I had a short discussion to that effect with Steve in which I pointed out, just as this article does, that the problem is not that men feel bad, it's that they have a REASON to feel bad thanks to cultural and economic change which has promoted the role of women in public life, (for every 3 women employed, 2 men have lost their jobs since the late 70s)and reduced the role of men to that of support act, while constantly reinforcing the message that men are bad by nature and women intrinsically good, so putting women into positions of power is an essential national priority. On the afternoon drive show the ad was rolled out again, this time accompanied by a young fellow who regaled us with the tale of how he had become anxious (he knew what it was because his dad's a psychiatrist) after he had failed in his attempt to walk to the North Pole, but he pulled himself together and tried again and failed again and he only succeeded after he realised it was his anxiety holding him back. What an inspiration! Oops, spelling mistake... I meant prat!

Beyond Blue is promoting this campaign as "Man Therapy" (always said in a mocking tone, as is only right when you're talking to defective specimens who lack the courage to talk about their problems to anybody who can't escape) implying that puerility is needed to engage male interest but I'm more concerned that by putting the focus on the symptom they are deliberately ignoring the cause.

The Feminist movement has a lot of blood on its hands, but it is only in the current ascendancy because it was allowed to develop as a means of increasing the labour pool without increasing population, an economic goal.

What do the ladies think? Has it been worth it? Is being free to go to work worth the obligation of having to? Is a life free of the "controlling" influence of men worth the shallow satisfaction of self-gratification?

Killarney what name you put on it really doesn't matter, but retiring public servants at 55 on a comfortably livable pension, may not show up in the welfare figures, but that is exactly what it is, just by a different name.

Having defense force personal on full pay, not required to report for duty for years is simple welfare in the form of make believe military jobs.

It may be all Greek to us, but it certainly was not cricket, & sooner or later someone had to pay. Pity it appears that it is going to be the youth, the only ones who don't deserve to.

A reasonable article right up until the last paragraphs, as Killarney pointed out.
It's those damn feminists at it again, destroying a previously joyous man's world.

Then we have Antiseptic predictably wading in to blame women for all men's problems......again.

The Men's Sheds certainly have been a help for some of the many retired, disabled or unemployed men around the country.

All this is very well if you are into 'making things with your hands'.
In our town, the shed only caters for a few blokes who are 'handy'.
What of the poor guys that haven't been particularly handy, or have no wish to bang nails into wood or repair bikes or whatever?

Surely we can come up with more initiatives to cater for a wider variety of men?
Men just like to be with other men on a regular basis, but if you are retired, disabled or unemployed , then money is a problem.

Regular, low cost, bring your own type social get-togethers, where a variety of fun activities could be planned, would surely not be too expensive.

And we could have someone at the door to keep all feminists out...

I don't think it is just men who are suffering (although I don't want to dismiss their problems in any way). I see it as a wider societal problem, which I think of as extreme capitalism. Traditional capitalism served the community. Under extreme capitalism we all serve the corporation. The casualisation of the workforce, enforced part-time, under employment are all damaging to the health of the community. Who doesn't know young people who have given up on ever owning a home; retail workers who don't know what hours they will be offered from week to week; graduates who can't find permanent jobs and continue to live at home. The two driving forces seem to be corporate profit and ever lower prices. People don't get a look in. No wonder anxiety and depression are so widespread.

Suse, I don't blame women, who are suffering in the grip of the same forces that men are. We've all been conditioned to act as though there is a natural competitiveness between the genders through the constant emphasis of difference instead of commonalities. It's dysfunctional for everyone.

Feminism is an economic tool to increase the amount of consumption by redistributing money into their hands and thereby increasing their disposable income. It's been a raging success in those terms, as the terms of trade demonstrate, with Australian imports of consumerist products increasing at a rate far greater than the increase in domestic productivity, but proportional to the increase in women's direct control of disposable funds due to the social policies that derive from "Feminist theory" which is itself a derivation of Marx's economic analysis.

It's not about making women "more equal", they were already "first among equals" in every way that counts. They've had to trade that position to become mere economic units, mostly providing the same actual services or services that fill the same functional role that they provided as part of the domestic contract but now those services are part of the economic system and can be exploited by those who have capital. As well, by splitting couples into two singles, there is a net increase in the demand for functional domestic goods because there are two households to furnish.

In other words, female workforce participation has not added to the happiness of the female population any more than the male one. The main difference in the psychlogical impacts has been caused by the fact that men are no longer treated as a necessary part of families, so we are struggling with primal drives that we have no way to satisfy, not an urge to control, but an urge to nurture. Our best natures have been characterised as damaging to the very people we are driven to want to protect. Women's functional role as carers for children has not been interfered with, so they have not suffered in the same way.

Great outcome, eh?

Beyond Blue's social purpose is to try to find a way to make people who are struggling and failing to make sense of the lack of any meaning in their lives because of the social reorganisation that has displaced them from their children and devalued their whole gender's role stop killing themselves. That is itself an expression of the standard male response of leaving the tribe when there is no role for them, but since there is nowhere to go, they "leave" by suicide. The "Man therapy" campaign is not for the good of men, it's simply another exercise in corporatising a functional role that used to be a domestic one and it emphasises separation of the genders as part of that. It's a tawdry exercise in papering over cracks created by a collapsing foundation to disguise the fact that it is being deliberately undermined. It can have no genuine success as long as there is no social value in being a man and especially in being a father.

That will persist as long as we remain in the grip of corporate capital, which is driven only to increase money flows and engineers social change to channel the flow. It is only interested in the effects on people when they threaten to impede the flow.

Jeff Kennett's entire career has been in the creation of consumerism and all of his associations are with corporate interests. Why would anyone think that a successful manipulator of emotion in the service of advertising to create consumer demand, who's Government was defined by its socially manipulative policies designed to reduce impedances to the flow of money, would suddenly develop a burning desire to help people who are depressed? Beyond Blue exists to bolster the process of turning society from a means of making children into a means of making money by cleaning up some of the mess created.

Jeff Kennett and his organisation are no more than corporate shills.