I can’t think of too many “male privileges”.

I can remember earning quite a lot of money in my life, and the vast majority of that has gone to women (with rarely any thanks being given from them).

I can remember receiving quite a lot of insults and ridicule from women, and the media is also full of negative comments about men.

It now seems par for the course.

Earn money and give it to women, and then be insulted and ridiculed and portrayed as a woman basher.

Drugs and alcohol,alcohol and drugs, drugs and alcohol, alcohol and drugs Zzz

What we men must do is challenge authors who so obviously abuse public forums as a cry for help.

Here is yet another person who trots out every piece of rhetoric and every cliché and every statistic and study that we have heard a thousand times over as if it is some Eureka type discovery destined to solve the problem of domestic violence once and for all. It is like he has just discovered that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west and we should all marvel at his discovery!

What possible contribution to the problem does anything he has to say give us? If we have heard all this before and he has no answers then the only conclusion we can draw is that he is trying to make some personal appeal for help in his own life.

Perhaps he is not talking about a problem that all men should take responsibility for but rather he is talking about a problem that he as a man does not want to take responsibility for. Perhaps the real issue is his relationship with his own father who may have been violent and he felt powerless as a child to do anything about that violence. Now as an adult he can confront his father and relate to him as an adult and not as a child and he can walk away from that relationship. It seems much easier to him to try and change every man in the world than it is to face the reality of his own relationship. That is what he must do but there is a time and place for that and the media and social forums is not that place. All he is doing is exposing himself emotionally and showing us that he has some kind of personal issue that he cannot find an answer to.

Without delving too deeply into his emotional make-up it is hard to say exactly what his issue is but is for sure and certain not the world wide problem of domestic violence

I think you may be reading too much into it, phanto.

>>If we have heard all this before and he has no answers then the only conclusion we can draw is that he is trying to make some personal appeal for help in his own life.<<

Long on rhetoric, loaded to the gills with guilt-inducement and blame-sharing, and woefully short on anything more than bland platitudes by way of a solution...

"Indeed, what we men can do, and indeed what we must do, is recognise that a culture enables and perpetuates those realities both exists and is extremely harmful. What we men must do is ally with women."

The fellow is destined to be just another politician.

Lucky us.

As the other posters have noted, the article is long on rhetoric, but its use of statistics may also be dodgy.. the article says at least one women a week is killed by present or former partners but the link it gives is for statistics for 06-07 which states that 42 women were the victims of intimate partner in the year.. that's less than one a week. The author also carefully omits the other statistic that 28 male homocides are in the same category.. females killing abusive partners?.. perhaps (a portion may be gay partners killing one another).. but then we could ask how many of the males were reacting to intolerable situations, or bitter custody battles, by killing.. as always, the details tend to get in the way of a good story.

well I suggest Tasman that you start looking closely at Indigeneous culture as the violence is at a rate far and above ( maybe except for the Islamic based regions) that of the rest of the population in Australia.

Tasman, if you want to be taken seriously by real people, a little advice.

A few less appeals to authority would help. You particularly should not start with an appeal to some monkey in a high rise in Brussels, making a killing as the boss of the most corrupt & indeed useless organisation on earth.

You see most of the public have lost all respect for academia, & organisations like the UN. We have come to the painful recognition that they are mainly just a waste of space & money. Certainly so many articles full of nothing but padding, such as this one do nothing to change that perception.

Can't a bright chap like you find something more useful to do?

Good stuff.
I would suggest that those who doubt that there is any real evidence for what Tasman has written get in touch with Ken Lay who is the head of the Victorian police force. In recent times he has made some very passionate public disclosures re the epidemic of violence against women that is occurring on a daily basis - especially domestic violence.

Thank you for this article. The previous comments are pretty typical of people who appear to have no empathy or understanding of themselves or how a culture creates peoples treatment each other.

The man that complained that he earned money only to give it to thankless women could perhaps think about sharing work so that women did not need to be dependent on him or any man. That would mean that he could work less and also have the joy of caring for others that his time spent at work precludes.

Perhaps all the authors of the previous posts could imagine creating a culture where every one is respected - including children, the elderly, sick, poor and the vulnerable. Then when they become vulnerable - as we all do at some stage - then they could be treated with kindness and respect too.

The men that see no wrong with the culture and even imagine it doesn't exist as it is just 'nature' are like fish that do not know they are swimming in water - it is invisible to them.

Instead of asking us, Daffy Duck...

>>I would suggest that those who doubt that there is any real evidence for what Tasman has written get in touch with Ken Lay who is the head of the Victorian police force<<

Would it not be more appropriate - given that much of the criticism here is the lack of real content in the article - to make this suggestion to the author?

Your point would then have been supportive of the need previously identified by posters here, for more information and less rhetoric.

Evidence, rather than grandstanding. You know the sort of thing.

I'm sorry, while I can agree in principle, with ending forever all violence against women, I just don't buy that it is cultural, when only around 4% of males, are it seems, involved in this activity.
Having said that, I don't believe AVO's are worth the paper they're written on, unless properly enforced, and by the armed response units for repeat recidivist offenders!?
Love is like a red red rose and must be nurtured by small acts of kindness; or just remembering to say thank when receiving same!
Open the door, buy her a rose, take her out for a meal she didn't have to cook!
Just don't expect you can pretend to love someone just to get good sex, or free sex.
Women will be just great in bed, if they really want sex.
But not when they're just laying there thinking of mother England!
The Irish have a saying, a woman happy in bed is a woman happily wed. True when first penned then and now!
Moreover there ought to be a name and shame file, that is at the very least, distributed to all nearby real estate agents/landlords/motel hotel managers, who could become legally complicit, if found to be providing any accommodation to/for problematic posted people?
Who simply do not have the right to beat up on women!
I don't care what she's done. Get a punching bag and punch the p-ss and pick handles out of that
Take a stroll around the block and cool down!
In truth spats are often over the smallest most insignificant, it just doesn't matter, she went out without permission, things!
Be a real man, kiss and make up, or love her and leave her!
That's the only acceptable options; and as low as my regard for lower than a snakes belly, wife beaters is; it is far lower for cowards who cower behind them as virtual human shields, while perpetrating unthinkable stone age, knuckle dragging neanderthal atrocities!
Rhrosty.

lillian, I've refrained from commenting so far (all seems pretty pointless) but your claims of a lack of empathy deserve comment. I can't speak for those who have posted so far but for myself the lack of empathy and understanding seems to mostly sit with those pushing the gendered view of DV.

The ones who will go on and on about wanting DV stopped whilst franticly resisting any examination of the factors that contibute to it or any examination of violence against men and when the facts get to overwhelming go back to the bodycount for women being higher so we should not do anything about the rest.

The author (and most others pushing a gendered view of DV) completly ignored DV against men. Plenty if evidence around (which has been discussed at length here) showing that lower level physical DV is initiated at least as often if not more often by women. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that the more serious injury to women in DV situations tend to occur where there is mutual violence.

The author ignores contributing factors which many suspect lead to a proportion of the extreme cases of DV. Whilst its no excuse for the violence the role of the massively unfair family law/child support scheme should be examined by those with an concern for stopping high end DV, instead its surrounded by a wall of secrecy. People pushed to the brink seemingly with no hope will not always react well.

Those counting bodies and spouting strong beliefs in male privilege seem to have little interest in male suicide rates, far higher incarceration rates, shorter life expectancies etc. In any other group those would be warning signs of disadvantage but not when it comes to gender wars.

R0bert

despite the vulgar feminist (Jane whatshername) sprouting her garbage on Q&A you will find far less violence in married households than defactos, homosexual couples etc. Just an inconvenient fact. The irony is that the same fools that speak of married woman being prostitutes are the supporters of perverted marriage.

Just having women ahead of you on the golf course is enough for one to have a domestic violent thought, golf ladies not everything else but golf.

I'm relieved to deduce, by reading the many posts here deriding the article, that clearly none of these men have ever laid a hand on anybody and therefore cannot imagine that these are facts.

I'd like to remind some of you blokes, that not until 1989 did it become illegal to rape a wife in Qld. SA was the first place in the ENGLISH speaking world to make rape within marriage illegal. And that was in 1976. Therefore, as Jane Caro pointed out, it could be construed and was so by the law, the spouse brought home the bacon and he had the right to demand sexual favours whenever he wanted it.

Robert, I often agree with what you say, but I'm wondering what is behind your insistence, whenever the violence against women comes up, that Domestic Violence is also perpetuated by women. Of course it is. Overwhelmingly this is verbal and psychological, and believe me I've seen an evil narcisstic woman in action over a number of years. I hope you are not trying to create justification for personal physical violence in retaliation of verbal violence.

When a woman is beaten up, she is asked why didn't she leave. When a man is in an abusive relationship, why doesn't he leave? Hitting her is not a solution.

Yvonne:
I'm relieved to deduce, by reading the many posts here deriding the article, that clearly none of these men have ever laid a hand on anybody and therefore cannot imagine that these are facts.

What kind of logic is that? You have to be violent in order to know that violence exists? No one is denying that the violence takes place or that the statistics are not true. The point is that the author has said nothing that has not been said ad nausea and until he has something new or relevant to say then his article is simply boring at best and self-indulgent at worst. The whole issue of domestic violence is far too important for people to be using it to promote their own personal issues. When someone harps on and on about something it says more about them than the issue they pretend to be interested in.

It is time for talking to be moderated and for action to begin. Women can solve this problem by simply refusing to be involved in domestic relationships with men where one of them will be killed every week and one third of them will surely be beaten up. This is the reality that this author is describing and countless others have done so before him. How many times does it have to be said before women take control of their own lives? If they have so little self respect that they are prepared to flout those odds then they have bigger problems than domestic violence to deal with. How many other areas of their life does such lack of self respect permeate

yvonne

Hands up which man has never been insulted or ridiculed by a woman, or never been slapped or hit by a woman?

I can’t think of any man, myself included.

I was first insulted, ridiculed, slapped and hit by my mother.

I have been insulted, ridiculed, slapped and hit by women many times since.

I have worked with many men over many years, and only at school (in the long distant past) was I ever slapped or hit by a male, and even then I was not insulted or ridiculed much.

I would be an average sort of guy (although very handsome, wise and virile), but by far the most insults, ridicules, slaps and hits I have received have come from women.

I feel there is an extortion process occurring.

Demonise men, and that makes it easier to get money from men.

Obviously the author is simply sprouting feminist rhetoric, (and may not even realise it).

But the portrayal of men as women bashers by feminism is a part of the process of making it easier for women to control men, and get more money from men

And that was in 1976.
yvonne,
Isn't that around the time Australia got the first queer Premier ?

Those who resort to violence as their first and or only reaction, will always argue for a case that allows them to continue with that very antisocial/criminal behavior!
And where that behavior is the every day ritual.
Kids growing up will consider it normalcy!
And grow up being bigger and badder bar stewards, than those who inculcated that belief!
And where are all those female sexual predators? I have a top position for one around here. [Here pussy pussy, came and get your sausage.]
To those who can't adjust to a culture, that sees more than sex slaves or mere bagatelle in our womanhood, feel free to return to those ultra primitive locations, where that belief is normal!
We don't want it, nor the patently primitive people or the attitudes that breathe oxygen into it?
Nor is the usual hate-filled anti male, pushy feminist advocates helping!
You'll know who they are, when one follows you into a revolving door and comes out first!
Rhrosty.

yvonne, I unfortunately did hit back in one argument. Two fairly light slaps after being punched yet again and following numerous argument where my then spouse had punched me and blatantly taunted me with her protected status. I've also been in the situation where marriage counsellors have claimed that her violence did not matter, she was smaller and unlikely to do real harm. I could not find any means accessible to me to stop being hit.

My choice to hit back is something I greatly regret and it didn't stop the violence. That in part is one of the drivers for my determination to try and break the refusal to genuinely say no to all violence, not just the violence by men. I've been in the situation of not being able to get any support in stopping violence against me and I have some idea of what happened to me when pushed and pushed with no accessible support.

Despite the millions spent by government on anti DV messages I've yet to see a single one addressing DV by women against men. There is still somewhat of a popular view that men who get assaulted by women deserve it, that they should sort it out for themselves. Cops still appear to be trained to treat the male as the aggressor unless the evidence to the contrary is overwhelming. The push to portray DV as an entirely gendered issue is still very strong, hence a need to continue to point out that DV is about a lot of issues and gender is not really one of them.

I don't think the research is clear on just what verbal and emotional abuse is occurring but it is clear that when the same measures are applied to men and women that women initiate at least as much (if not more) physical violence against male partners than visa versa. Even if that was not the case it does not justify the complete refusal to address any form of physical violence initiated by women against male partners which is the line being promoted too many.

R0bert

As to why men don't leave.

First and foremost to me was a misplaced determination to try and stick to my wedding vows. Secondly but I didn't really understand just how bad it would be then was concern about bias in the family law system. Any man with kids and an unethical spouse looking to leave is a risk of losing most of what is valued. Access to children, reputation, assets they have worked towards and future financial stability are all at serious risk and when you are in the situation it's very hard to work out where leaving will lead to.

A woman who leaves a bad marriage has a good chance of keeping the kids and most of the financial assets of the family and be supported in fleeing an abusive relationship. The man who leaves has a strong chance that none of the above will apply.

R0bert

Why should he leave Yvonne. In most instances he has put up most of the money for the house, furniture, & the kids as well. If anyone should leave, it is her.

At least in the old days the little lady had the decency to recognise this, & go home, crying, to mother. Just when did these females lose their dignity, & how did we men ever let some feminist blokes take control of the family court?

From what I see around the place, once many women have had the use of the fool blokes sperm, he is past his usefulness. He can piss off, leave the house for her, & just send money.

She'd rather have some other blokes sperm for the next one anyway, & that is easier if he is gone, unless he is a real dill.

The amazing thing is that so few blokes respond to the extreme provocation with violence. It highlights that we are really the calm gentle sex, despite all the feminist propaganda to the contrary.

The author uses a technique known as inflammatory analogies. The aim is to hook the emotions there by bypassing the logical and rational thinking processes of the brain.

He starts off talking about the fate of women in many extremely violent countries, that do not have the same cultural attitudes to violence, as our country does.

Incredibly he ignores the fate of many unarmed males who are currently being murdered by muslim extremists. Then there were the innocent males in Serbia who were slaughtered.

In many countries around at the world it doesn't matter if you are male or female, human life does not mean very much at all.

The real issue is not about violence against women. The real issue is violence against any human being. regardless of gender.

Tension between males and females is only
one aspect of conflict in the family.
Research studies over the past two decades has
revealed an astonishing amount of family violence -
between spouses, between parents and offspring, and
among the offspring themselves.

Police detest "disturbance calls" - usually family
fights - because of the vicious and dangerous
nature of so many of these conflicts. Wives assault
their husbands as often as husbands assault their
wives, and spouses are equally likely to kill each
other. Although wives are rarely a match for their
husbands in a fistfight, they are more likely to use
lethal weapons (notably kitchen knives).

Each year, too, children attack a brother or a sister,
and parents kick, punch, bite or batter their kids.

Child abuse - involving such acts as burning children with
cigarettes, locking them up in closets, tying them up for
hours or days, or breaking their bones - is alarmingly
common and probably causes many runaways that happen each
year.

Then we have the sexual abuse of children - now recognised
as a national epidemic.

In any event, the extent of violence in groups whose
members are supposed to love and care for one another is
not easily explained and suggests that the modern family
may sometimes be under greater pressure than it can easily bear.

If we are going to look at the cultural complicity and
causes of violence - it needs to be broadened out to
include all forms of violence and abuse - not just
against women.

Indeed, what we men can do..
Tasman,
We ? I'm not overdue for a sexchange like the frustrated feminist you are ? Get real, the audacity calling yourself a man.

@Wolly B, Tuesday, 2 September 2014 6:02:04 PM

Well said.

WollyB I agree with Onthe beach, well said, we all can be violent to each other one way or the other, it is not helped by one country being at war with another, politicians create wars, but do not fight in them, only lay the wreaths and shed crocodile tears, which mean nothing when all is said and done, perhaps this is the way we are born, to be violent.
Robert I know where you are coming from, as mentioned in a previous post on this subject my mother was a very violent woman, it left the family scarred at a very early age, and her actions has continued with us into our old age, my father never ever retaliated against her, he went through hell, and seriously if he had killed her, I am sure we would have agreed with him for what he may have done, he was a true gentleman, women are manipulate, they use men for gain only, look how models prostitute themselves for wealthy men and then hurry for a divorce to gain a vast settlement, this being the idea in the first place.

There is no "epidemic" of violence against women outside the indigenous community, if Ken Lay is saying that there is he needs to be sacked.
The rate of violence against women by partners is officially 500 per 100,000 but that's a tricky figure because it's based on the number of overall Police reports and as we know the most violent couples will have many interactions with the Police per year. The only violent couple I know has had three visits from the Police in the last four months until he left the home plus she's taken out an AVO and made more complaints against him down at the station.
The actual numbers of women being abused are small as is the number of perpetrators and if you exclude Aboriginals the numbers in the mainstream are insignificant.
We have to start calling out these Feminists like Tasman and portray them as they actually are, they're either lying outright or too lazy to do a simple internet search for the correct information.
Repeating Feminist dogma is lazy and leaves the author open to ridicule.
Feminists use fear and scaremongering to try and control a certain type of impressionable person and to get people to fund their foundations and victim support groups, it's no different to race baiting fraudsters like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson carrying on about "racism" to keep the donations rolling in.

Thank you Wolly B.

Now let's wait for the author to apologise for his sexism and culture of violence against men.

Tasman?

Jardine K jardine,
Aren't you somewhat skepitcal when using the term his ? I'm having great doubts.

Please follow this link.

The last time I hit a woman.
http://www.responsibleopposing.com/comment/lasttime.html

It does make a very interesting read.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgsrnmzxEUY&feature=share

Islam legislates the belief that hitting your wife is ok. Unfortunately it does not fit the feminist narrative so suckers like the author jump on the band wagon.

Violence is a genetic leftover from our primitive past and isn't gender based. Early education and training can circumvent our "natural" tendencies in this and other respects and we're some way towards achieving that, but far from ALL the way. For so long as people insist on focusing on only one aspect of human violence, DV, and run the feminist line that it's a gender problem then we will never deal with it appropriately, nor successfully.
Anyone who's been in a city on any w/e evening has seen the drunken women who shame themselves with their antics and often get violent, with anyone and everyone within reach, and yet it's only male violence that gets any coverage in the media, it doesn't fit the PC line to show the whole truth.
Only when our police and courts start treating everyone the same, irrespective of gender, will we see any advance in the discussion, and treatment, of this ongoing problem. As it stands now a woman has little to fear from making false allegations, she will never be prosecuted for it, nor is she likely to face charges for any violence she commits, even against children, can the same be said for men?
Hardly!
It is a fact that women are responsible for the vast majority of harm done to children yet all we ever hear about is male offenders, and all males are inevitably tarred with that same brush, which creates and entirely false perception of the problems we ALL face.
So, let's see real sexual equality, IN THE COURTS, and then perhaps we can deal with the problem at source rather than jousting with imaginary dragons!

G'dayBruce, where did you get the notion that women who commit violence are not dealt with in the courts?
The Bandyup women's prison here in WA is full to overflowing with women who have been jailed for something, obviously.

I believe that journalists would report every violent death they heard about wouldn't they? Do you think they wouldn't report on a woman perpetrator?
Are all journalists, police and court officials feminists then?

Wow, those famous feminists are just everywhere aren't they...

Now now S, don't you be putting words in my mouth, let alone getting sarky about your misrepresentation.
I didn't say anything about feminists, now did I?
I suggest you research conviction rates for women who face charges, and also things like arrests versus prosecutions, and penalties upon conviction.
There's a well documented disparity in all areas based on gender, only a fool would deny it.
I'd suggest it's a combination of BOTH old-fashioned attitudes and modern PC, strange bedfellows indeed, but the end result is there to be seen, if one only looks.
AS I said, until or unless we face the FACTS we will get nowhere in dealing with an all too common problem.

Woops, sorry, I did mention the "feminist line", my bad, but it changes nothing, IMO, my point/perception is valid and factual.

Robert, I feel for you. Taking marriage vows seriously is one of the reasons many people, both men and women give for not giving up on a marriage at the first few signs of violence. Then suddenly you find yourself in a pretty awful situation. I know I did.

What everybody who goes before the courts needs to remember is that our Common Law is adverserial. The judge doesn't now Arthur from Martha, does know that a breakup that requires the court is acrimonious, that, if not both, at least one party hates the other's guts and wants validation that they are right and the other wrong and figures that at least one side if not both wants the other to suffer and lose big time. The judge knows that both of you want to win. Tell the judge only about yourself and how you are going to support your children.

Foxy, I agree that society is complicit in condoning all kinds of violence. Real and implied. Starting with that it is acceptable to not just smack children, but to actually beat them. It's the first lesson learned, that as long as you are bigger and stronger you can force another to do something.

And another of my big hates is the "Wait till your father comes home/hears about this". What a disgusting message. It is wrong on so many fronts. The main being that men are to be afraid of and have permission to be violent.

And anybody else get shocked sometimes by the language or threats, in public, that is directed at children? You can only wonder what happens behind closed doors. I wish there was a campaign on how other adults could diffuse this without a parent 'losing face', but being made aware this is not acceptable.

Children are not a different species, they are human adults in training. It is Child see, Adult do. It is as simple as that really.

yvonne,

Most divorces are initiated by women so they must feel pretty secure in the knowledge that they will get a good hearing at the Family court. Men on the other hand are trapped in unhappy marriages because they know they will lose everything if it goes to court.

"And another of my big hates is the "Wait till your father comes home/hears about this". What a disgusting message. It is wrong on so many fronts. The main being that men are to be afraid of and have permission to be violent."

You need to move past 50s stereotypes. Men haven't been like that for decades. There are plenty of violent women around too. Not just physically but psychologically too. Women will psychologically destroy their opponent, often without mercy. Often it will be passive aggressive, even by doing things as simple as excluding other women.

What rubbish Dane.

The family laws say that property and child custody is now supposed to be 50/50.

However, my sister just got divorced (no kids) and she got only 30% of the marital assets because she was too scared of him to fight the matter.
So it doesn't always go the woman's way at all!

dane "You need to move past 50s stereotypes. Men haven't been like that for decades"

I think you completely missed Yvonnes point. It's a line that was certainly in use during my time as a parent of a young child. I hated it to, a no win scenario as a parent trying hard to work with the other and not wanting to be alienated from the child.

R0bert

Robert,
The line was valid but some time ago. In many families it is the mother who is the disciplinarian not the father. It has been a long time since the father was seen as head of the family. Thats not say there are no families where men are 'old fashioned' but the tired old 50s stereotype is just no longer valid. I know many couples where the females makes all the important decisions. Feminists will never admit it but we are really a matriarchy with a few token males in senior positions. For a patriarchy you need to go to the middle east, africa or asia.

This is just another area where Feminism fails, this idea that "that was then, this is now", it's pure BS, a fantasy.
In the "olden days" the head of the household was the person who had all the LEGAL responsibilities and it was usually the husband or oldest male member of the family.
So even if the man was the most timid, henpecked creature who handed over his paypacket each week and had no control over the family finances he was still solely responsible for any debts or fines his wife might accrue and he could end up in prison if he couldn't come up with the money.
Feminists promote this idea of all men of past eras being these strutting, barrel chested figures with handlebar moustaches who'd have women swooning and fawning over them and submitting to their every whim.
As with everything in Feminist land it's a fantasy, you can read accounts of what it was like to work in a factory, in a mine or on the land 100 years ago, about how the physically smaller and less robust men would basically fall through the front door at night and have to be bathed, spoon fed and put to bed by their wives and daughters. I read one interview with a woman who described her father who was a frail, skinny man being so tired at the end of his shift in a foundry he would be unable to speak, they'd have to strip and bath him, sometimes spoon feed him his dinner and put him to bed, then it was up at dawn to do the whole thing again.

cont'
Women ran the households but the men had all the legal responsibilities and it's the same story in the third world today, why do you think most child labourers are boys? It's because they have the legal responsibility to support all their female family members, if an Afghan man dies suddenly the burden of supporting the female family members falls upon his sons if he has any or his brothers.
So patriarchy is really only a legal system holding men solely accountable for their families and in Australia that hasn't existed for a very long time if it ever existed at all.
You have to wonder how today's conditions are a better deal for women?
They're not because nothing has changed, when women were largely free of any legal consequences for their actions they still behaved responsibly for the most part and we can be sure that was out of respect and a love of their husbands and a desire to make things work, not because they were oppressed.
See that's the big crime of Feminism,the denial of emotions, husbands and wives throughout history have loved and respected each other, they worked together then just as they do now, a man and a woman united to take on the world.

One of the issues we face today, is making judgements from today's perspective about conditions or issues in the past.

Usually when someone is making a point, other details are conveniently left out.

An example of this is about women getting the vote in the UK,

<The thing I didn't realise until very recently was that he, and the men who died in his trench,
<and most of the other 420,000 British casualties, couldn't even vote. Most of the men -
<British anyway - who fought in WWI didn't even have the right to vote.
http://hereticalsex.blogspot.com.au/2006/06/green-fields-of-france.html

There were once debtor prisons where a husband could be gaoled for debts incurred by his wife.

Wolly,
The time gap between all men getting the vote and all women getting the vote in the UK was seven years and lest we forget the fact that the first wave Feminists were very much pro war and even participated in the "White Feather" campaigns to shame men and boys into enlisting.

Jay of Melbourne, "lest we forget the fact that the first wave Feminists were very much pro war and even participated in the "White Feather" campaigns to shame men and boys into enlisting"

In Australia where Bob Menzies depended on his strong women's vote, youths who did not have the vote and could not even enter a bar were conscripted by a ballot(!) to die in Vietnam. In 1964 compulsory National Service for 20-year-old males was introduced under the National Service Act (1964).

Feminists celebrate the 1965 'victory' for women to drink in a public bar, 'won' by Merle Thornton who chained herself to the foot rail of a public bar in Brisbane. An 'iconic' victory according to the feminists to stand cheek to jowl with sweaty labourers in blue singlets.

It was a very lonely battle indeed for the Youth Campaign Against Conscription. Even the obvious, dreadful reality of the Tet Offensive in 1968 didn't sway any support from feminists (or from the women's vote). In Queensland, where feminists celebrated entry to public bars -they always had access to the all other areas including main bars and saloons and few male office workers preferred the public bar- still no worries for those young men coming back from a wr that wasn't a war, broken and in body bags.

Where was the 'equality' in that, feminists?

Feminism always was about smug, materialistic, supremely-selfish, elitist, educated middle class women, and bugger everyone else and especially those women they saw as below them and who might chose another path (and the feminists scolded them for it!).

We forget that the ladies lounge was off limits to unaccompanied males.

Wolly B,

Yes and the feminist 'victory' had the effect of closing those clean and private areas where table service was the norm for women. One of those unexpected negative consequences, no doubt.

A Pyrrhic victory, some might say.

Onthe Bach I hate to differ from your post regarding National Service, it commenced in 1951 and went through until 1972, you are probably confused with the Vietnam saga when the lottery system came in for National Service instead of all 18 year olds being conscripted, I was conscripted to three months training in 1954 and a 2 year stint in the CMF for a fortnight each year, the Cold War was on with Russia and Korea was unstable so Menzies decided to conscript 18 year olds to learn how to kill people in war. Politicians love the war machine, they should participate
This is a correction only and not to do with the subject matter.