ttbn, of course one agrees with one's own opinion, and is swayed by them.

However, Of course there are facts and statistics that just show exactly the numbers and figures of certain issues, don't you?
Examples could include the number of murders committed in any one month in one state or country, and of those, how many were male or female victims.

Scientists collect these facts, but then throw in their own slant on how or why they happened. It's not rocket science.
So, what is your point?

Quite a lot of projection in Killarneys post at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=17286#305193

Killarney is one of OLO's most constantly determined posters when it comes to trying to shut down any recognition of issues impacting men that are not entirely of mens own doing. Suzie occasionally steps out of line and shows some understanding but is generally corrected by Killarney and falls back into line.

Reality is there are few men in this space who would deny some of the social constructs of the past have created unnecessary restrictions and disadvantage to many. Few if any who would give any support to actual rapists or those who would actively discriminate on the basis of gender.

The real points of difference are over a range concepts. I'll list some that come to mind.
- That men have somehow been uniformly more advantaged than women whilst ignoring the inconvenient aspects of advantage and disadvantage.
- That men alone are responsible for the shape of society.
- That men should be held to a higher standard than women when it comes to the impact of our own choices on life outcomes.
- That men somehow are more responsible for the social constructs, limitations and restrictions that we almost all face.
- That feminist dogma based on marxist concepts of power structure should decide the outcomes of gender research rather than actual figures.
- That womens perception of what occured is both more important than mans and more important than truth.

There are some bitter men around here, generally with good cause even if not always managed well.

R0bert

I'm still interested in discussing the way Feminism is now turning to capitalism and the captains of industry to get the job done, even calling the men named in the list their "Champions". Technically and in the Feminists parlance that's known as "damseling" and the response "white knighting", what's the premise here? Is this some 21st century version of medieval courtly love where knights vie for the attention of powerful women and bash each other's heads in over insults to their maid's honour? It's a metaphor of course but where the men of the 14th century dueled with lances and rapiers the modern knights use TV and social media to defend the honour of the objects of their courtly love.

And Dr Russell let's not even get into the capitalist motivations for harnessing Feminism, the part Feminists themselves have played in the subversion of their movement to that end and the negative impact upon wages and conditions across the board of having a largely Feminised and therefore defenceless workforce.

Craig: You implore people of good faith to enter into honest discussion and this is a valid call but the reality is that many people who engage in these debates do not have that good will.

It is not what people say so much as the way they say it. It is not always easy when you cannot see body language to discern whether what is being said is genuine. We have to look closely at language and behaviour and if there are signs of aggression or emotional manipulation then those things should be evidence that a person is not seeking the truth but trying to protect a personal agenda. In my opinion this immediately shows that they are not capable of rational discussion and these issues can only be solved by rational discussion.

Such things should be pointed out or such posters should be ignored if we are to maintain the integrity of the forum. When it comes to gender issues people have a lot of unresolved bitterness but I believe this is not the place to deal with those things. It is an abuse of the forums.

I have seen many articles by professionals and academics on OLO which are purely aimed at protecting a personal agenda. They feign impartiality but present arguments in such a way as to try and manipulate debate. They even do it at the taxpayer’s expense. When challenged they often become quite defensive and the true motive of their writing comes to the surface.

I think we should pay more attention to the behaviour of posters and ignore those who say one thing and do another, who think aggression is passion and even those who try to suck up to others in order to win them over.

RObert
You begin your recent post by insulting Killarney and Suseonline, then proceed to make 6 unsubstantiated claims. Do you have evidence to support these claims, or are they merely thought bubbles?

Jay Of Melbourne
I support all those who address gender equality. As the Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner stated “The men are not champions because they are perfect role models, but rather because they are committed to taking action to increase the representation of women in leadership”. Many people, however, are critical of Male Champions of Change, some for the same reason as you.
Feminism is a broad church. Many feminists are critical of capitalism. We see how women (and men) have been co-opted to advance the capitalist agenda.

phanto
Was the point of your post merely to cast aspersions on academics who engage in debates about gender equality (i.e. attack the messenger)?
Rather than rigorous debate, you seem to prefer to insult. You describe women who discuss gender equality as “whinging, incessant nagging and bemoaning”. I don’t need body language to discern your intentions.

Your posts remind me of story I heard recently from Julian Burnside during his talk on 'Fairness'. He describes school children who go on an excursion to the local pool. The boys are allowed in the pool first – and they spend 20 minutes swimming. The girls go into the pool next – and they are only allowed spend 10 minutes to swim. The boys do not complain, but the girls do. The boys then describe the girls as “whiners”.

Dr Russell, thanks for the good wishes.

You are quite right that ideologues are not susceptible to reason, but I think what is more dangerous is the cognitive bias within otherwise reasonable people that is created by the sorts of "debate framing" (spin) that is so common within political discourse of all kinds. We are all the product of our own experiences that create a predisposition to prefer particular viewpoints which makes us vulnerable to confirmation bias. There are other biases which are more intrinsic and some are close to universal.

I find it difficult to objectively reason on some aspects of the treatment of men and their relationship with their children after separation for example, so I have to be especially watchful of my own responses when discussing them.

Many women are especially aware of their vulnerability to rape or other forms of violent assault, so they might find it difficult to untangle that intrinsic bias from their responses to gender-related topics. That was the basis of Friedan's and later, Greer's work.

Paul Simon's lyric was not about such ideologues, it was about a young man reflecting on his disillusionment.

"I am just a poor boy.
Though my story's seldom told,
I have squandered my resistance
For a pocketful of mumbles,
Such are promises
All lies and jest
Still, a man hears what he wants to hear
And disregards the rest."

I think there are a lot of disillusioned people, of both genders and all social classes.