Misandrists are always right!, "they never do anything wrong, they are romper room bullies and they bully all day long"(see romper room circa 1960s). Having condemned ever man past an present as misogynists, what else can we expect, We have have decades of post Germaine Greer feminism invest the schools, universities, unions, management associations and the media.

Having heard the BBC's misandrist reporter bully UK Ministers over their acceptance of that nasty, homophobic, misogynist ex PM Tony Abbott, in an attempt to stop him becoming a UK Trade Board member, it is clear that the misandry network has global tentacles.

One day balance may return, but given the "power" misandry delivers feminists/BLM/Socialist thugs, why would they even listen to this authors thoughts.

The contents of this essay are essentially true.

But what does this disturbing image from the Youth For Christ outfit tell us about their "values" altogether?
http://www.yfc.org.au/jesus_campaign

One could say that it communicates the same kind of applied christian politics of systematic cruelty as described in this essay:

http://www.logosjournal.com/hammer_kellner.htm

And as depicted in this stark image

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html

I say that the applied politics of cruelty and conquest is very much alive in the White House or Trump's America

Onward Christian soldiers forever marching into war.

At least the author discloses her religious affiliation, which lies behind her view. Sure, dads are important, but they're not always going to be the "central figure".

Based on my experience, plus those of my own children, and other kids I know well, I'd rather say that balanced relationships with mums and dads are both very important, plus you need other influential relatives and role models of both sexes.

Common Daffy D. Focus on the topic and ignore the author's Christianity/religious background. I not a fan of religions and their human failings, but these bullying misandrists are almost as bad as the dreaded "spanish inquisition"!

It's great to be too old to care about silly women or what they think.

One woman a week dies at the hands of a controlling partner! One woman a week! And somebody's daughter, mother or sister!

Nobody is saying these ladies were saints, although some of them could have been. One can agree with the angry women, they don't need these men!

Neither do we, the decent, caring male cohort, who value and respect our mothers, sisters and wives!

Given my druthers I'd medicate the brutes who rape, bash and murder our daughters and sisters! Think marriage and its issue is some sort of title deed to property?

The pill I'd give them would be lead and delivered right between the eyes! And if that then saved other human life? Justifiable? Imagine if Mr Clark had been so medicated, A mother and her kids would still be alive today! And similarly in countless cases down through the centuries?

These men/monsters, started life as badly behaving boys, were allowed by over indugent or craven parents, to get away with bullying, pushing girls/their siblings around, killing harmles birds etc, with slug guns etc. Concequently, got addicted to the thrill kill?

Just because it's nearly Father's day, we have to yet again see this sort of risible rubbish getting a hearing.
Alan B.

Why use the very dramatic word bash? Especially as it is impossible to "bash" anyone with ideas or images which are ideas made visual.

Like it or not and especially taking into account the image on the YFC website you cannot separate the kind of stuff she promotes from its over all historical and cultural context, including its now-time contexts. Especially as she and her fellow traveling evangelical true believers pretend to be involved in bringing the "kingdom of 'christ'" to the entire world.
Never mind that there are now more christians in the world than ever before both in total numbers and as a percentage of the human population. And yet the world is becoming more and more insane every day. Indeed some of the leading vectors of this now universal psychosis are closely aligned with Donald the orange-haired anti-christ pretending that he is going to re-"christianize" America.

Following on from the Logos essay and the Dartmouth image Christians have inevitably been bashing their way to world domination ever since Chrisian-ISM became the official religion of the imperial Roman state.

They have also been bashing each other too, including the countless numbers of CANCELLED "heretics". And "witches" too during the European and American "witch" hunting and murdering psychosis.

The protestant versus "catholic" wars ruined much of Europe during its decades long blood bath.
In more recent times there has been the Irish "catholic" versus protestant troubles. And the never ended vicious animosity between the "catholic" Croats and the "orthodox" Serbs, which, by the way has been
exacerbated by the "ecclesiastical" establishment of both sides, including the "saintly" pope JP2 (during the Kosovo crisis)

No sanctimony with this author, but sanctimonious Dafy has plenty to spare, as he berates Christianity from his own stranger than fiction religion.
And since for many years he refuses to engage in common discourse, I will never know the answer to that question.

But from my reading of "it", Donald Trump is a good father, and often spoke of his mutual respect for his own father, Fred Trump. Many would object to this statement. But little evidence exists to prove a contrary view.

However, with a collection of daughters myself, I'm appalled at the abysmal collection of son in laws ive accumulated.
My advice to the daughters is, if you can make it on your own, in the end you'll not only be more self satisfied, but earn the greater respect of your children while doing it.

I don't think it's the boys that are the problem though, but the world they are given to grow up in.
It takes a very determined and tough type of boy to come out on top.

The best advice I can give is, don't turn your children into whimpering victims with excuses of mental illness to cover failure.

Dan

The pill I'd give them .......
Alan B,
And, those Judges, lawyers, Sociologists & do-gooders who provide the impunity & encouragement for many culprits !

Limp lefty men have always made fools of themselves over women, and the usual subjects here are doing it again. The Amazons making all the noise are laughing at them.

ttbn. One does not need to be limp or lefty to understand that women have as many rights as you do! Are not somebody's property to be bashed into submission every time you get an erection? Are boozed outta your brain. Have to cook your own tea? Feed the youngun? Settle a fear-filled youngun down, ice the bruises, the cracked ribs, the smashed cheekbone inflicted by your senseles, knuckle sandwhich, violence? That'll toughen the SFB up? Eh?

And you do not need to be a knuckle-dragging cretin from the far right to engage in such activity? Or posses an I.Q. roughly equal to the ambient temperature? Or too old, indifferent or calloused to give a shite about anyone else? But it surely has to help?

You'll have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.

One woman a week dies at the hands of a controlling partner!
Alan B,
And, how many of these are driving their partners up the wall ?

The Amazons and bints are not interested in equality: supremacy is the goal. They will get it, too, if it's left up to lefty limp males and silly old men fantasising that are still attractive to women.

BBC's misandrist reporter bully UK Ministers
Alison jane,
i watched that thing for want of a better description waffle on, giving Nancy Pelosi a run for her money. At first glance it actually looked like Abbott in drag !

Thanks Cindy McGarvie for the article- long over due.

Bettina Arndt- AM is also good value in this area.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bettina_Arndt

Alan B said "One woman a week dies at the hands of a controlling partner!"

Answer- I wonder how many men die from suicide due to the current ideological nightmare of feminism in policy and law.

http://www.cdc.gov/vitalsigns/suicide/index.html
http://www.bbc.com/future/article/20190313-why-more-men-kill-themselves-than-women
http://afsp.org/suicide-statistics/

In old times the woman got the children and the man got the property- so both sides lost something if things didn't work out- so they tried to work it out. A man that was a womanizer was an outcast in the community. Now the woman gets the children and the property and the earnings of the man for the term of his natural life. In this regime there doesn't seem to be much incentive for the woman to work out the problems.

It seems that this feminist experiment will end western civilization- I hope that the feminist communists and their "useful idiot" hanger-on-ers will be happy when the end comes- Communist Cultural Hegemony.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_hegemony

Women can also be abusive in the family- see Munchhausen Syndrome by Proxy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factitious_disorder_imposed_on_another

http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/factitious-disorder/symptoms-causes/syc-20356028

Solving family problems by the blunt instrument of government agencies run largely in favor of women's interests (hiding behind the interest of the child) sounds like a recipe for male slavery. But men don't complain because that is not how they deal with things. Feminist's say that Men should give up their pride... well no.

In the animal kingdom male's are the soldiers, hunters, protectors; female's are the nurturers, gatherers, homemakers- this seems to be hardwired. Males and Females have different roles in group behavior and survival. Human's are not the same as animals but they are subject to the same evolutionary influences.

There are those that believe in the Tabula rasa theory of gender nihilism- this is similar to other theories of "class nihilism" present in Communism.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tabula_rasa
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Money

I don't agree with everything here but it covers the subject reasonably well. http://iep.utm.edu/nihilism/

Family issues are complex and emotive and ultimately may be unsolvable. Hopefully as a society Australia will be able to return to some level of sanity with more traditional cultural norms where all parties can reach some sort of closure- however painfully- and continue with their lives wiser and more productive.

Thanks again Cindy McGarvie for the article.

Today for their part men, after some hesitancy,
have generally reacted positively to the growing
equality of women. In fact, their own roles, being
complimentary to those of women, are inevitably in
some flux also. Men are now permitted a more gentle
and expressive personality than would have been
considered appropriate a few decades ago.

The 1950s "John Wayne" image of manhood has less and
less appeal to both sexes. Like the feminine role,
the masculine role is now more ambiguous, more
flexible, more subject to interpretation by the
individual.

Resolving this kind of ambiguity is part of the
challenge of social and cultural change. Under the old
system, everyone knew what their roles were, and most
people unquestionably behaved as they were "supposed"
to. The system constrained people, but it freed them from
the need to make choices. There are fewer constraints today,
but the individual now has the liberty (or the burden) to
choose his or her own path to self-fulfillment.

Our society today is more individualistic and highly
open to change and experimentation. Today men and women are
exploring a wide variety of possible roles.

True liberation from the restriction of gender would mean
that all possible options would be open and equally
acceptable for both sexes. Then a person's individual
human qualities, rather than his or her biological sex,
would be the primary measure of that person's worth and
achievement.

I look forward to "Foxy" explaining us all to its version of evolution etc...!

Dear Alison Jane,

Please explain what on
earth you're talking about and why.
There's lots of books available on
evolution at your local library.

Foxy,

The evidence is in that the predictions of the social constructionist is completely wrong and that while all options are now available, the choices by men and women overwhelmingly tend to deviate along gender lines especially in countries where there is the strongest equality of opportunity.

Foxy said- "True liberation from the restriction of gender would mean
that all possible options would be open and equally
acceptable for both sexes. Then a person's individual
human qualities, rather than his or her biological sex,
would be the primary measure of that person's worth and
achievement."

Answer-

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

According to communist writers and thinkers, the goal of communism is to create a stateless, classless society...(compare this to Foxy's gender stateless, classless society or- "liberation from ...gender") Communist thinkers believe this can happen if the people take away the power of the bourgeoisie and establish worker control of the means of production (Compare this to Feminist views that power needs to be taken away from the male patriarchy- as if they ever had all the power).

Communism is not anti-individualist (I would say it's anti-family as are Locke Liberals). However, it does say that decisions should be good for the population as a whole (who says what is good for the population as a whole- some small group of academics), instead of just being good for only some part of people in the country.

Does Foxy question the "traditional morality" of her own parents?

The thing is there will never be complete "open(ness) and equality"- The way Jordan Peterson puts it- humans need values (there is no tabula rasa- blank slate), values create hierarchy, hierarchy creates inequality. Also the way power is structured in the hierarchy determines the steepness and the level of tyranny.

A global hierarchy will create more inequality not less. Liberalism justifies greed and creates scarcity. There are those that favour anarchism for their own benefit.

Warren Thomas Farrell, American political scientist
who's generally considered "The father of the men's
movement" and who the female author of this article has
referred to - advocates that:

"There should be neither a women's movement blaming
men nor a men's movement blaming women but a gender
liberation movement freeing BOTH sexes from the rigid
roles of the past, toward MORE FLEXIBLE roles of the
future".

Not sure what communism or totalitarianism has to do with
this discussion. But I guess some people will try to
bring anything in as an attempt to score points.

However it should be clear to most rational people - that -

This does not mean that women will gradually adopt
the characteristics of men or that the two
existing genders will converge on some happy medium.
It does not mean gender similarity or a "unisex"
society.

What is being suggested is that in the future,
there probably
will be fewer constraints then there were in the past,
and that
individuals will be able to choose his or her own
path to self-fulfillment. Where various options will be open
and acceptable for both sexes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_Farrell

It's worth reading a more objective text on Warren Farrell. Not that I agree with all of his views.

He's seems to be a bit of an out of touch theatre goer and was initially a second generation feminist but he makes some approapriate observations.

Interesting reference to "Cassie Jaye's 2016 documentary film about the men's rights movement, The Red Pill".

Even Nietzsche talked about "fewer constraints then there were in the past, and that individuals will be able to choose his or her own
path to self-fulfillment" Read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra: A Book for All and None".

I'm suspicious of this academia/ expert authority/ Burnham Managerialism laden view and people aren't allowed to have an opinion- sounds much like totalitarianism to me.

The cover to "The Godfather" says "Power cannot be given- it can only be taken".

I've been reviewing the concept of propaganda and the Institute for Propaganda Analysis of 1938.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Propaganda_Analysis

Father Coughlin’s radio talks were selected by the IPA for analysis since they represented "a fairly typical borrowing of foreign anti-democracy propaganda methods by an American propagandist."[3]:x Seven tricks of the propagandist were outlined and illustrated by reference to the radio talks in a book The Fine Art of Propaganda, edited by Alfred McClung Lee and Elizabeth Briant Lee. As Clyde Miller explained in the Preface, "So far as individuals are concerned, the art of democracy is the art of thinking and discussing independently together." The book is presented as a "candid and impartial study of the devices and apparent objectives of specialists in the distortion of public opinions."[3]:viii Chapters four through ten described the following propaganda tricks:

Name-calling
Glittering generalities
Transfer
Testimonial
Plain folks
Card stacking
Bandwago

Public opinion is the sum of the decisions of
the members of a public on a particular issue.
Because people may constantly change their views,
opinion on many issues is often in a state of flux.
An assessment of public opinion is therefore valid
only for the time and place in which it was made.
People may be quite willing, however, to express
opinions on subjects they know nothing about.

Despite this, in our society, considerable importance
is placed on public opinion.

A great deal of money is spent annually on public-opinion
polls and market surveys and on media campaigns to
build favourable public images of policies, corporations,
products and political parties.

These campaigns are actually forms of propaganda -
information or viewpoints that are presented with the
deliberate intention of persuading the audience to adopt
a particular opinion. Propaganda may be true or false,
but its objective is always the same, to influence public
opinion toward a specific conclusiopn.

Public opinion arises in an informal way, making it difficult
to study. We do know, however, that people are not the
passive victims of advertisers and other media persuaders.

Opinions are not formed in a vacuum. They are made in a
context of existing cultural and personal preconceptions.

Moreover, people don't necessarily get their opinions
directly from media sources.

Information and viewpoints are sifted through other people
particularly family, friends, and workmates.

For example we are more likely to be influenced to see a
movie by a friend who recommends it to us than by a
newspaper advertisement.

We're also influenced by opinion leaders, usually people
we admire - whose views mirror our own. We can see this
from the rise of minority political parties - such as
One Nation.

There are various propaganda techniques that are used and
the expressed opinions of the public can now be measured by
opinions polls with a high degree of accuracy. But there
are significant problems of constructing, using, and
interpreting measure of public opinion. And as we have seen
in the past a notorious misreading of opinion can occur.