Abbott should get on and run the country as we voters and taxpayers expect him to, as a sensible leader and not acting like a four year old who cannot get what he wants and so a tantrum, but then he is possibly under the control of Obama, until there is proof that the plane was shot down by Russian weapons of mass killing and not by the US weapons of mass killing then keep your big mouth shut, perhaps Abbott is jealous that his budgie snuggler weapon does not compare at all in size to Putin's large number

Leo Lane,

"Tony Abbot works best on strategy, and organisation..."

Not according to Paul Kelly, as he wrote in The Australian in the wake of the downing of MH17.

""Abbott’s every instinct is to deploy Australian military and police assets and he needs to be persuaded by his advisers from such options."

"In the early days of the crisis several weeks ago Abbott wanted to put 1000 Australian troops onto the crash site in conjunction with 1000 Dutch troops. Nothing better testifies to his outrage at the event and his keenness to deploy Australian assets in a cause that affected Australians. This option remained on the table for a few days.

It was never going to be viable. Yet debate around this idea continued before the Prime Minister was talked around and decided it was too dangerous and inappropriate an option. Putting Australian troops into that highly charged situation would have been far too risky.

Yet it offers insights into Abbott’s approach to military issues: he is impatient with limitations relating to logistics and deployment...."

(Unfortunately, I can't provide the link - as it's now behind a paywall)

Abbott is impetuous as his wayward mouth displays - and thankfully he has advisers to put a lid on him and his unrestrained fervour.

Hasbeen,

'When you read articles like this, & realise it is by a professor of a fairy floss discipline, you start to understand how we got cretins like Rudd & Gillard in the lodge'

I couldn't agree more.

The only 'hegemonies' we should be worried about are the ones that have captured our universities and turned them into sheltered workshops for second rate thinkers.

Hardly anyone here so far has actually addressed the gist of Rob's article, which IMO very adeptly analysed how the concept of masculinity manifests in our society and how it is evolving (though not exactly improving).

Why is it that analysing masculinity remains such a taboo? If any guy raises his head above the parapet and tries to lift the 'veil' on his own gender, he must be some kind of self-hating gay or a pussy-whipped academic.

Even feminists avoid going there - preferring to limit their criticisms of masculinity to the mystical realm of 'the patriarchy'; while feminists like to talk the talk about rape and DV, they base most of what they say on the premise that these are just things that men do to women ... because ... well, because they just DO.

Sure, the men's movement publishes copiously about 'masculinity', but it's a very reactive form of analysis - steeped in romanticised notions of biological masculine 'wiring' (Men are from Mars and all that) or noble male integrity embattled by the 'onslaught' of feminism.

When it comes to giving a fair hearing to any man (or woman) who wants to objectively analyse the kind of toxic masculinity that has ruled our culture for millennia, a time of social chaos and endless war as toxically macho men launch their limitless power struggles against other toxically macho men, we as a society still want to keep our pinkies firmly jammed in our ears.

Rob - Well done and an 'A' for trying. If I were asked for a list of OLO authors that I would like ask to a dinner party, your name would certainly be on it.

Killarney:

Would things be any less ‘toxic’ if women had all the power? It is easy to blame everything on men since we have no other measure to go by. It is also very poor logic to assume that it would be different under women. Show us some facts that prove it would be better under women.

Rob Cover can turn almost any issue into an example of the aggressiveness which he sees as inherent in the nature of men.

He does not stick to the topic at hand but wanders all over the place dragging in totally irrelevant material to support his gripe that men are too aggressive for his liking. His latest article focuses on the aggression displayed in a few hand-picked cases to draw the conclusion that all diplomacy is conducted in this way. This is extremely poor logic which smacks of desperation.

Men are an easy target simply because men occupy most positions of power. Where is his criticism of people like Margaret Thatcher? He is not concerned with removing aggression from diplomacy – he is only concerned with removing the aggression of men in general it seems. He says nothing about the aggression of women in diplomatic matters or in general.

It seems to me that he does not have a problem with aggression or he would speak out about all aggression. To be so selective indicates that he has a problem in his relationships with men more than with aggression. Perhaps he finds it hard to stand up to the aggressive men in his life and so he tries to change society rather than change the way he feels about his personal relationships with men and how he deals with those feelings.

Every article he writes is a cry for help.

Phanto,
Empathy is a masculine trait, charisma comes from empathy that's why charismatic leaders are always men.
There's no such thing as female charisma because very few women are capable of real empathy, the women who are capable of empathy are the ones who rise to the top of corporations and such.
Look at the number of modern women in public life who have a had a bona fide cult of personality surrounding them, the list is pretty short, Margaret Thatcher, Mother Theresa, Aung San Suu Kyi, Indira Gandhi, Princess Diana...I'm struggling to come up with more.
Feminists like Rob Cover hate the idea of charisma because it leads to a natural hierarchy which directly contradicts their model of a scientific two tiered society based on top down enforcement of formal equality by an elite upon the masses.