I agree, Craig Minns, a discussion of gender equality cannot occur in a vacuum – it must address class distinctions. I did this in my article “Good blokes or smug thugs”. I also agree that women employed as a professional, or a woman married to a professional man, benefits from the current economic (and class) system.

‘Male Champions of Change’ brings together leaders in government, the community sector and the corporate world. It is not surprising they are all men who support the current economic system (capitalism).

To those who are focussing their comments on domestic violence, I have done no research on domestic violence, nor experienced it. I have not heard of “the standard feminist dogma regarding domestic violence”, nor know what this even means. Before writing this article, I read the statistics – to demonstrate that domestic violence is not a myth. I am aware that it occurs in all areas of society (upper, middle and working classes) and to both men and women.

I support policies that ensure access to rights or opportunities that are unaffected by a person’s gender. For example, I support parental leave policies to enable both men and women to take leave from their jobs to care for young children. I also support flexible work arrangements for both men and women who have children.

Wolly B – a housewife or househusband shares her/his partners’ income. If these people divorce, it is beholden on the man or woman who has remained in the workforce to provide their share to support their x-partner to raise their children.

Killarney – thank your advice. I do not feel intimidated by the posts to my articles. Some people have made valid points to contest my claims. Others have engaged with argumentum ad hominem. I engage with the former, not the latter.

I have been resolute, not defensive, in my comments to my Op Ed. In both articles I have provided evidence to support my claims. These statistics are from reputable sources. Those who question how I used these statistics, or simply claim the statistics are wrong, need to respond with counter claims for me to take them seriously. Simply dismissing me as a feminist or a lefty carries no weight.

I have apologised whenever someone has pointed out a mistake.

I have also apologised to those who I have offended. Some people who don’t agree with me often say my views are “offensive”. I have not apologised for my views. Instead, I am sorry that they have chosen to dismiss my view as “offensive” rather than engage with my ideas and challenge them. It is a missed opportunity for us both to learn something, and shift our thinking.

Sarah, I like your style!
We need more researchers such as yourself who are unbiased and just work with the facts.
Many people on this forum would find that threatening in their narrow little world.

I really do hope the list of men you gave above do make a difference, and I am sure that just the fact they have put their name to such a worthy cause is a good start.
Good luck!
Cheers,
Suse.

Dr Russell, I realise that you tried to discuss class distinctions within your previous article, but your focus was entirely on male class privilege, ignoring the similar privilege which is enjoyed by females of that socio-cultural class.

This is a common feature of social justice discourse: choose a favoured class characteristic then create a pejorative dialectic based on some features of a sub-group of those who don't possess the specific class-defining characteristic, while ignoring those within that favoured class who share features of the demonised sub-group.

It has been called "framing the debate" by George Lakoff and of course Orwell is famous for his extreme example of just that in "1984". Alinsky in his "Rules for Radicals" set out a set of guidelines for doing so. Betty Friedan in her book "The Feminist Mystique" used her considerable experience writing Marxist polemics for the US Electrical Trades Union to good effect in framing second-wave feminist discourse, which she later admitted to having some regrets about. There have been innumerable examples across social justice causes and politics generally, all based on the end justifying the means.

The thing is that while someone like yourself might be able to examine somewhat dispassionately such a skewed presentation, it is clear that many others are not. As a result debates are polarised on "tribal" lines. Confirmation bias takes over and as Paul Simon said so well "a [wo]man hears what [s]he wants to hear and disregards the rest", leading to poor understanding of issues and flowing on to poor policy when a misinformed public demands that "something must be done".

I think it is time for people of good will on both sides of the gender discussion and many other contentious topics decided to stop trying to frame debate in favour of achieving a genuine workable consensus based on mutual good faith rather than politics. Your willingness to seek good evidence and engage on issues is to be commended.

Craig Minns, I agree that I focussed exclusively on male class privilege in my previous article and ignored the privilege that is enjoyed by women of that socio-cultural class.

Privileged women – either by birth or marriage – are an interesting group and would require a separate opinion piece. I think they exhibit traits quite different from their male counterparts.

It is interesting that you quote Paul Simon – the verse you cite is a wonderful description of an ideologue. Ideologues (either male of female) are dangerous – particularly when they have political power. You cannot convince an ideologue with reasoned argument.

There are many of us (both men and woman) who are willing to discuss issues and work towards a fairer and more inclusive society for both men and women.

I have enjoyed our exchange – and wish you well with your university studies.

Suseonline.

Nobody, including the gracious, open-to-debate Dr. Russell is 'unbiased; she would probably be the first to tell that to people naïve enough to believe differently, if her careful and respectful responses to criticism are anything to go by.

'Bias' is not something to belt those who disagree with you over the head. You show YOUR OWN bias very clearly as does anybody with an opinion. As for facts versus bias, many so-called facts, particularly those in the social sciences, are really opinions put up for debate.