The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Solved: the true nature of gender politics > Comments

Solved: the true nature of gender politics : Comments

By Mark Christensen, published 23/4/2012

The idea that sexism can be purged from our culture through regulatory means or that unity comes from focussing on what is different is counterproductive.

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All
This is a curious article, which seems to blame men for the conflict between the sexes? Of course we are wired differently; women and effeminate men seem to micromanage and are generally multi-skilled? Whereas men and butch females seem to be able to see the big picture and delegate?
It is not so much a biological difference men and women, I believe, but between the masculine and feminine. Ask almost any woman who she prefers to work under, a man or a woman, and the answer is almost universally, a man?
Men learn virtually all their social skills at their mothers knee or from female carers; and the endless critique of the finished adult product has resulted in a whole generation of men who don't understand their proper role; except that it is never ever good enough and constantly changing? And that they need to shoulder more and more of what was once considered the role of the female caregiver?
Then we wonder why a growing male demographic now avoid commitment and marriage, why the record high divorce rate is what it is, why there are so many single parent families, and why so many boys grow up without a strong male role model to emulate? Or why so many of them grow up to become social misfits full of road rage and other antisocial problems?
Little wonder that mail order brides, with much more traditional values have become more popular, or why these negotiated arrangements seem to have a lower divorce rate outcome?
I tire of this almost endless divisive debate and ask, why can't we simply accept that men come from Mars and women come from Venus; that we will never ever truly understand each other; but should instead simply concentrate in acts of kindness in place of the usual bitch or criticality, and see here that leads and just how many relationships we could rescue or save by this simple less critical, more accepting, warts and all, less analytical approach? Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 23 April 2012 11:48:05 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Er, is anybody else struggling to figure out what on earth this author is on about? Is this article really offered in deadly earnest, or is it simply an exercise in teetering on the edge of satire?

Unless it is the case that I have just unknowingly travelled back in time by about 150 years then quite frankly I'm stumped.
Posted by Sam Jandwich, Monday, 23 April 2012 12:57:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good article. I think we should enforce equality by only having female prime ministers from now on. It's obvious how their superior emotional intelligence has led to a more civilised style of government.

Vote 1

PM for Life


NB: for male deniers out there: logically you may be thinking that males kept females out of politics for so long out of fear they may f^&k things up as badly as Julia has. But that would be hiding behind self doubt. Use your intuition and you to could make appointments like Slipper.

In fact, I've convinced myself:

Vote 1


Consul for Life
Posted by dane, Monday, 23 April 2012 5:48:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author proceeds on the premise that men dominate “by virtue of our singularly driven desire to succeed” and, “Man's love of reason”—the context suggests he sees this as a man-thing, we’re slave to “the awesome power of reason”—as if reason wasn’t mostly rationale and self-serving. But let’s go with it. Men are inherently devoted to reason but women “come at the world differently”. And while women are generously deemed capable of “abstract thought, they place far greater store in intuitive and emotional insight. They trust the heart over the head, which is why women often have to end a heated argument with a man by walking away or becoming hysterical”.
Men, being devoted to reason, resort to violence—an extreme of reason?
“For blokes [now where “blokes”}, intuitive capability – both ours and that of women – is routinely assessed to be a threat to reason, and therefore our mission. It's too mysterious and unruly. Progress requires order and structure, rules and considered trade-offs, not bleeding hearts and fuzzy logic [he’s giving me an erection!]. Imagine where Western civilization and politics would be if one simply did what feels right? It'd be chaos”.
But Sir! Sir! …It is, isn’t it?
And if men are so devoted to reason, how come we’re the archetypal rapists, murderers, paedophiles, suicides, genocides and megalomaniacs?
No wonder women are “hysterical”!
But then he pulls the old reversal! It’s all our fault!—women aren’t possessed of reason (a product of testosterone), after all.
Can I ask the author to take a moment and please explain—I must be testosterone-deficient—how is any of this reasonable?
I’m not sure which side to defend!
Posted by Squeers, Monday, 23 April 2012 6:24:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard

"In the middle of the 19th Century, Oxford Professor of Political History, Thorold Rogers wrote of that era [Middle Ages]: "At that time a labourer could provide all the necessities for his family for a year by working fourteen weeks."

-Families worked on and from their own property together.

-Industrial revolution evacuated the home and forced people into factory work.

-Capital wanted to cheap labour and sought to seperate people from their families and homes, lost its centrality (Marx hated the family)

-Women picked up on this idea that meaning was derived largely from a public competitive workplace and outsourced their meaning acquiring faculties to the herd.

-Fought for entrance to the workplace, left largely unfulfilled, (female index of happiness) given abortion, contraception to facilitate their use as cheap labour, feminism recruited to give ideological cover.

-Now unmarried, childless, invested in useless education propping up state ideology.


-And people are fighting over this? playing the game of the 1% is to join with them.

-Our tallest buildings are corporate skyscrapers, used to be Cathedrals. We're owned by transcendent money, and its prostituted regulators in Canberra.

-Want to fight? Turn off TV, grow food, read a book, play with your kids, learn a hobby, don't give your taxes or work for these people in their liberal sinecures.

-Don't go to uni for God's sake, learn a practical skill

-Auto-didact or online uni from internet.

-Start a family - the first government - and your own community. Statist liberals will hate that.

-Everything to do with the state is toxic now.

Work an extra 14 years for a home you could build yourself? Banksters.

Aging population retire/liberal elite Euro financial crisis houses with all capital costs be worth? Conned.

Gender wars? phffft game within liberalism. Let the dead bury their own dead.

Fight liberalism the source of all these wasteful, enervating debates and squabbles.

And pray.
Posted by Martin Ibn Warriq, Monday, 23 April 2012 6:53:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy