Settle down phanto.

In my article, Good blokes or smug thugs, I described traditional silencing techniques – attack, shoot the messenger and then ignore the message. Your post is yet another example of this.

In his article, 'The trouble with common sense', Nick Christakis argues that common sense is a kind of bespoke make-believe, and we can no more use it to scientifically explain the workings of the social world than we can use a hammer to understand mollusks.

Common sense is a reflection of the dominant paradigm/status quo. It needs to be challenged by rigorous research.

Those who read my article, Good blokes or smug thugs, may recall my conclusion:
Professor Triggs is a role model for all of us at the receiving end of such attacks in both public and domestic places. The next time I am on the receiving end of such a tantrum, I will ask him to "settle down". When he responds aggressively to my views, I will substantiate my views. If he treats me dismissively, or attributes malicious motives, I will name his behaviour for what it is: a technique to negate my views. I call on all of us who are victims or witnesses of bullying to similarly take a firm stand. The next time our views are attacked, dismissed or ridiculed, we should dust ourselves off and then stay on message.

Wolly B, I agree with you about research findings being manipulated and misused. I have written about this topic extensively in both academic and lay publications. You may be interested in my critique of "One in Five Australians" http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/perspective/sarah-russell/3318744# or my article "Unreliable statistics leave many out in the cold" http://www.research-matters.com.au/publications/HomelessStatistics.pdf

As I have said numerous times, statistics should be used honestly so there can be informed debate. Unfortunately, people torture statistics until they say what they want them to say.

I also agree, people must be careful of research, particularly its conclusions. To quote from my article "One in Five Australians":
It is sometimes difficult to differentiate credible social research from the rest. Few of us have the time, or indeed the expertise, to go back to the original data and see the flaws in the research design, the misrepresentation of the data and the over-simplification of the findings. If we did, we would see that simplistic statistics can be used as both a political tool and a marketing strategy.

Craig Minns

I liked your idea about "Female Champions of Change".

There are currently many women, both in Australia and overseas, arguing the case for gender equality calmly and rationally.

Unfortunately, women who speak out about gender equality need a very thick skin - because we are often victims of personal attacks. The recent personal abuse from Mark Latham, Andrew Bolt and Tim Blair shows that these personal attacks come from both the so-called Left and Right.

Change.org currently has a petition for the Australian Financial Review to remove Mark Latham’s offensive and derogatory articles about female writers and cease publishing any more of them in the future.

Many women are happy to engage with reasonable debate, but are not happy when we receive personal abuse.

I am interested in your views about how female advocacy groups have shaped the media and the representation of men as a potential risk. Could it be that the increasing number of women in senior positions in the media ensures that incidents of violence are reported more openly? It is, however, a great shame when all men get tarred with the same brush.

Sarah:
You said in your opinion some men are threatened by women engaging in calm, rational debate. Then you named three of us who in your opinion were so threatened that they ‘fled’. How do you know they have fled? They could be sick, their computer could be out of service, they may be “out of their office for a few days” or they may have just decided your arguments are not worth wasting their time on. It is rather arrogant to think that people who do not respond to the ‘calmness’ of your exchanges are necessarily threatened by you.

You have used your exchange with Killarney to tout your triumphant victory. Firstly using another person just to grandstand your own ‘achievements’ is an aggressive act and disrespectful of Killarney. If all you wanted to say was that some men are threatened by calm, rational debate then you would have stopped at you first sentence – there is no need to provide examples - but that was not all you wanted to say. You also wanted to say that you have had a victory – that you have made men ‘flee’. Why would you want to do this? Is this what it is really about for you? Being able to put men down and have them run away defeated. Do you want to just hurt men and make them change their behaviour out of fear of your aggression rather than because it is the reasonable thing to do? Are you not interested in finding the truth about equality and bringing about change based on reason and logic rather than fear and intimidation? How does your behaviour differ from all that behaviour of men which seeks to ‘negate your views’?

Then you tell me to settle down. If someone feels angry they have every right to their feelings or are you trying not only to negate the views of some people but their feelings as well? How threatened does all this make you look?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=5010&page=0

A Bitter sweet harvest.

You're right phanto - there are many reasons why people may have stopped engaging.

My "settle down" referenced the senate estimates hearing in which Senator O'Sullivan told Senator Penny Wong to "settle down". Senator O'Sullivan was disrespectful.

I considered your post 9 May 2015 11:37:32 PM as disrespectful. Whenever I am treated disrespectfully online, I now reply "settle down".

There are many people, both men and women, who want reasoned discussion about social issues. I do not agree with Killarney that women never gained anything from being polite and reasonable. I have not attacked Killarney, merely disagreed with her.

I do not consider it a victory when people disengage from a discussion. Quite the opposite. I much prefer it when people engage with my ideas and challenge them.

I do not see the purpose of this discussion if for me "to win". Instead, it is about hearing alternative views, and perhaps shifting my thinking.

Incidentally, I was interested in our discussion about my previous article. However, after your comment about "juvenile articles", I saw no point in continuing our discussion.