Timkins,
Fair go.
I distinctly recall inviting you to contribute an article to OLO from your male centric perspective. And I recall you turning down my invitation. The invitation is still there if you wish to take it up. Meanwhile I always try to garner comment from as many angles on a topic as I can get. If there is a lack of articles "pro-men" then it is because I have been unable to fire up anyone sufficiently to write on it.
Submissions can be sent to me at susan@onlineopinion.com.au.

Regards
Susan Prior
Editor, On Line Opinion

Let the name-calling commence (eg “mullet set”, “bigot” etc).

Now the moderators can understand that such name calling can be duplicated and at least doubled, so if a poster calls another poster a name, then they can be called the same name back again. Eventually OLO becomes a forum where people just call each other names.

Timbo,
I have seen various data on the rate at which males sexually assault females. That data may / may not be totally accurate, as it depends on what constitutes “assault” or “harassment” etc.

It is possible that males carry out more physical assault than females, but a type of psychological assault could be carried out more frequently by females. This is also shown in the articles from the magazine mentioned previously, (and I point out that that similar articles could be obtained from most other women’s magazines, and also these magazines have their younger sister editions, that have quite similar articles for young girls)

“803 Sexy Looks” etc, basically tells the woman that she should be attempting to sexually stimulate males (almost continuously). But what happens if the male doesn’t want to be sexually stimulated. What happens if he is simply walking down the street to buy a sandwich for lunch. That now presents a difficulty for many males.

Sex sells, and I think that the vast majority of males will realise that “BlokesWorld” is simply a gimmick to take people’s money from them.

SusanP,
I would agree that broader perspectives should be taken regard many issues, and probably name-calling by various people would be a major reason why other people do not present viewpoints on OLO.

I have given my reasons why I have not presented an article to OLO, and that had to do with a rule called S121.

However a look back over the many articles that have been posted for some years on OLO, shows that almost none are positive towards the male gender. I think that is more than coincidental.

Boaz,

1. Last time I checked New Orleans was not in Massachusetts.
2. Louisiana has a constitutional ban on gay marriage.
3. It was the poorer, underprivileged areas of New Orleans that were most affected.
4. Hurricane Katrina has apparently had no effect on so-called "Sodomite marriages".
5. Religious nutcases make those kind of claims all the time.
6. Fragments of a post from an earlier article:

"I draw attention to an important point, you raised, that people tend to manufacture an image of God, which suits their world view and circumstances,"
"WHYYY did He let this happen ? But the flaw there is that somehow we gain special privileges and protection from natural disaster by our faith, while ignoring common sense. And in so doing, we have just re-invented the God of convenience."
"He who buildeth his home on low lying coastal land, while knowing that tsunami's are a fact of life, should not blame God when the waves come."
"We should all pour out as much compassion and help as we can manage. But lets not blame God for such things."

Tsunamis & hurricanes, blame and attribution: very similar. I wonder why the "continued calls for repentance, renewal and revival" are ignored.
---
I'm in total agreement with spendocrat.

"Events like this help fuel demand for pornography and the buying and selling of women in the prostitution trade."
I would say that it is more a situtation where there is a common cause, although a partial cycle probably exists. The objectification of men and women, and other things we see in the media, help to build unrealistic expectations and these often do result in feelings of envy, dissatisfaction and then anger. Blokesworld, womens magazines, sports, TV, are all fantasies that help us get away but they also feed back into our perceptions.

In some sense, I would agree with social conservatives that increased sexual liberty is the cause of the greater extent of the problems we see today. Sexual things have always created interest, but previously advertisers and competing producers couldn't get away with overtly exploiting sex.

Good Points you bring up Timkins. I have one view on all of this –

“Blokesworld is a celebration of the maltreatment of women. It reinforces their subordinate role as receptacles for male lust. Women are not sex toys. They deserve better than sleaze.
Events that encourage men to behave like wind-up maniacs can only further hurt women and are unfair to the men who do value and respect women.”
Lets put it this way - What is OK between consenting adults is OK by me.

I do not need Melinda Tankard or anyone else to tell me what is “acceptable good taste” – I decide, for me, what is and what is not (eg Pollock’s “Blue Poles” must be a pile of crap because I prefer Canaletto)

The real danger is from people who think they have divine right to regulate how other "thinking" men and women are allowed to pursue their consensual indulgences.

What Melinda Tankard dislikes, she is entitled to ignore and under, freedom of Speech, entitled to rant about. However she is not entitled to dictate for me or anyone else (except her children) on any matter requiring subjective judgement.

Now back to organising the female mud wrestling (– so exciting – you never know who won until the winner has been hosed down).

I'm pretty surprised at the male perspective in this thread so far. I expected many to defend blokesworld and the like, saying that they don't take it seriously and therefore it's OK. Are you sure you're not just being politically correct? Funnily enough, I don't feel threatened or offended by shows like this - at the very worst it's bad taste (ok the meat tray thing is a bit over the top.) It's greasy fried chicken TV, but most men love a bit of junk food every now and then. As long as they don't eat too much too often and yet still expect us to want them!

What seems to be the relevant provisions (From austlii):
---
FAMILY LAW ACT 1975 - SECT 121
Restriction on publication of court proceedings

(1)
A person who publishes in a newspaper or periodical publication, by radio broadcast or television or by other electronic means, or otherwise disseminates to the public or to a section of the public by any means, any account of any proceedings, or of any part of any proceedings, under this Act that identifies:

(a) a party to the proceedings;
(b) a person who is related to, or associated with, a party to the proceedings or is, or is alleged to be, in any other way concerned in the matter to which the proceedings relate; or
(c) a witness in the proceedings;
...
(3)
Without limiting the generality of subsection (1), an account of proceedings, or of any part of proceedings, referred to in that subsection shall be taken to identify a person if:

(a) it contains any particulars of:
(i) the name, title, pseudonym or alias of the person;
---

It would of course be a good idea for Timkins to check with his lawyer, and this is in no way meant to be legal advice, but I don't see what the problem is. Unless Timkins plans on telling us the details of his case, which I'm sure none of us care much about anyway, he should be fine. If just saying that you have been in the Family court is enough, or he has already said too much, then s 121(3)(a)(i) would seem to suggest that going by the alias of "Timkins" is also enough. And that's assuming it isn't simply meant to cover outing *other* people.