We white males are an oppressed minority who cannot argue our minority status. The small percentage of rich and powerful white males doesn't refute the minority reality.

Hence Warwick Marsh http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2008/07/23/warwickmarsh2_narrowweb__300x343,0.jpg can be removed without redress or public concern.

When I heard the comment about female Asian doctors, small hands and prostate checks I assumed the whole thing had been orchestrated to get maximum publicity for a men's health issue that seems to have been lost in the pink-wash of the McGrath Foundation. Nothing against the McGrath Foundation, but I always find it odd that sportsMEN are shunning prostate cancer in favour of breast cancer.

And I have no problem with the First Bloke taking up an interest that is removed from his original occupation: PM's wives have always supported various charities, why should he be any different? Janette Howard wasn't castigated for taking an interest in fields outside teaching and education.

replacing substance with spin. That is this Governments legacy and replacing Warwick Marsh was clear evidence. Emily's list has shown what a nasty destructive brand of feminism they push. Hopefully some of Roxon's mates will follow suite although I think the public will ensure that in September anyway.

Babette: Besides highlighting the educational plight of boys and men, we also presented data showing that the rates of infant mortality, male imprisonment, alcoholism, involvement in drugs of addiction, accidental deaths, suicide and homicide (both as perpetrators and victims) were far higher than for females.

You appear to have overlooked mention of data showing that the rate of HIV/aids infections is far higher than for females. However, the reason for the higher incidence in males, particularly those engaging in certain risky behaviour, should not be difficult to work out.

Whether Tim Mathison was an appropriate choice as "Ambassador for Men's Health"., is certainly questionable.

However, I am sure the sacking of Warwick Marsh, Director of the Fatherhood Foundation and Dads4Kids, from that position, was a good move.

He would not have been an advocate for all men's health, I am sure.
Homosexual men, unmarried fathers, and non-Christian males wouldn't get a look in, I would suggest...

All of this started off in the 1970s to outlaw discrimination against women. But it has had many adverse outcomes such as women in the state police forces where they are not able to do the job effectively. This has put public safety at risk and possibly led to greater use of firearms by police where previously a baton might have sufficed.

First, thank you Babette for being a voice in men's & boy's corner, it a rare thing in today's PC world.
Your treatment by Gillard is indicative of contemporary attitudes towards the male. When an obviously unjust situation arises, with the male being the loser, there are usually 3 attitudes taken by most. I'll answer these attitudes directly below them.
1. Historically females have been discriminated against so it is only fair that males are now discriminated against.
This whole argument is suspect - men were also certainly discriminated against historically, just in different ways. War, dangerous work & physical sacrifice were - & still are - mostly male only. Also, how is it just for contemporary males to pay for the sins of their fathers?
2. Males are losing to females in some situation simply because males are inherently inferior to females.
This is just ridiculous, and sad really, that many people (male & female) hold this attitude. That it is almost the zeitgeist is disgusting to say the least.
3. Females deserve/need to be helped/advanced, to male detriment, because they are inferior. Females can’t compete on a level base with males so society should drag the male back so they can.
While I certainly agree that most females can’t compete with most males in certain areas – mostly physical – holding males back is harming to all of us. There are also areas where most males can’t compete with most females – mostly social. In the pursuit of fairness do we need to hold females back in those areas? The vast majority would say no.
It’s a sad indictment on humankind that all ideologies always end up blaming a certain part of society & then systemically try to bring that certain part down & if allowed, to crush them into servitude or destruction. The ideology of Feminism is no different.
Feminists, leftist radicals mostly, now hold enormous sway in all powerful institutions of Western society; government, judicial, government agencies, non-government agencies, main stream media, academic & psychological/medical.
What will they do with that power?

>>What will they do with that power?<<

The same thing they do every night: try to take over the world!

Cheers,

Tony

Babette,

It appears to me that you deserved an apology from the fiery redhead for her unseemly conduct on that committee, but I suspect 'apology' is not in her vocabulary - and the very thought of it would probably make her nauseous. She appears to have little or no interest in any viewpoint or opinion which doesn't coincide precisely with her own. Steel-jawed, steel-eyed, and steel-minded, I'm afraid.

Ms Gillard throws 'misogyny' around like a hand grenade, but I have to wonder if she is not something of a 'misandrist' - despite her having a male 'suitor'. Poor Tim, he must be a very understanding and docile personality - either that or possibly a masochist (or a can't-help-himself philogynist)?

Men are an unappreciated brethren, continually cast in the character of 'rogue', or henpecked to death - it's no wonder we're dying in droves well before our time. More TLC, please.

Tim, my stereotypical image of a Men's Health Ambassador? Not really. But then, Jeff Kennett isn't really my stereotypical image of a Men's Depression Ambassador - though the thought of him tends to make me depressed.

I'm sure Tim deserves all the support he can get, and if he can get boys to study harder, eat healthy foods, keep fit, and put career before romance, that would be a boon.

So Warwick Marsh was dismissed from his job as Ambassador for Men's Health because of his opinion that men and women are different and that children do best when raised by both their mother and father who are married to each other.

Could this be grounds for an unfair dismissal claim, given that the Gillard government is proposing to make "political opinion" a protected attribute under federal anti-discrimination law?

Sadly, it appears not. I understand that the proposed legislation would exempt the government from any such claims. What's sauce for the gander is not sauce for the goose in our topsy-turvy world.

you ssum it up perfectly Edmund Burke.

'So Warwick Marsh was dismissed from his job as Ambassador for Men's Health because of his opinion that men and women are different and that children do best when raised by both their mother and father who are married to each other. '

Emasculated men have allowed this dogma of feminist to dominate the landscape hence the promotion of incompetent dishonest woman and men. No wonder they hate Abbott so much as a man who has loved his wife and raised three daughters. The feminist/homosexual media hate it.

Edmund Bourke & Runner,

Yes I believe so. This is blatant unfair dismissal of Warwick.

I'm repeating something I put in another post (don't know how to do link).

More importantly is what the calculating PM Gillard did to Tony Abbott on accusing him of misogyny, of all people, just because he is a bit blokey. What she has done is softening the real meaning of misogyny, and then the idiots (latte sippers) try to change its meaning in the Macquarie Dictionary. In the end comparing it with sexism. Which is so demeaning to the women who have already suffered misogyny abuse. It is so disgusting what Gillard did, and then she gets applause from the insensitive dumbos. Where are the so called feminsists in all this.

One award winning Australian author, Wayne Grogan (crime writer) who knows the real meaning of misogyny, as he has written about it, has since challenged Gillard. Good on him, I say!

www.storycentral.com.au/.../terror-australis-author-takes-aim-at-gillar...

http://www.6pr.com.au/blogs/6pr-perth-blog/misogyny-defined-for-pm/20121105-28uco.html

no man in australia would regard timmy as a man.

He has few manly attributes.

An excellent article, refreshingly logical, rational, succinct and relevant to today. One thing missing, Babette, is the emasculation of men through dress codes. While women are encouraged to wear less and less, exposing more and more, the reverse has happened to men. No male under twenty-five, unless he has the body of a porn star, will dare to show his thighs - long baggies being the only approved wear even in dangerous swimming conditions. Chests are never bared because even on the hottest days T-shirts [the worst possible garment] are demanded, and no male under about thirty would dare wear anything that indicates he might possess a set of genitals. Instead of being proud to be male, men are becoming ashamed and this translates into an unconscious dislike of women who are absurdly proud of being born female. Feelings of inferiority lead to violence, which is, predictably, increasing.

ybgirp,

I think it was a fairly brief period in the 60's/70's where men donned Speedos for recreational swimming (as opposed the the competitive variety or lifesaving)...around that time they also took to wearing their hair long.

Aside from that, when have men ever paraded the outline of their genitals so that it can now be regarded as a regression that they now wear more covering when swimming?

I agree that women have been letting it all hang out for some considerable time, although I think the reasons are complex. It wasn't that long ago in the scheme of things that if one left the house without a hat (and gloves) that women felt under-dressed (my mother's era).

Poirot, I was born in 1941, and have lived in New Zealand, Europe and Australia. Photos from my father's and his parents' era indicate that it was little different then from what I experienced all my life until the late eighties - men wore brief togs for swimming and by the fifties, socially and in all sports shorts were very short and tight, including school uniform shorts because long ones were forbidden. Men have always been easy about displaying their bodies until the influence of the USA with their 'Bermudas' and other religiously inspired puritanical ideas began to influence the rest of the world. This is a retrograde step and the unstated notion that ordinary men are not sexy, only women are, is the unconscious cause of much of the frustration experienced by many men. The fact that the internet is awash with millions of amateur photographs of naked men, taken by themselves and their friends, is but one indication of this.

Ybgirp, (What an unusual nomme de plume - guess it spells out something? Any hints?)

> the unstated notion that ordinary men are not sexy, only women are, is the unconscious cause of much of the frustration experienced by many men.<

What frustration? Not everyone can look like Apollo, but if we work at it we can still be a reasonable 'catch'. We just have to be comfortable in our own skin, and live with whatever limitations we may have. 'Worth' is a state of mind, and we shouldn't let anyone else determine it for us.

As for 'sexiness', being a straight 'bloke' myself, I think women ARE sexy (well a helluva lot of them anyway - and Pericles and Poirot absolutely turn me on with their writing), but I'm afraid I don't think of men as being 'sexy', myself included (handsome as all get-out maybe, but not sexy) - but, strangely enough, a number of women have thought me sexy, and one or two still do. Amazing. I don't know your situation, but I'm happy to let the girls decide on that one.

Anyway, I don't think anyone should be embarrassed about showing their 'body', Speedos included. For years I wore Speedos doing surf lifesaving, and I never felt uncomfortable, and I still wear 'em at the beach or pool if I want, with no misgivings. (If the 'girls' can wear a skimpy bikini, what the hell I say. And they have no illusions about our equipment anyway.)

The problem we have with Speedos these days is the jibing poor old Tony Abbott got about his 'budgie smugglers' - made everyone 'aware', ooh, aah. Suddenly people got all coy; but I don't think the 'girls' really give a rats. It's amazing how something that nobody took any notice of before, suddenly becomes a source of oh, shock horror. Just so juvenile. And still the girls do their best to leave almost nothing to the imagination (more power to them I say). (TBC>)

(Cont'd.)

I really think the young gentlemen of today are just more clothes- and fashion-conscious than you or I might have been, and probably a lot more 'spoiled', but I've seen no evidence that they might be 'shy' or embarrassed about their bodies. (And judging by the antics they seem to get up to, I tend to think they have no problem at all in that direction.) However, the posting of 'exposed' images (male or female) on the 'net' or mobile phone is quite honestly rather disturbing. I really don't know what's in their minds? It just seems such a stupid thing to do. (A 'dare' maybe, or showing off?)

As for the main topic: Possibly the problem I and perhaps quite a few other men have with women in power, as executives or bosses, is the contrast with the image of the 'girls' frolicking at the beach, or wherever - but that's really our problem, and we need to grow up and get over it.

In my view, our womenfolk have every right to share in all the spoils on offer in our free and democratic society, and deserve every opportunity to realize their dreams, just as much as anyone else. Male chauvinism belongs in the past, and the sooner our lads and lasses get that straight, the better. Girls really have to stop deferring and kowtowing to the boys, and have much more respect for themselves, their capabilities and their individual rights. IMHO.

I remember in the seventies (when I was a teenager) that I used to sometimes see English soccer on TV - and I thought the baggy shorts that they wore were the absolute pits. If you remember, the men who played Aussie rules wore tight short shorts.

I still don't like huge baggie boardies or shorts on a bloke.

I took note this year how the tennis playing men wore much longer baggy shorts.

(Memories of Boris Becker in his shorties come flooding back : )

But really who knows why fashion alters. After the hot-pants and mini skirt fetish in the late 60's early 70's petered out, they were replaced for quite a few years with maxi style fashion where skirts hems rested between the knee and the ankle - although bikinis were still all the rage for swimming.

(Thanks for the compliment on the writing, Saltpetre. Why don't you ever post in the general section? Just curious....)

You are very welcome, Poirot, I do very much enjoy your posts. I also very much appreciate those of Pericles and Pelican. It's great to get such balanced and well constructed views from the other side of the 'human equation', so to speak. (So many mysteries, so little time.)

I'm afraid I wasn't aware of the General Section (typical male 'one thing at a time' syndrome?). I just didn't go looking for anything else on OLO to have to get my head around - and I spend far too much time here as it is. (I also don't do Facebook or Twitter.)

Your question prompted me to take a look, and I'll think about it, but I do enjoy having the articles as a start point - something to get my teeth into. Also, the general section looks as though one would need to get in on the 'run' and then stick with it until the fox is brought to ground. I tend to be more of a plodder - needing a good chew on the cud before committing to a considered view.

Still, I'll keep an eye on it, just in case, and thanks for making me aware of it.

Saltpetre,

Fancy you not being aware of the General section - (often the discussion there is just as lively as that in the Articles)

....anyway, you did receive an honourable mention over there once when in our frivolity we were casting OLO participants in Downton Abbey.

Guess who you were?

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5216&page=0#141545

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5216&page=0#141547

(I was Cora - Countess of Grantham)

Well, Poirot, what an exceedingly interesting thread that was. Thank you for drawing my attention to it. Ghosts, June 2012? How time flies.
Trust Squeers to come up with a thought-train which would cause contributors/respondents to examine their reasons and interests for their participation on OLO, or other online media, and their thoughts on integrity, as well what contributing/participation means to them, and be so illuminating about themselves. Fantastic! Riveting repartee!

My view: We are what we think, and we expand and improve what and how we think by listening and participating/sharing. (Houllie worries me a bit though, with his mischievous 'devil's advocate' leanings.)

It has been very interesting endeavouring to put 'flesh and bones' on the various contributors, and that thread did more in that regard than all my other tentative plunges into this 'pool'. How interesting and so very sincere you all are - which is very refreshing indeed.

As for anonymity, I always try to maintain the highest degree of honesty and integrity (not always perfectly, I must admit - but I always sincerely regret any transgression in that regard), and this causes me to expect and assume the same of others, unless or until 'bitten'. But, pseudonym or no, we stand convicted out of our own mouths, and a poor reputation is in my view a far heavier burden than some bangs and bruises (or some broken bones).

Some wonderful imagery in that thread - 'condescending' to Squeers (the obviously 'sharp as a tack' intellectual academic extraordinaire Squeers!) how absolutely delightful, but of course he would take it in stride. (Mind you, I can understand his wives not wanting to discuss religion or politics (or Capitalism) with him, or him with them. Lord luv em.)

With that m'dear, this (temporary) Earl must bid adieu, for off to UNESCO on an urgent calling must one make haste without further ado. (That Trev is quite a character builder, particularly with Poirot egging him on.) Bonne chance.