Killarney:
My name is phanto and not phantom.

What exactly is hyper masculinity? I know what aggressive means and I know that given the same positions of power that men have traditionally occupied women are just as aggressive as men. So what is the point associating aggression with masculinity? Should not it be associated with power?

It should not matter whether men or women are in power. There is no value in having power for its own sake – it is simply a tool to get things organised and done. There has to be hierarchies of power in society or it would be chaos. With that power comes responsibility and the possibility that the power might be abused.

The existence of power is not a problem until it is abused. Power can be abused by people of either gender and there are many instances of that. Men have abused power more than women because they have had more of it. That does not mean that such abuse is a masculine trait.

In the same way aggression is not just a masculine trait. It is a trait of human beings. We have seen more aggression by men in power because there are more men in power. We have also seen women in power who have become very aggressive.

It is also very selective to focus solely on political and institutional power. Women wield enormous power over their children much more than men do. This power too can be abused and creates dire consequences. If we are looking for someone to blame for the ills of society we may just as well look in that direction. All ‘hyper masculine’ men have one thing in common – they all had mothers.

Killarney,
We already have matriarchal societies in our midst, in the U.S they call them ghettoes, go out to St Albans, Ashfield or Logan and see what a society without male authority figures looks like.

Phanto,
The problem with patriarchy is that just like Feminism it's gynocentric and subordinates the entire society to the needs of women.
In the case of our society we've never had men in power who've used their position to disadvantage or oppress women, the complete opposite is true, the material conditions and wellbeing of women have been on an upward gradient for over 100 years and powerful men have handed over large sectors of the economy and bureaucracy to women, lock stock and barrel.
Over the last 20 years the conditions for men have also started to improve and while we're not in such a bad way as our brothers in the U.K and North America there's a way to go yet.

phanto

You know full well I've addressed you as 'phanto' plenty of times. The text default to 'phantom' after typing your name is an OLO bug. Usually I fix it, but forgot to do so on this occasion.

Most of what you say is typical patriarchy denial, the brick wall that all OLO gender threads hit whenever anyone tries to put masculinity under the microscope.

In a patriarchy, masculinity is sacred and thus criticism of masculinity is the last taboo. This is the main underlying reason why feminism is so irrationally hated and feared - out of all proportion to what feminism actually does.

You're also responding to what you think I'm saying, not what I'm actually saying. I've never claimed that women in power do not abuse the system. In fact, none of what I've written relates to women in power.

I've confined my comments to the skewed IMBALANCE of the masculine and feminine spheres over the last 6000 years, which I believe is the main reason for the chaotic and violent period those millennia have been for humanity as a whole.

But if you want to keep harping on about women in power behaving just as badly as men in power, then by all means keep doing so. But don't kid yourself that you are engaging with anything I'm saying.

JoM

Those social problems in those suburbs you describe are the result of poverty, not matriarchy. And if you want to blame single mothers for their own poverty and welfare dependence, ask yourself where did all the fathers go?

Killarney:
“Most of what you say is typical patriarchy denial” Is this part of your argument or an attempt to just dismiss me out of hand?

“In a patriarchy, masculinity is sacred and thus criticism of masculinity is the last taboo.” What does this mean exactly? Do you have a definition of masculinity that everyone agrees on? What does ‘sacred’ mean? How do you measure which taboo should come last? Sentences like that communicate nothing.

What exactly are the masculine and feminine ‘spheres’

“But if you want to keep harping on about women in power behaving just as badly as men in power, then by all means keep doing so.” Thanks but I don’t need your permission to harp on.

“But don't kid yourself that you are engaging with anything I'm saying.” Your right I’ve now come to the conclusion that I cannot understand what you are saying.

Interesting. Abbott gets singled out for his masculinity, but Putin gets zero criticism. This is even more interesting when you consider Putin's nationalism and anti-gay stance is a lot stronger than Abbott's. So what kind of politics is Cover after? He states a few catchy slogans, such as " patient, calm, diplomatic and measured speech that marks the kind of understanding, ethical thinking and attention to nuance that should be borne by public leadership". But this is empty and meaningless.

The real issue here is that "progressives" hate reality. The world is a conflictual place, one where nasty things happen, one where inequality is here to stay, one where some people succeed and others don't. "Progressives" cannot tolerate this. So they write, write, write about some idealistic fantasy where the world will one day have perpetual peace.

So why are our taxes paying for the impossible fantasies and some disgruntled writer? Universities are supposed to be places of knowledge, and not the political arm of the Greens or the left-wing of the Labor party.

98% of funding for the Social Sciences and Humanities (and "School of Social and Cultural Studies") should be withdrawn.