Timkins,
I think I have you pegged. Look at your posts re this subject. You abhor feminism. Timkins, my statement is based on what I see – your statements here and in the abortion thread (wherever that has gone). You are not a fan of women it seems.

* I would ask what others think regarding Timkins stance.

As to me finding facts, I have asked you to provide evidence of your stance (as with promiscuity and de-facto relationships. You are the one who made the statements originally. I simply asked for some evidence from you. My comment that feminism is based on equality/equal influence is not a factual statement rather a perception of the ideology. Something even women see in different lights (see Bronwyn for a rather good take on it). You don’t seem to even like the idea that feminism is about this. Actually I find it quite interesting that here are two men arguing about this topic. Where are all the women? Or maybe they see this as quite funny – two men arguing. I sort of feel that too. But I do enjoy the discussion.

As to the issues/’homework’ you have raised, it is you who raised them. Can you provide evidence? I asked a question in the first place. I did not refute or argue against all your claims. I simply asked for evidence.

Timkins, you are very aggressive when you respond to peoples comments. It does not help the discussion when you become overly defensive and attacking. I have not belittled you or ridiculed you in any way. Please, treat me with the respect I have treated you. I am happy to discuss the matter – but do not take it personally.

Paul Norton writes -

"The question then remains. Why, when the actual trend is for public opinion and personal behaviour on gender, family and sexuality issues to become more progressive, do commentators across the ideological spectrum concur in wrongly claiming that the trend is towards conservatism?"

Yes, why indeed?

You may well ask.

But the answer is very simple. And it's one of the following two, you choose.

1. The research data reflecting actual trends for public opinion is incorrect, or,

2.Commentators are incorrect.

I prefer answer No 1 myself - the research is bent, crooked, cooked, false, lies, deception, propaganda, unreliable, or as I prefer to say, bullsh'. I believe that's what Timkin's been trying to get across too. But if you prefer the other answer, then good luck to you. Time will tell which one is true.

Clearly feminism is alive and well on Online Opinion. 45 of the last 50 articles are by blokes. sheesh

Paul Norton provides us with a cogent argument based upon arguably the most reliable statistics available in Australia, while his detractors send us off to Mormon websites or simply reject properly conducted research in favour of the spurious misogynist opinions of far-right media 'commentators' who share their futile dream of turning back the clock to a mythical time when women knew their place.

Norton's argument is 'substantiated' by a wealth of solid research and analysis, while descriptions of the most prolific misogynist posters to this forum are 'substantiated' by the hundreds of anti-feminist posts they have somewhat obsessively made to this site.

The anti-feminist arguments on this forum are typically 'substantiated' by reference to some dodgy website or another instead of reputable research, or simply by a preference for populist ignorance, as displayed above.

Indeed, Dreem's cogent point about the gender of authors whose articles are published on OLO indicates that masculine domination exists in this forum, much as it persists in the real world. It seems that "Backlash" is a phenomenon that exists principally in the minds of that minority of men who feel threatened by strong women.

I fully concur with Bronwyn's point that the (few) women who have risen to the top simply play the men's game by men's rules - otherwise they wouldn't have reached those heights in the first place. For example, Margaret Thatcher. There is no way she would've become a conservative right wing leader if she threatened the status quo in any way.

So what does it all mean? Simply that women are no better and no worse than men. That power corrupts women just as much as it does men. That doesn't mean we should stop from achieving full participation in government/business/education or anything else. It is simply that we should not expect women to be any intrinsically better than men.

As to the thread; during times of real or perceived threat people tend towards more conservative intolerant beliefs as a way of protecting themselves. There are many men who are very insecure about their power base and are easily threatened by women or other men from different cultures. They will generate propaganda to state that we are all going to hell in a hand basket because of feminists, gays, indigenous people, muslims whatever. As others have stated the overwhelming bulk of articles on OLO is produced by men. So I really have to wonder why some men feel so threatened. But clearly, as demonstrated by other posters, they do.

So are Australians becoming more conservative? - only to retain the balance of power, because that is what it is all about: Power. Who has it. Who wants some. Who won't share it.

Maximus wrote:

"the answer is very simple. And it's one of the following two, you choose.

1. The research data reflecting actual trends for public opinion is incorrect, or,

2.Commentators are incorrect.

I prefer answer No 1 myself - the research is bent, crooked, cooked, false, lies, deception, propaganda, unreliable, or as I prefer to say, bullsh'. I believe that's what Timkin's been trying to get across too."

Effectively you are saying that bodies such as the Research School of Social Sciences at the ANU and the Australian Bureau of Statistics are either massively incompetent or are engaged in a conspiracy to mislead us all about the real state of public opinion. I think that this is highly unlikely.

The questions asked of people in the Australian Election Study are fairly straightforward and are public knowledge. Therefore it is open to anyone who doubts the AES figures to conduct their own surveys asking the same questions, with a suitably large and randomly selected sample of the population, and see what results they come up with. If a number of such studies consistently produced findings at odds with the trends revealed by the AES, you would have a basis for challenging the AES results. So far, to the best of my knowledge, nobody has done so.

Also, if one studies the AES 2004 findings on all the issues on which people were surveyed, one finds an intriguing mix of "left" majorities on some issues, "right" majorities on others, and middle-of-the-road majorities on others, in a combination which doesn't add up to majority public endorsement of the overall program of any significant political actor in Australia. This is not the sort of result one would expect if the ANU RSSS people were cooking the figures in line with someone's agenda.