaries (Holland, 1991; Brookhart & Loadman, 1996; Farquhar, 1997)."

So apparently it is not a universally held myth. Besides it cuts both ways. If I proclaimed said my daughter was "tough, aggressive, and smart" I am not doing her any favours. Say the same thing said about a man is obviously praise.

@vanna: Your ideal feminists such as Friedman and Lumby have been shown to be glossy frauds

With remarks like this you are sinking to the level of the feminists you most despise. Firstly you make statements without specific evidence to back it up. Secondly you use single cases to make sweeping allegations about every feminist. Congratulations. From where I sit you have just joined the ranks of Greer, of for that matter Robertson in this article.