Quoting and misquoting all go to make opinions without the merit to stand on their merits seem more reliable , as to which gender is the more violent you must define the terms of reference . you only need watch the super nanny to see the mothers are constantly slapping their children , now im sure you can argue that the mother does everything and that out of frustration or over load or over worked these justifications do not detract from the real senario , My mother was violent at least hourly on what it seems females can justify , whilst the same level by the father against the mother would result in AVO's and dirt slinging in any court that she could entertain . I have many friends and have discussed the issue openly in non judgemental ways and all agree that their mother was more likely the one who struck and tried to recruit the child to her positions throughout their childhood , whilst I agree my father struck me I was not as contrived but that goes to no way vicariously endorse his behaviour , it seems that why abuse and assaults on children are justifiable to posters in this forum that the same or lesser abuses against woman create a storm ,It is both tactical and common for woman to mislead and contrive assaults against themselves whilst turning a blind eye to what they themselves commit as a gender , I havent included any stats as my circle a of friends comprises an excellant cross section of race wealth and social status , my be we would all benifit from a balanced general view in our courts as we all seem to be as one that the courts are failing us.

>>“I hardly intend them to be interpreted as accurate accounts of men, or women for that matter.”
>However you have not substantiated why you have such slogans for “banners and graffiti” on your web-site.

I put up this document because I think that some of these slogans *are* useful for marches, banners, graffiti, etc., while others are thought-provoking and interesting. However, I can also see that others are stereotyping or unhelpful. So, I'll work through them and trim the collection.

> There have also been many tax payer’s funded university courses run on the subject of “gender”, and maybe the pinnacle of all that would be Dr Michael Flood’s list of slogans about men and women that I have been quoting from).

Not in the slightest. The pinnacle of academic research at least on *men* and gender would be the books and articles collected here: http://mensbiblio.xyonline.net/bestreading.html#Heading1

> While we can applaud Dr Michael Flood’s efforts in educating young boys against violence, we cannot support his indifference to the plight of men. If Pro-feminism is to be promoted as a credible option for dissatisfied men, [snip]
>I for one, would support more child care places, and tax deduction for such costs of employment, especially in single-mother households, if a more consistent approach is taken.

As would I. I’ve made a detailed argument for better government and community support for fathers (and mothers) to be able to balance work and family, e.g. in my piece on ‘promoting the positive role of fathers’ here: http://www.xyonline.net/articles.shtml#father

And pro-feminist men have been important advocates for addressing boys’ and men’s wellbeing in such areas as fathering, health, education, sexuality and relationships, and so on. But rather than blaming women or feminism for the poor state e.g. of men’s health, we argue that men’s lives are limited or constrained often because of narrow and harmful models of masculinity, models of how to be a man.

To give an example, I wrote the following in response to yet another incident where a man was physically assaulted and killed: http://www.xyonline.net/booze.shtml

Best wishes,

michael flood.

Ringtail, Dr Michael Flood

Ringtail,
It is interesting that your link on “Man” in Wikipedia states:- “Men are often considered to be more: aggressive than women. However, in interpersonal relationships, most research has found that men and women are equally aggressive. Men do tend to be more aggressive outside of the home.”

This is what I and others have already said. See also the recent study on anger in the article “Grumpy old men are a myth. It's the women who rage” at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,2-1550074,00.html

However I also think that the female gender is becoming quite aggressive outside of the home also, and this is now being written about in books such as “Queen Bees and Wanna Bees” http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=8Y4UE0JB6d&isbn=1400047927&itm=1

This book inspired the movie “Mean Girls” but the author Rosalind Wiseman may be called “misogynist”, “ignorant”, “Men’s rights activist”, “twisted”, “un-evolved”, “anal”, “Virgo”, etc like I have been labeled if that makes people feel better

Dr Michael Flood
You may have overlooked it but I have previously referred to a comprehensive report on men and women (ie:- Couples in Millennium Three” http://www.facs.gov.au/internet/facsinternet.nsf/aboutfacs/programs/families-ResearchPapers.htm ) That report was specially commissioned by the Department of Families and Community Services, and it would be a good starting point for possible solutions to many problems now confronting men and women in Australia.

However it does not advocate slogans such as “I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man I keep his house.” or “He may have hairs on his chest — but sister, so does Lassie.”.

It is interesting that only now you have decided that many of the slogans on your web-site can be regarded as being offensive to many men, despite your years of taxpayer funded teaching and research into men and relationships at different Australian universities.

If you choose to take out the slogans that are blatantly anti-male and anti-heterosexual, you can also look at those slogans that only represent half-truths. For example:- In an egalitarian world, the slogan “Against violence against women” should readily become “Against violence against women and men”

>the female gender is becoming quite aggressive outside of the home

Although this too has been exaggerated. See: http://www.vawnet.org/DomesticViolence/Research/VAWnetDocs/AR_GirlsViolence.php

>I have previously referred to Couples in Millennium Three [snip] it would be a good starting point for possible solutions to many problems now confronting men and women

It’s got some useful material, no question, but I was disappointed to see that it also uncritically re-hashes claims about DV as gender-neutral – studies showing this are virtually all based on the Conflict Tactics Scale, a controversial method for measuring violence that I and many others have criticised.

> It is interesting that only now you have decided that many of the slogans on your web-site can be regarded as being offensive to many men, despite your years of [snip].

The fact is, I haven’t even thought about this collection for years, and was only reminded that the document was on there by your postings. So now I’ll revise it. However, we’re likely to also read the slogans differently, in that what you hear as male-bashing ‘misandry’ I’m more likely to read as playful complaint. Anyway, now that I’ve promised to revise it, do you want to stop using it as the main basis of your criticisms?

> you can also look at those slogans that only represent half-truths. For example:- In an egalitarian world, the slogan “Against violence against women” should readily become “Against violence against women and men”

Not at all. In a protest directed at the violence women suffer, then the first slogan is perfectly appropriate. Similarly, if we were protesting against the violence men suffer, then slogans focused on this would also be appropriate. Frankly, I’d love to see some serious community action on the violence men experience – and this would need to focus largely on violence done to boys and men by other boys and men. Because we men are at greatest risk of assault and murder at the hands of other men.

Finally, criticising aspects of men’s behaviour or position is not necessarily anti-male, although it can be. See: http://www.xyonline.net/Anti.shtml

Best,

michael flood.

Dr Michael Flood,

I would agree that there is much conflicting data regards DV, but that is a problem for Social Science to sort out, because it seems that Social Science has not come up with a standardised reliable way of measuring DV (incorporating physical, emotional, sexual, financial violence etc). That standardised way of measuring DV is well overdue, and Social Science can’t be arguing with the general public when Social Scientists can’t form consensuses amongst themselves.

Such things as the Duluth model for DV re-education programs are also in need of review http://www.eurowrc.org/05.education/education_en/15.edu_en.htm

The feminist idea that men subjugate women in our society is also archaic and in need of much substantiation and review. Feminists seem to base all belief that women “only” are being disadvantaged in some way, and feminists will continuously ignore any disadvantage being experienced by the male gender. Therefore feminism is not an egalitarian or democratic system, and it had best become egalitarian and democratic or it has no future. There would be a lot of men who wouldn’t give a Social Scientist or a feminist the time of day, because of the way they have portrayed men in the past.

In regards to violence against men and boys, I have seen studies showing that men are much less likely to report DV than women, mothers are less likely to breast feed sons than daughters, mothers are more likely to hit sons than daughters etc. Inside the home, violence is just as likely from women as from men, but of course that situation does not sit well with feminist doctrine. http://www.aifs.gov.au/nch/sheets/rs7.html

If you want credibility with your web-site, then you could review the lot, (“funny” anti-male slogans and all), as slogans become a highly condensed form of general doctrine, and would have a lot of meaning for many people.

I don’t see much humour in the situation for many men. http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/info/charts/contact/f2f/frequency-abs.html, http://www.sos-family.org.au/Stories/separateddads.asp and taking out all the stereotyped portrayal of men, Social Science actually knows very little about men http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/papers/smyth5.html That is another area in much need of improvement within Social Science.

Dr Michael Flood,

I’ve read a number of links you provided to xyonline, and you espouse two basic views:

Fathers are incapable of being mothers; mothers are in the best interest of children,
and
Men are not women; men should be more like women.

No doubt these views tie in well with your graffiti page - as Timkins rightly points out - it is no wonder social scientists cannot agree on their science.

An article on xyonline that can be deconstructed to similar ideals, did touch me though. It was Daddy, do better - Daddy's girls change his life, by Richard Jones:

“My daughters' unrelenting love for me not only transformed my pitiful perspective on parenting, but also the way I think of and treat women altogether. They were resplendent rays of sun under which my heart warmed to the idea of fatherhood, and as I reached a profound awareness of their solidarity with all "sistas," I awakened to the powerful and practical realization that I could not give them proper respect without also showing the same respect to all women. Moreover, I was making indelible impressions on them as the first man to love and be loved by them, and I no longer wanted to bequeath to them negative images and ideas of femininity, masculinity, love, friendship, and human relationships in general.”

The next paragraph was even better and almost drew tears. It pretty much says that you have to sacrifice your maleness for love (or possibly Christianity), in order to achieve nirvana/heaven.

And then comes the epiphany – as much as “being a man”, is a prerequisite, it is equally a detriment. An ugly, risky, thankless task, which only males seem to aspire to – a role where love and provision are paramount, but when the love fails, provision (and sometimes, manhood - but not fatherhood), you get to keep. Pity the women.