Of course, we're all talking here from the perspective of the modern developed world where, in the blink on an historical eye, the dynamic between men and women has shifted fundamentally.

The "cult of masculinity", as Killarney refers to it, is the reason we evolved to this stage of evolutionary practice. It's only in the first world that we can dispense to a degree with the role that masculinity has played throughout human development, and still plays in developing or traditional societies.

Imagine a small society laid out in traditional style. Everyone was pretty well up close and personal with other community members. The men did their [masculine} thing and the women did their {feminine} thing. All was overseen and policed by the close nature of interaction in the group.
Now imagine a "developed" society where we all partitioned ourselves away from each other in nice little boxes replete with net curtains where all sorts of dynamics unfold between men and women - dynamics that are not policed by the society around them because they are hidden away until things get out of hand. Imagine also a society where the reliance on traditional gender roles was more or less negated by the development of technology, and you have a society that no longer has a compass to give definition to it's behavioural structure.

Our society delivers us all sorts of challenges. It seems from some aspects that it is perpetually frustrated that men and women haven't yet developed the ability to morph into one androgynous gender, because that is what our modern construct promotes.

'While there is, and has been, a wide cultural view of the male as protector and provider, we have increasingly a re-balancing, an accelerating movement towards universal financial and cultural independence - of rigorous assertion of individual rights both within and outside the home environment. Taken to an extreme, what may the future hold? Total independence? Economically, socially and culturally? And a possibly increasing revision and deterioration of the resilience, incidence and very nature of relationships and of marriage?'

That's gold.

Why is it reading the comments on OLO is so much more rewarding than reading the articles.

This is a massive feminist blind spot when it comes to pay rates as well. It's almost as if the massive transfer of money from men to women in society just doesn't exist. Sure, if you go for this independence is king idea, it's irrelevant, but tell that to the women who actually want to arrange their family structures with some element of dependence.

The other aspect that is ignored is the woman's social capital that enhances her life especially in older age with the closer family relationships afforded by not being the primary earner. This, while not easily measurable, is totally ignored as part of the trade-off. In feminist speak this purely a 'burden' of 'unpaid' caring 'work'.

Maybe I don't know the dictionary definition of 'victim' feminist, but as I said to me it's nothing to do with rape victims speaking out or not, it's this idea that women are being shafted in every aspect of society and men are living the life of riley. Or, as I normally phrase it...

Women: The downtrodden martyrs of society.

'The Australian component of the International Violence Against Women Survey found 'over a third of women (34%) who had a current or former intimate partner reported experiencing physical and/or sexual violence since the age of sixteen …' As for current relationships, for Australia 9-11 percent 'reported experiencing physical or sexual violence from their partner at some point in their lifetime'. Additionally, 37-40 percent 'reported experiencing at least one type of controlling behaviour', this 'most commonly' comprising 'name calling, insults, put downs or behaviour that made the woman feel bad'.'

I still cant get past this.

Why isn't rape bad enough? Why? Why is it merged into the same ball park as calling people names? Why is it called sexual assault or sexual violence?

I think rape is heinous. I don't think insults are in the same ball park, not even the same sport. It's only in the ridiculous world of victim feminism that we have these expanded definitions that make an offensive mockery of women who are raped. All for the purpose of expanding the proportion of 'victims', and expanding the proportion of evil men.

Woman 1: I was raped
Woman 2. I know exactly what you mean, my boyfriend called me a bitch after I belittled him in front of his friends!

I would think 100% of men and women have experienced 'at least one type of controlling behaviour', this 'most commonly' comprising 'name calling, insults, put downs or behaviour that made them feel bad'.

What kind of lives these people, these 60% of women who have never, 'in their lifetime', experienced this behaviour.

Poirot,
I meant to put the word "healthy" (as applying to relationships) in brackets above, as the dream of equality is so idealistic and far-removed from the dynamics of the competitive system we're all embroiled in.
And as you suggest, Houellebecq, there are definite pluses for meek women who tend the family and leave the high-powered egotism to their men. As with my mother, she gets all the kudos and he's despised. An uncomfortable truth some feminists don't want to face is that many women are comfortable, or at least adjusted, to being dominated by their men; they want to feel loved, safe and protected by their alpha male, even if that means cowering under the occasional blow. And of course it saves them the trouble of taking responsibility for themselves, or indeed "thinking" in any critical sense. Actually it's hard to imagine critical thought being possible in a state of willing subjection?
Of course for some feminists all this marks me off as a "misogynist", for daring to question the prevailing wisdom. This is what I object to the most; political correctness generally indicates a lack of critical thought which nevertheless imposes a popular censorship over dissenters. Certainly there are misogynists out there who's claptrap is an easy target, but there are also many who seem to think more objectively than many women.
I consider myself a feminist, btw, and we shouldn't forget that it's feminists like Naomi Wolf and Camille Paglia who expose the weakness of, for instance, victim femi

There's also the other side of the coin squeers,

' An uncomfortable truth some feminists don't want to face is that many women are comfortable, or at least adjusted, to being dominated by their men;'

There are men who are emotionally dominated by their spouses, withdrawn to the only place where they have what it takes, in the working world. They live to keep the wife happy to have a semblance of a happy life.

Now, I would call these men weak, and tell them they need to grow some balls, these men who have all but died by the death of a thousand cuts. But in a feminist world, if these were woman in unhappy relationships, they would be considered victims. I think men and women have different expectations about personal responsibility.

And lets not forget there seem to be men trapped these days by the not entirely unrealistic expectations about custody and divorce settlements. Men have been given a taste of a closer relationship with their kids, have done a lot more day to day caring, and know this will end quick smart once the divorce happens. The rise of MRA groups I think is mostly centred around rejected fathers, living to see their kids on weekends while still slogging it out providing for the mortgage for the house the ex lives in.

As I said, this non-riley life of men is denied by the victim feminists. It's a unilateral tale of woe for the women victims, the downtrodden martyrs of society, with the men supposedly holding all the cards, while in reality world both sexes have different crosses to bear in relationships.

This patriarchal dominance is furphy, I saw most of my mates dads given a list of jobs to do on the weekend and many were shells of men berated and belittled by their wives. They took their responsibilities WRT kids and providing seriously, and escaped out of the house on errands wherever they could to avoid the missus' nagging.

Houellie,

"This patriarchal dominance is a furphy..."

Yes!

If I stop and think of all the couples I know, I conclude that in the great majority, if not all of them, the woman calls the shots. Even the ones where the male is in an important position or has a career where he is seen as a dominant alpha male - on the home-front he acquiesces to his wife's preferences and decisions. I well remember one fellow who is the head of a substantial HR company worth millions. He's doer and go-getter. At one gathering he was regaling me and others with all the things he was achieving - and then the apparition of his wife rose up at the end of the table informing him that they "would" be leaving in half and hour. The look on her face and her countenance was enough to let all of us know that it was a command not a suggestion.
Maybe some women find the best access to power is from within the confines of the married or partnered state, whereas outside independence wouldn't offer them the same mechanisms for forthright action and influence.

Squeers,

You're right that a feeling of protection, safety and kudos offered by an alpha male is something many women find comforting. I still think the majority of us are so programmed for traditional roles that the advent of independence for women is really above and beyond most machinations. And we shouldn't underestimate "appearances". Once a couple set themselves up together, they want to appear successful at that particular enterprise. If they really don't get on, they weigh up the pros and cons and decide whether the pretence is worth the torture of staying together.